3 ms·

I would argue cargo ships don’t need their own category in that case since they don’t exist for any other reason than to be part of the supply chain or other go

I would argue cargo ships don’t need their own category in that case since they don’t exist for any other reason than to be part of the supply chain or other goods. All cargo ship pollution can be attributed to the cargo they’re transporting.

_puk 6y ago
There was an interesting pilot performed by SEI (Stockholm Environmental Institute) and UCL, using shipping data from Brazil, that tried to attribute shipping emissions to commodity type [0] 0: https://www.sei.org/publications/shipping-emissions-per-commodity/#figure-2-global-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-maritime-shipping-of-brazilian-exports-2014 https://www.sei.org/publications/shipping-emissions-per-comm...
kijin 6y ago
Collapsing all the categories will make it difficult to say things like "Using locally sourced construction materials will reduce our carbon emissions by x%," or "Our new SolarShip(tm) technology will reduce cargo ship emissions by y%, which amounts to z% of global emissions." We don't need to eliminate categories, we just need to be clever in the way we present data. For example, there's nothing particularly difficult to understand in the statement "Cement is responsible for 8% of the world's CO2 emissions, half of which is from transportation, 1/3 of which is from cargo ships." If we likewise break down each category into its major sub-components, the sub-components can be recombined in different ways to produce a lot of interesting and actionable data. Having several charts side-by-side is much better than fighting over a single chart that doesn't add up to 100%.
anonymfus 6y ago
But ultimately the main purpose of such stat is to make policy decisions to reduce amount of greenhouse emissions, and so it should show effects of the both making cargo ships more emmision efficient and reducing amount of things people buy. So it's better to let it overlap.

_puk 6y ago

There was an interesting pilot performed by SEI (Stockholm Environmental Institute) and UCL, using shipping data from Brazil, that tried to attribute shipping emissions to commodity type [0] 0: https://www.sei.org/publications/shipping-emissions-per-commodity/#figure-2-global-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-maritime-shipping-of-brazilian-exports-2014 https://www.sei.org/publications/shipping-emissions-per-comm...

kijin 6y ago

Collapsing all the categories will make it difficult to say things like "Using locally sourced construction materials will reduce our carbon emissions by x%," or "Our new SolarShip(tm) technology will reduce cargo ship emissions by y%, which amounts to z% of global emissions." We don't need to eliminate categories, we just need to be clever in the way we present data. For example, there's nothing particularly difficult to understand in the statement "Cement is responsible for 8% of the world's CO2 emissions, half of which is from transportation, 1/3 of which is from cargo ships." If we likewise break down each category into its major sub-components, the sub-components can be recombined in different ways to produce a lot of interesting and actionable data. Having several charts side-by-side is much better than fighting over a single chart that doesn't add up to 100%.

anonymfus 6y ago

But ultimately the main purpose of such stat is to make policy decisions to reduce amount of greenhouse emissions, and so it should show effects of the both making cargo ships more emmision efficient and reducing amount of things people buy. So it's better to let it overlap.