5 ms·

How about we start regulating ship engines? There are currently no regulations involving large ships' emissions. But they are extremely dirty, emitting tons of

How about we start regulating ship engines? There are currently no regulations involving large ships' emissions. But they are extremely dirty, emitting tons of unfiltered sulfur in per voyage. They use different fuel, with much 3.5% sulfur content while road cars' fuel is 0.001%. This all goes in the air. I find it unacceptable that we consumers bend over backwards changing our habits, but the largest emissors don't change one bit and emit literally tons of sulfur in the air per voyage.

Daho0n 6y ago
Shipping only count for something like 2% of human caused release of CO2 and the pollution isn't local (cars inside a city is worse for humans). I agree something should be done ASAP but it isn't a low hanging fruit (hard to regulate worldwide shipping) so I doubt it will happen anytime soon.
- Arainach 6y ago
  Since when is 2% of global human CO2 emissions "only"? What single concentrated source has anywhere near such an impact?
  - gambiting 6y ago
    Concrete alone is responsible for 8% of global CO2 emissions: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/25/concrete-the-most-destructive-material-on-earth https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/25/concrete-the-... Also the problem with the cargo ships isn't the CO2 - considering the amount of work they are doing they are the most efficient transport method we have. It's all about the sulfur emissions which are horrendous.
    - bagacrap 6y ago
      in comparison to getting rid of concrete, changing out a few big engines seems like a fruit that's practically fallen off the tree.
  - aero-glide2 6y ago
    Fashion industry is responsible for 10% (Aviation is 2.8%)
  - bluGill 6y ago
    If it was only shipping it would be small enough to not worry about. The world was slightly CO2 negative long term before modern burning of buried fuels, so a small amount (but probably not 2%) could be called useful.
  - elindbe3 6y ago
    Animal agriculture accounts for 14.5% of global anthropogenic emissions, over half of which comes from cows. http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/#:~:text=Total%20emissions%20from%20global%20livestock,of%20all%20anthropogenic%20GHG%20emissions.&text=On%20a%20commodity-basis%2C%20beef,the%20sector's%20overall%20GHG%20outputs http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/#:~:text=....
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- syshum 6y ago
  You are comparing Apples to Oranges, CO2 is only one of the things contributing to Global Warming, CO2 gets the most headlines because that is what most individuals produce and have a realistic chance of curbing Shift upstream however and other types of pollution becomes larger, I fear the focus is so much on CO2, that we have lost the plot that CO2 is just one part of the pollution problem
audunw 6y ago
Doesn't much of these sulfur emissions disperse and break down before it reaches land when they're out to sea? There's already a lot of activity to reduce emissions when ships are near land. In Norway there's a big push to provide electricity from land when the ships are docked. There are also a very big hybrid ferry that has enough battery to run electric for the first and last few minutes near land. Maersk wants to have its first carbon neutral vessel by 2023, and be net zero emission by 2050. That's probably going to be done with ammonia as fuel, which I don't think has big problems with emissions. So it seems like there's already a good amount of pressure to solve this problem. Could be better of course. But "the largest emissors don't change one bit" is pretty far from true. Shipping is not really the biggest problem in total emissions, especially for CO2, and seems to be following the development in the zero emission space quite well.
nradov 6y ago
The IMO implemented a 0.5% sulfur limit on marine bunker fuel in 2020.
markvdb 6y ago
This used to be true, but it's quite little bit less so since about a year: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/01/shipping-fuel-regulation-to-cut-sulphur-levels-comes-into-force https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/01/shipping...

Daho0n 6y ago

Shipping only count for something like 2% of human caused release of CO2 and the pollution isn't local (cars inside a city is worse for humans). I agree something should be done ASAP but it isn't a low hanging fruit (hard to regulate worldwide shipping) so I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

Arainach 6y ago
Since when is 2% of global human CO2 emissions "only"? What single concentrated source has anywhere near such an impact?
- gambiting 6y ago
  Concrete alone is responsible for 8% of global CO2 emissions: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/25/concrete-the-most-destructive-material-on-earth https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/25/concrete-the-... Also the problem with the cargo ships isn't the CO2 - considering the amount of work they are doing they are the most efficient transport method we have. It's all about the sulfur emissions which are horrendous.
  - bagacrap 6y ago
    in comparison to getting rid of concrete, changing out a few big engines seems like a fruit that's practically fallen off the tree.
- aero-glide2 6y ago
  Fashion industry is responsible for 10% (Aviation is 2.8%)
- bluGill 6y ago
  If it was only shipping it would be small enough to not worry about. The world was slightly CO2 negative long term before modern burning of buried fuels, so a small amount (but probably not 2%) could be called useful.
- elindbe3 6y ago
  Animal agriculture accounts for 14.5% of global anthropogenic emissions, over half of which comes from cows. http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/#:~:text=Total%20emissions%20from%20global%20livestock,of%20all%20anthropogenic%20GHG%20emissions.&text=On%20a%20commodity-basis%2C%20beef,the%20sector's%20overall%20GHG%20outputs http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/#:~:text=....
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
syshum 6y ago
You are comparing Apples to Oranges, CO2 is only one of the things contributing to Global Warming, CO2 gets the most headlines because that is what most individuals produce and have a realistic chance of curbing Shift upstream however and other types of pollution becomes larger, I fear the focus is so much on CO2, that we have lost the plot that CO2 is just one part of the pollution problem

audunw 6y ago

Doesn't much of these sulfur emissions disperse and break down before it reaches land when they're out to sea? There's already a lot of activity to reduce emissions when ships are near land. In Norway there's a big push to provide electricity from land when the ships are docked. There are also a very big hybrid ferry that has enough battery to run electric for the first and last few minutes near land. Maersk wants to have its first carbon neutral vessel by 2023, and be net zero emission by 2050. That's probably going to be done with ammonia as fuel, which I don't think has big problems with emissions. So it seems like there's already a good amount of pressure to solve this problem. Could be better of course. But "the largest emissors don't change one bit" is pretty far from true. Shipping is not really the biggest problem in total emissions, especially for CO2, and seems to be following the development in the zero emission space quite well.

nradov 6y ago

The IMO implemented a 0.5% sulfur limit on marine bunker fuel in 2020.

markvdb 6y ago

This used to be true, but it's quite little bit less so since about a year: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/01/shipping-fuel-regulation-to-cut-sulphur-levels-comes-into-force https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/01/shipping...