6 ms·

As cargo shipments boom, ship strikes imperil whales worldwide

69 points by blacktulip 5y ago

mensetmanusman 5y ago
There was an interesting HN article about air ships the other day; it would be so cool if those are used in the future to mitigate ocean damage.
- newsclues 5y ago
  Then people will complain about airships killing birds
  - martimarkov 5y ago
    Not a lot of birds in the oceans would be my guess.
    - FridayoLeary 5y ago
      Which leads to my question; With all the vastness of thousands of square miles of water, how is it that ships manage to strike whales of a few square metres? And when you factor in sonar and radar... how? I'm not knowledgeable in maritime routes, but even if you say that both whales and ships prefer ocean currents (maybe, just a wild guess) or the like it still seems hard. Even if the routes are congested
      - newsclues 5y ago
        Ships don’t travel the vast open waters, they stick to well travelled shipping lanes. I’m guessing human shipping lanes overlap pre-existing animal migration paths
      - Borrible 5y ago
        >And when you factor in sonar and radar Well, its just not that easy. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X19304567 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X1... 'A decision-making framework to reduce the risk of collisions between ships and whales' And by the way, it also happens not that often. For the most part it's selling apocalytic news by exploiting a variant of the Bambi effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bambi_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bambi_effect Whales as a species were finished a long time ago. Now it's just soothing a troubled conscience.
        FridayoLeary 5y ago
        It's nice to have confirmation that i'm correct. Thanks
  - neolog 5y ago
    There is more space in the sky than the ocean.
- Borrible 5y ago
  You will need a lot of pricey Helium-filled airships to replace an average container ship. I guess the airspace will look somewhat like the Cleveland Balloonfest '86... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0CT8zrw6lw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0CT8zrw6lw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloonfest_%2786 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloonfest_%2786
  - okamiueru 5y ago
    The balloonfest was one of the most obvious and dumbest fuckeries that have been orchestrated for the dumbest reasons. I don't know what an airborn attempt at global shipping would be like, but I'm pretty sure it would be nothing like that stupidity.
    - Borrible 5y ago
      >I don't know what an airborn attempt at global shipping would be like, but I'm pretty sure it would be nothing like that stupidity. Well, since air freight on the scale of global cargo shipping is probably not economically feasible, especially to save the puny remnant of species that are no longer profitable to exploit, I'm afraid there are no steampunk airship fantasies on the horizon, I think. Last time someone grounded the idea of air ship cargo at least a German province got a tropical island in the sun. https://www.tropical-islands.de/en/tropical-world/attractions/15-years-of-tropical-islands/ https://www.tropical-islands.de/en/tropical-world/attraction... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CargoLifter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CargoLifter
  - CorrectHorseBat 5y ago
    The article in questions did advocate for hydrogen. Cheap, abundant, more lift and according to the article safe enough.
    - Borrible 5y ago
      >save enough That probably won't convince neither aviation security authorities nor insurance companies. Beside, allthough helium is more expensive but far saver than hydrogen it isn't the reason for the economical infeasibility of air ship cargo on global scale.
spodek 5y ago
We can dance around environmental issues all we want. Everything reaches overconsumption and overpopulation eventually. Reducing both is straightforward and can be done with time-tested, strictly voluntary, noncoercive means that improve health, longevity, abundance, and stability. Nothing else works. On the contrary, generations trying other methods have increased the problems.
- yodsanklai 5y ago
  What "time-tested, strictly voluntary, noncoercive means" are you referring too?
  - Y-bar 5y ago
    Not the one you respond to, but I read it as something akin to Nudging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory > Nudging contrasts with other ways to achieve compliance, such as education, legislation or enforcement.
  - yissp 5y ago
    Just improving womens' educational opportunities in the developing world would go a long way. It's the #2 thing on project drawdown https://drawdown.org/solutions/health-and-education https://drawdown.org/solutions/health-and-education
  - spodek 5y ago
    For overpopulation, Mechai Viravaidya's work in Thailand on lowering birth rates, plus many peers, like Costa Rica, Iran, and more. I posted a bunch of podcast episodes and blog entries on him https://joshuaspodek.com/?s=viravaidya https://joshuaspodek.com/?s=viravaidya, and YouTube has more. On overconsumption, I think of Bea Johnson https://joshuaspodek.com/guests/bea-johnson https://joshuaspodek.com/guests/bea-johnson and Josh Becker https://joshuaspodek.com/guests/joshua-becker https://joshuaspodek.com/guests/joshua-becker, just among people I know, improving life on individual basis, then systems people like W. Edwards Deming who showed systemic change begins with personal transformation. He worked in other areas, but led to national and global change on the scale we need in years.
NewLogic 5y ago
I do wonder if the world will "re-invent" ekranoplans so to speak. Improvements in engineering design, tooling and material science could make them economically viable in a niche of the global economy. The youtuber Mustard [1] has a great video on the mad ideas of Italian born Soviet engineer Robert Bartini. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD7xiWWs-bs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD7xiWWs-bs
- OnlyOneCannolo 5y ago
  The problem was that they had so little room for error. But I guess landing a rocket vertically on a heaving ship is also tricky, so maybe the problem is surmountable.
sneak 5y ago
> Ship strikes are not thought to be a predominant cause of the West Coast die-off of gray whales since 2019, but they are a factor, and an increasing concern.
nsizx 5y ago
Gotta nuke something.
hellbannedguy 5y ago
Speaking of whales, it would be nice if all cultures would give their taste for fish a rest. Japan just started commercial whaling again. They claim only non endangered species, but their research ships has been killing any whale for years. (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48821797 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48821797)
- guerrilla 5y ago
  Whales aren't fish but mammals. Anyway, what about countries which don't have an alternative to fishing?
- djdidjehduxufj 5y ago
  Maybe not for whales but fish farming subsidies seem like a good idea for vegans to shoot down.
  - oregano 5y ago
    Can we really be trusted to orchestrate gigantic farmed fishing operations at scale? After this happened a few years ago[0] I think it's safer to just give it a rest so we don't compromise more ocean life. [0]https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/fish-farm-caused-atlantic-salmon-spill-state-says-then-tried-to-hide-how-bad-it-was/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/fish-farm-caused-a...
- traceroute66 5y ago
  There is nothing wrong with eating fish as long as you do so in a sustainable manner. In many respects fish is a demonstrably much healthier option for you and the planet than meat, especially red meat. Sure, I know in an ideal world we are all supposed to become tree-hugging vegans. But if the entire world switched 100% to vegetables you would soon find there are environmental and sustainable issues there. Its one thing growing a few carrots in your back garden, its another doing so on an industrial scale. So its not so much what you eat, but the sustainability of it. The answer is not so black and white.
  - 5y ago
the-dude 5y ago
Just this month in the news in NL : shipped rammed whale in the Gulf of Biscay, drags it along to NL. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2021/08/05/dode-walvis-in-terneuzen-werd-aangevaren-en-lag-dagen-op-schip-a4052712 https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2021/08/05/dode-walvis-in-terneuze...
xwdv 5y ago
Whales: the deer of the seas.
neonate 5y ago
https://archive.md/eTIRN https://archive.md/eTIRN
oregano 5y ago
Hot take: Let’s not suddenly start acting like we care about whales (or ANY animal for that matter). Humans do not respect animals. Humans do not respect the earth. This is hardly news.
- wolfram74 5y ago
  Always suspected I wasn't human...
  - oregano 5y ago
    I think the more likely explanation is that we live in different worlds. I live in a world ruled by capitalism where people have come to value their lifestyles (food, possessions, etc) more than the natural world.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - sitkack 5y ago
      This whole non-discussion upthread is summed up a whatabout|can't change. :( A serious lack of any self reflection. We are like kids that only want to eat cup cakes and buy crap only to open it and throw it away. Humanity needs to take a deep breath and mature.
    - wiml 5y ago
      It's the same world, yours just has a shorter planning horizon.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- curryst 5y ago
  Without taking a stance on whether or not we should, humans do care if many species of animal dies. Not because of some altruistic drive, but because their welfare influences our own. Species dying out can dramatically impact the environment we live in. We don't even really understand the degree to which it will change our environment. Humans respect animals and the earth because both are liable to kill us if we don't. I agree there isn't some intrinsic respect for nature because it's nature, but humanity most certainly does care about nature.
i_am_proteus 5y ago
>Slower speeds also reduce the amount of fuel needed — making a voyage cheaper — and reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. “Slow speeds are a win for all,” said Leaper. The article is incorrect. Ships travel at an economical speed based both on fuel consumption, delivery timing, and trying to maximize the utility to the shipper from the cargo vessel. Slowing down means fewer voyages for each ship, and would ultimately mean either fewer voyages total (less commerce) or more ships.

69 points by blacktulip 5y ago

There was an interesting HN article about air ships the other day; it would be so cool if those are used in the future to mitigate ocean damage.

newsclues 5y ago
Then people will complain about airships killing birds
- martimarkov 5y ago
  Not a lot of birds in the oceans would be my guess.
  - FridayoLeary 5y ago
    Which leads to my question; With all the vastness of thousands of square miles of water, how is it that ships manage to strike whales of a few square metres? And when you factor in sonar and radar... how? I'm not knowledgeable in maritime routes, but even if you say that both whales and ships prefer ocean currents (maybe, just a wild guess) or the like it still seems hard. Even if the routes are congested
    - newsclues 5y ago
      Ships don’t travel the vast open waters, they stick to well travelled shipping lanes. I’m guessing human shipping lanes overlap pre-existing animal migration paths
    - Borrible 5y ago
      >And when you factor in sonar and radar Well, its just not that easy. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X19304567 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X1... 'A decision-making framework to reduce the risk of collisions between ships and whales' And by the way, it also happens not that often. For the most part it's selling apocalytic news by exploiting a variant of the Bambi effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bambi_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bambi_effect Whales as a species were finished a long time ago. Now it's just soothing a troubled conscience.
      - FridayoLeary 5y ago
        It's nice to have confirmation that i'm correct. Thanks
- neolog 5y ago
  There is more space in the sky than the ocean.
Borrible 5y ago
You will need a lot of pricey Helium-filled airships to replace an average container ship. I guess the airspace will look somewhat like the Cleveland Balloonfest '86... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0CT8zrw6lw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0CT8zrw6lw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloonfest_%2786 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloonfest_%2786
- okamiueru 5y ago
  The balloonfest was one of the most obvious and dumbest fuckeries that have been orchestrated for the dumbest reasons. I don't know what an airborn attempt at global shipping would be like, but I'm pretty sure it would be nothing like that stupidity.
  - Borrible 5y ago
    >I don't know what an airborn attempt at global shipping would be like, but I'm pretty sure it would be nothing like that stupidity. Well, since air freight on the scale of global cargo shipping is probably not economically feasible, especially to save the puny remnant of species that are no longer profitable to exploit, I'm afraid there are no steampunk airship fantasies on the horizon, I think. Last time someone grounded the idea of air ship cargo at least a German province got a tropical island in the sun. https://www.tropical-islands.de/en/tropical-world/attractions/15-years-of-tropical-islands/ https://www.tropical-islands.de/en/tropical-world/attraction... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CargoLifter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CargoLifter
- CorrectHorseBat 5y ago
  The article in questions did advocate for hydrogen. Cheap, abundant, more lift and according to the article safe enough.
  - Borrible 5y ago
    >save enough That probably won't convince neither aviation security authorities nor insurance companies. Beside, allthough helium is more expensive but far saver than hydrogen it isn't the reason for the economical infeasibility of air ship cargo on global scale.

spodek 5y ago

We can dance around environmental issues all we want. Everything reaches overconsumption and overpopulation eventually. Reducing both is straightforward and can be done with time-tested, strictly voluntary, noncoercive means that improve health, longevity, abundance, and stability. Nothing else works. On the contrary, generations trying other methods have increased the problems.

yodsanklai 5y ago
What "time-tested, strictly voluntary, noncoercive means" are you referring too?
- Y-bar 5y ago
  Not the one you respond to, but I read it as something akin to Nudging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory > Nudging contrasts with other ways to achieve compliance, such as education, legislation or enforcement.
- yissp 5y ago
  Just improving womens' educational opportunities in the developing world would go a long way. It's the #2 thing on project drawdown https://drawdown.org/solutions/health-and-education https://drawdown.org/solutions/health-and-education
- spodek 5y ago
  For overpopulation, Mechai Viravaidya's work in Thailand on lowering birth rates, plus many peers, like Costa Rica, Iran, and more. I posted a bunch of podcast episodes and blog entries on him https://joshuaspodek.com/?s=viravaidya https://joshuaspodek.com/?s=viravaidya, and YouTube has more. On overconsumption, I think of Bea Johnson https://joshuaspodek.com/guests/bea-johnson https://joshuaspodek.com/guests/bea-johnson and Josh Becker https://joshuaspodek.com/guests/joshua-becker https://joshuaspodek.com/guests/joshua-becker, just among people I know, improving life on individual basis, then systems people like W. Edwards Deming who showed systemic change begins with personal transformation. He worked in other areas, but led to national and global change on the scale we need in years.

NewLogic 5y ago

I do wonder if the world will "re-invent" ekranoplans so to speak. Improvements in engineering design, tooling and material science could make them economically viable in a niche of the global economy. The youtuber Mustard [1] has a great video on the mad ideas of Italian born Soviet engineer Robert Bartini. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD7xiWWs-bs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD7xiWWs-bs

OnlyOneCannolo 5y ago
The problem was that they had so little room for error. But I guess landing a rocket vertically on a heaving ship is also tricky, so maybe the problem is surmountable.

sneak 5y ago

> Ship strikes are not thought to be a predominant cause of the West Coast die-off of gray whales since 2019, but they are a factor, and an increasing concern.

nsizx 5y ago

Gotta nuke something.

hellbannedguy 5y ago

Speaking of whales, it would be nice if all cultures would give their taste for fish a rest. Japan just started commercial whaling again. They claim only non endangered species, but their research ships has been killing any whale for years. (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48821797 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48821797)

guerrilla 5y ago
Whales aren't fish but mammals. Anyway, what about countries which don't have an alternative to fishing?
djdidjehduxufj 5y ago
Maybe not for whales but fish farming subsidies seem like a good idea for vegans to shoot down.
- oregano 5y ago
  Can we really be trusted to orchestrate gigantic farmed fishing operations at scale? After this happened a few years ago[0] I think it's safer to just give it a rest so we don't compromise more ocean life. [0]https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/fish-farm-caused-atlantic-salmon-spill-state-says-then-tried-to-hide-how-bad-it-was/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/fish-farm-caused-a...
traceroute66 5y ago
There is nothing wrong with eating fish as long as you do so in a sustainable manner. In many respects fish is a demonstrably much healthier option for you and the planet than meat, especially red meat. Sure, I know in an ideal world we are all supposed to become tree-hugging vegans. But if the entire world switched 100% to vegetables you would soon find there are environmental and sustainable issues there. Its one thing growing a few carrots in your back garden, its another doing so on an industrial scale. So its not so much what you eat, but the sustainability of it. The answer is not so black and white.
- 5y ago

the-dude 5y ago

Just this month in the news in NL : shipped rammed whale in the Gulf of Biscay, drags it along to NL. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2021/08/05/dode-walvis-in-terneuzen-werd-aangevaren-en-lag-dagen-op-schip-a4052712 https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2021/08/05/dode-walvis-in-terneuze...

xwdv 5y ago

Whales: the deer of the seas.

neonate 5y ago

https://archive.md/eTIRN https://archive.md/eTIRN

oregano 5y ago

Hot take: Let’s not suddenly start acting like we care about whales (or ANY animal for that matter). Humans do not respect animals. Humans do not respect the earth. This is hardly news.

wolfram74 5y ago
Always suspected I wasn't human...
- oregano 5y ago
  I think the more likely explanation is that we live in different worlds. I live in a world ruled by capitalism where people have come to value their lifestyles (food, possessions, etc) more than the natural world.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - sitkack 5y ago
    This whole non-discussion upthread is summed up a whatabout|can't change. :( A serious lack of any self reflection. We are like kids that only want to eat cup cakes and buy crap only to open it and throw it away. Humanity needs to take a deep breath and mature.
  - wiml 5y ago
    It's the same world, yours just has a shorter planning horizon.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
curryst 5y ago
Without taking a stance on whether or not we should, humans do care if many species of animal dies. Not because of some altruistic drive, but because their welfare influences our own. Species dying out can dramatically impact the environment we live in. We don't even really understand the degree to which it will change our environment. Humans respect animals and the earth because both are liable to kill us if we don't. I agree there isn't some intrinsic respect for nature because it's nature, but humanity most certainly does care about nature.

i_am_proteus 5y ago

>Slower speeds also reduce the amount of fuel needed — making a voyage cheaper — and reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. “Slow speeds are a win for all,” said Leaper. The article is incorrect. Ships travel at an economical speed based both on fuel consumption, delivery timing, and trying to maximize the utility to the shipper from the cargo vessel. Slowing down means fewer voyages for each ship, and would ultimately mean either fewer voyages total (less commerce) or more ships.