3 ms·

Its mind boggling how mich energy is spent in transporting stuff around the world. What's truly mind boggling is just how little energy is used to ship things

Its mind boggling how mich energy is spent in transporting stuff around the world. What's truly mind boggling is just how little energy is used to ship things around the world. Container ships are crazy efficient.

Karunamon 5y ago
I think this is looking at the wrong number. The atmosphere "cares" about emissions in absolute terms, not in terms of who or what put them there per unit of utility gained by their presence. The fuel used in these container ships is truly nasty stuff, with marine shipping being solely responsible for double-digit percentages of certain greenhouse gases. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_shipping#Atmospheric_pollution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_shipp...
- namibj 5y ago
  Of which greenhouse gases? I skimmed through the linked section and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_IMO_Strategy_on_the_reduction_of_GHG_emissions_from_ships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_IMO_Strategy_on_the_re... , without spotting a double-digit number that turned out to be a %-of-global-GHG-emissions. Or are you referring to all-time emissions? That would seem more probable, given the long history of coal-fired ships.
  - Karunamon 5y ago
    Per the linked Guardian article from 2009, shipping is responsible for 18-30% of all the world's nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution and 9% of the global sulphur oxide (SOx) pollution. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping... Absolute numbers here: https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.07.037 https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.07.037
    - lkbm 5y ago
      Yeah, technically those are indirectly greenhouse gases, but just to note, the article linked points out that "Maritime transport accounts for 3.5% to 4%". It's double-digit percentages of some pollutants that are very bad for human health, but relatively minor in terms of climate change. EDIT: I take it back. NOx is significant. SOx not so much.
ramraj07 5y ago
Container ships are crazy efficient in shipping dollars per kilogram not emissions. They use the worst most Polluting fuel there is and because of their efficiency present a far more polluting option (ship across the world) as a logistic possibility to cut costs.
- onemiketwelve 5y ago
  The pollution of the last mile of trucking an item to the store and the consumer driving to said store are an order of magnitude more than the entire journey across the Pacific on the boat
- vkou 5y ago
  Container ships emit a lot of pollution (SO2, NO2), but not much more GHG, per pound of fuel burnt, compared to other ICEs.
- istjohn 5y ago
  They are quite efficient in terms of emissions per kg, too. Boats are a very energy-efficient way to transport heavy things.

Karunamon 5y ago

I think this is looking at the wrong number. The atmosphere "cares" about emissions in absolute terms, not in terms of who or what put them there per unit of utility gained by their presence. The fuel used in these container ships is truly nasty stuff, with marine shipping being solely responsible for double-digit percentages of certain greenhouse gases. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_shipping#Atmospheric_pollution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_shipp...

namibj 5y ago
Of which greenhouse gases? I skimmed through the linked section and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_IMO_Strategy_on_the_reduction_of_GHG_emissions_from_ships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_IMO_Strategy_on_the_re... , without spotting a double-digit number that turned out to be a %-of-global-GHG-emissions. Or are you referring to all-time emissions? That would seem more probable, given the long history of coal-fired ships.
- Karunamon 5y ago
  Per the linked Guardian article from 2009, shipping is responsible for 18-30% of all the world's nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution and 9% of the global sulphur oxide (SOx) pollution. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping... Absolute numbers here: https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.07.037 https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.07.037
  - lkbm 5y ago
    Yeah, technically those are indirectly greenhouse gases, but just to note, the article linked points out that "Maritime transport accounts for 3.5% to 4%". It's double-digit percentages of some pollutants that are very bad for human health, but relatively minor in terms of climate change. EDIT: I take it back. NOx is significant. SOx not so much.

ramraj07 5y ago

Container ships are crazy efficient in shipping dollars per kilogram not emissions. They use the worst most Polluting fuel there is and because of their efficiency present a far more polluting option (ship across the world) as a logistic possibility to cut costs.

onemiketwelve 5y ago
The pollution of the last mile of trucking an item to the store and the consumer driving to said store are an order of magnitude more than the entire journey across the Pacific on the boat
vkou 5y ago
Container ships emit a lot of pollution (SO2, NO2), but not much more GHG, per pound of fuel burnt, compared to other ICEs.
istjohn 5y ago
They are quite efficient in terms of emissions per kg, too. Boats are a very energy-efficient way to transport heavy things.