4 ms·
What is their benefit to doing this? Do they just not ship there anymore, and this announcement is a PR move? Certainly they aren't sacrificing profit just to s
by tsol 5y ago
What is their benefit to doing this? Do they just not ship there anymore, and this announcement is a PR move? Certainly they aren't sacrificing profit just to seem ethical. If they were worried about ethics they'd be concerned about the place of global shipping in the progression of global warming.
- throwaway6532 5y agoShipping to a warzone costs more and in some cases things start to get uninsurable and the crews don't want to go there etc.
- vba616 5y agoAccording to Wikipedia, in 2017, Maersk was a victim of a major cyberattack, intended to look like ransomware, but actually a GRU attack intended for Ukraine, and it nearly ruined the company. It may have been widely reported, but I didn't recall. >If they were worried about ethics they'd be concerned about the place of global shipping in the progression of global warming. I don't understand. Aren't ships pretty much the least carbon intensive way of moving stuff, per pound, per mile? Haven't they always been the most energy efficient means of transportation? Is it just a coincidence most cities are on coasts where they're vulnerable to sea level rise?
- Maursault 5y ago
- pbourke 5y ago> besides, rail is more efficient. How is that tunnel under the Pacific Ocean coming along?
- Maursault 5y agoDid I miss some stipulation about crossing oceans? The question was, "Aren't ships pretty much the least carbon intensive way of moving stuff, per pound, per mile?" And they are not, because rail is a thing.