2 ms·
I think a lot of this is that ships have gotten massively larger quite recently. Just to focus on the Evergreen Marine fleet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ever
by mandevil 5y ago
I think a lot of this is that ships have gotten massively larger quite recently. Just to focus on the Evergreen Marine fleet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_Marine_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_Marine_Corporation) you can see that until 2013 the largest ships they operated were about 8000 TEU. Then in 2013 the Thalassa class came online at 13k TEU, and more came in that general size (including Ever Forward, the ship in this case), then in 2018 came the G class (including Ever Given) at 20k TEU, then the A class at an even larger 23k TEU is just starting to come online. But you can see that ships of this size are less than a decade old, so you can understand why the edge cases aren't fully worked out- channels and ports can handle them in perfect conditions, but when things degrade they are more likely to have problems because they are so much bigger.
- Victerius 5y ago10k+ TEU ships need to be made illegal.
- robocat 5y agoYou appear to make a lot of very low quality comments. Perhaps you could either make more substantial comments, or alternatively make worse comments so we can flag them?
- eru 5y agoWhy? And under which jurisdictions? Ports and canals already have rules about what ships they accept and what fees they charge. These institutions can change their rules as they see fit. There's no reason to make big ships illegal on the open ocean. And in any case, the economically orthodox answer for dealing negative externalities is to tax them, not ban anything. But that doesn't apply here, because there are no necessary externalities: as said above the ports and canals can deal with this just fine. (Unless there are laws that ban them from making adequate rules. In this case these laws should be fixed.)