5 ms·

Environmentalists or local manufacturers might also think dropping prices are bad ?. Local firms can compete better if cost of imports are higher . Similarly

Environmentalists or local manufacturers might also think dropping prices are bad ?. Local firms can compete better if cost of imports are higher . Similarly less goods will be imported if costs are high , therefore less emissions.

nl 4y ago
Shipping is around 2.5% of global emissions, and notably the change in pricing didn't seem to substantially affect the volume[1] which is of course the thing that effects emissions. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/253987/international-seaborne-trade-carried-by-containers/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/253987/international-sea...
- manquer 4y ago
  Depends on the type of emissions. Shipping uses bunker oil one of the most unclean fuels out there . Few ports now are providing power supply so they don’t have to burn bunker oil while berthed and can also shutdown power systems to do maintenance, but connectors are not standard etc. IMO has reduced the % of sulfur allowed recently and so on . Still it is a problem. Sulfur content is especially high and is estimated to cause 150,000 deaths/year and, 13% of SOx emissions is attributed to shipping[1] [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02774-9#ref-link-section-d1456e583 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02774-9#ref-link-...
  - b3orn 4y ago
    A lot of countries have laws about which types of fuel can be used within territorial waters, usually they restrict it to marine diesel, so nobody is burning bunker oil in port.
    - heavenlyblue 4y ago
      Do ships have different fuel tanks to switch between just to enter territorial waters?
      - pletnes 4y ago
        Some do, yes. Not sure how general this is. The price difference of the fuel is significant.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  2.5% would be far from insignificant. The European Commission Climate Action website put it closer to 2.9% and volumes are expected to increase by as much as 100% until 2050. The percentage is even more significant if you look at it from the point of view of relatively clean part of the world like the EU. Shipping is 4% of our emission. Something will definitely have to be done with shipping if countries want to hit their emission targets.
- nosianu 4y ago
  > notably the change in pricing didn't seem to substantially affect the volume I don't think that means much. Changes would be long-term, there is a lot of inflexibility short-term, you can't just create new suppliers locally overnight. It also depends on expectations of where the price will go. If it is expected to be a local maximum and that prices will sink again then few will take the price as signal to move production locally.
- eecc 4y ago
  That’s a false argument. There’s no activity that of itself produces 50% of humanity’s emissions. Every single one is “not worth reducing” because the bulk is always somewhere else. Nope. Every .1% reduction counts. That’s how we got here, ever so slightly increasing, and that’s how we must fix it.
  - stby 4y ago
    Could anyone who downvoted this explain their reasoning? Is this statement too radical, not radical enough, ...? I am genuinely curious.
  - 988747 4y ago
    There are activities that produce significantly more than 2.5% emissions, like burning coal for electricity and heating (which is something like 20-25%, I guess). Also, coal-fueled power plants have clear alternatives (nuclear, solar, etc). What is the alternative to transporting containers by ships?
    - otikik 4y ago
      The alternative is building and sourcing things locally. This might not be feasible in the case of key primary materials (can’t build cars if there’s no steel) but a lot of manufacturing was moved overseas simply because salaries there were lower (which is changing) and the environmental laws were weaker (which is also changing). It’s not inconceivable any more that local is preferable to outsourced, and it might even be cheaper in some cases.
      - 988747 4y ago
        We already tried that strategy... in Middle Ages. World has moved on to globalized trade for a reason.
        ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        this is a very silly comparison, why not compare to the vikings then, or cavemen, how did they get their iPhones?
- easygenes 4y ago
  Shipping also uses RFO [1][2] (Residual Fuel Oil, often just referred to as bunker fuel). It is the absolute filthiest petrosludge that's essentially unfit for any other purpose, and the exhaust waste is dumped into the ocean directly. That 2.5% is likely a gross underestimate of the true impact [3][4]. The "scrubber" systems which are supposed to reduce the sulfur dumped into the air, just wind up dumping it into the sea [5]. 1: https://williamliggett.com/2018/05/28/bunker-fuel-sounds-bad-its-worse-than-it-sounds/ 2: https://wolfstreet.com/2018/06/03/bunker-the-fuel-for-the-giant-engines-in-large-cargo-ships/ 3: https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/11399/2020/ 4: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S026974912101280X 5: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00139/full
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    confirm basically zero pollution control on the open seas.
  - deelowe 4y ago
    RFO is being phased out due to regulations.
AzzieElbab 4y ago
That sounds great but they don’t grow bananas in Canada, they also don’t make teslas or gpus here

nl 4y ago

Shipping is around 2.5% of global emissions, and notably the change in pricing didn't seem to substantially affect the volume[1] which is of course the thing that effects emissions. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/253987/international-seaborne-trade-carried-by-containers/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/253987/international-sea...

manquer 4y ago
Depends on the type of emissions. Shipping uses bunker oil one of the most unclean fuels out there . Few ports now are providing power supply so they don’t have to burn bunker oil while berthed and can also shutdown power systems to do maintenance, but connectors are not standard etc. IMO has reduced the % of sulfur allowed recently and so on . Still it is a problem. Sulfur content is especially high and is estimated to cause 150,000 deaths/year and, 13% of SOx emissions is attributed to shipping[1] [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02774-9#ref-link-section-d1456e583 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02774-9#ref-link-...
- b3orn 4y ago
  A lot of countries have laws about which types of fuel can be used within territorial waters, usually they restrict it to marine diesel, so nobody is burning bunker oil in port.
  - heavenlyblue 4y ago
    Do ships have different fuel tanks to switch between just to enter territorial waters?
    - pletnes 4y ago
      Some do, yes. Not sure how general this is. The price difference of the fuel is significant.
WastingMyTime89 4y ago
2.5% would be far from insignificant. The European Commission Climate Action website put it closer to 2.9% and volumes are expected to increase by as much as 100% until 2050. The percentage is even more significant if you look at it from the point of view of relatively clean part of the world like the EU. Shipping is 4% of our emission. Something will definitely have to be done with shipping if countries want to hit their emission targets.
nosianu 4y ago
> notably the change in pricing didn't seem to substantially affect the volume I don't think that means much. Changes would be long-term, there is a lot of inflexibility short-term, you can't just create new suppliers locally overnight. It also depends on expectations of where the price will go. If it is expected to be a local maximum and that prices will sink again then few will take the price as signal to move production locally.
eecc 4y ago
That’s a false argument. There’s no activity that of itself produces 50% of humanity’s emissions. Every single one is “not worth reducing” because the bulk is always somewhere else. Nope. Every .1% reduction counts. That’s how we got here, ever so slightly increasing, and that’s how we must fix it.
- stby 4y ago
  Could anyone who downvoted this explain their reasoning? Is this statement too radical, not radical enough, ...? I am genuinely curious.
- 988747 4y ago
  There are activities that produce significantly more than 2.5% emissions, like burning coal for electricity and heating (which is something like 20-25%, I guess). Also, coal-fueled power plants have clear alternatives (nuclear, solar, etc). What is the alternative to transporting containers by ships?
  - otikik 4y ago
    The alternative is building and sourcing things locally. This might not be feasible in the case of key primary materials (can’t build cars if there’s no steel) but a lot of manufacturing was moved overseas simply because salaries there were lower (which is changing) and the environmental laws were weaker (which is also changing). It’s not inconceivable any more that local is preferable to outsourced, and it might even be cheaper in some cases.
    - 988747 4y ago
      We already tried that strategy... in Middle Ages. World has moved on to globalized trade for a reason.
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        this is a very silly comparison, why not compare to the vikings then, or cavemen, how did they get their iPhones?
easygenes 4y ago
Shipping also uses RFO [1][2] (Residual Fuel Oil, often just referred to as bunker fuel). It is the absolute filthiest petrosludge that's essentially unfit for any other purpose, and the exhaust waste is dumped into the ocean directly. That 2.5% is likely a gross underestimate of the true impact [3][4]. The "scrubber" systems which are supposed to reduce the sulfur dumped into the air, just wind up dumping it into the sea [5]. 1: https://williamliggett.com/2018/05/28/bunker-fuel-sounds-bad-its-worse-than-it-sounds/ 2: https://wolfstreet.com/2018/06/03/bunker-the-fuel-for-the-giant-engines-in-large-cargo-ships/ 3: https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/11399/2020/ 4: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S026974912101280X 5: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00139/full
- mistrial9 4y ago
  confirm basically zero pollution control on the open seas.
- deelowe 4y ago
  RFO is being phased out due to regulations.

AzzieElbab 4y ago

That sounds great but they don’t grow bananas in Canada, they also don’t make teslas or gpus here