3 ms·

> As of January 1, 2020, the International Maritime Organization put a limit on the sulfur content in shipping fuels, reducing the global upper limit on sulfur

> As of January 1, 2020, the International Maritime Organization put a limit on the sulfur content in shipping fuels, reducing the global upper limit on sulfur content from 3.50% to 0.50%. Here is a link to an article describing this change. This reduced limit was mandatory and led to over a 75% drop in sulfur oxides. While great for the environment in many respects (e.g. less acid rain and ocean acidification), there was also a not-so-unexpected consequence. What is actually beyond my understanding here, is that an international organization implemented a very strict environmental standard, one that probably applies to notoriously uncooperative countries (hint: China), one that applies to a notoriously uncaring industry (cue the oil-spills and dirt ships transporting crap around the world), and, _somehow_ , the standard was respected, and the restriction had the "desired" effect (less SO2 in the air.) ? That's my WTF: since when do environment standard work ? What did the IMO do ? Why didn't the cargo coorporation simply bribe and cheat and lie, as usual ? Didn't using "cleaner" fuels cost _more_ money ? How did they let this kind of communist nonsense of a regulation happen ? Where are the freedom fighters ? Why don't we have an "airpollutionskeptics.org" site that denies the link between cargo ships and SO2 level in the air, on the ground that SO2 levels have always changed in the past, and that the IMO is an evil governement body of elitists who want to take again our gunships ? Or is it only that we're slaves to irony, that no good deed should go unpunished, and that the only way we can solve any environmental problem is by inadvertently making another one even worse ?

Daishiman 3y ago
Regulation of CFCs was successful at helping to recover the ozone layer. Likewise the Clean Air Act. Regulation works remarkably well in many spaces. Skepticism is warranted as usual but the cynics that claim it almost never works usually have a hidden agenda.
- phtrivier 3y ago
  I don't know about the clean air act. My understanding of the Montreal protocol is not that corporations decided to follow regulations from their good hearts, but that they managed to play the clock long enough to have better and cheaper alternatives anyway [1].) That being said, of course I do believe regulation help - but, slowly, reluctantly, and with every interest fighting tooth and nails. Therefore, I'm still shocked that a regulation would be _that_ successful (75% reduction of anything in two years is unbelievable.) However, if insurers are more powerful than activist, that should give some ideas. How can you make premiums for fossil fuels plants get so high that no insurer would touch them ? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol?wprov=sfla1
beepbooptheory 3y ago
Just curious really, but sources on China being particularly uncooperative with this kind of stuff? Totally take your word for it, of course. I'm mainly just surprised I hadn't heard this particular point before in the various and constant Bad-China discourse.
- phtrivier 3y ago
  That was a bit tongue in cheek. ("Notorious" as "that's everyone is saying". Ironically, the first source of this I can find is from the US state department, but it's from the trump era so maybe to be taken with a huge grain of salt : https://2017-2021.state.gov/chinas-environmental-abuses/index.html https://2017-2021.state.gov/chinas-environmental-abuses/inde...)
lavela 3y ago
AFAIK in the maritime space the lever is usually seaworthiness and it's connection to insurability[1] Your _really_ don't want your vessels to go uninsured so you better comply and the big insurers are in europe/usa (not that I don't think that there are some black sheep). That's also the mechanism by which sanctions work in regards to maritime traffic (like against russia last year [2]) [1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43546-022-00334-y https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43546-022-00334-y [2] https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2022/06/eu-sanctionsbthe-russian-crude-oil-and-transport-insurance https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2022/06/eu-sanctio...

Daishiman 3y ago

Regulation of CFCs was successful at helping to recover the ozone layer. Likewise the Clean Air Act. Regulation works remarkably well in many spaces. Skepticism is warranted as usual but the cynics that claim it almost never works usually have a hidden agenda.

phtrivier 3y ago
I don't know about the clean air act. My understanding of the Montreal protocol is not that corporations decided to follow regulations from their good hearts, but that they managed to play the clock long enough to have better and cheaper alternatives anyway [1].) That being said, of course I do believe regulation help - but, slowly, reluctantly, and with every interest fighting tooth and nails. Therefore, I'm still shocked that a regulation would be _that_ successful (75% reduction of anything in two years is unbelievable.) However, if insurers are more powerful than activist, that should give some ideas. How can you make premiums for fossil fuels plants get so high that no insurer would touch them ? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol?wprov=sfla1

beepbooptheory 3y ago

Just curious really, but sources on China being particularly uncooperative with this kind of stuff? Totally take your word for it, of course. I'm mainly just surprised I hadn't heard this particular point before in the various and constant Bad-China discourse.

phtrivier 3y ago
That was a bit tongue in cheek. ("Notorious" as "that's everyone is saying". Ironically, the first source of this I can find is from the US state department, but it's from the trump era so maybe to be taken with a huge grain of salt : https://2017-2021.state.gov/chinas-environmental-abuses/index.html https://2017-2021.state.gov/chinas-environmental-abuses/inde...)

lavela 3y ago

AFAIK in the maritime space the lever is usually seaworthiness and it's connection to insurability[1] Your _really_ don't want your vessels to go uninsured so you better comply and the big insurers are in europe/usa (not that I don't think that there are some black sheep). That's also the mechanism by which sanctions work in regards to maritime traffic (like against russia last year [2]) [1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43546-022-00334-y https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43546-022-00334-y [2] https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2022/06/eu-sanctionsbthe-russian-crude-oil-and-transport-insurance https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2022/06/eu-sanctio...