7 ms·

There are some extremely sensitive habitats up north. A spill could be a disaster for some endangered species.

by sp332 3y ago

version_five 3y ago
That's really a throw away answer. Is there something concrete you want to share? As written it just sounds like a lazy excuse for not engaging with something, which could have been done by not commenting. I don't understand what the point of even writing it was.
- MrLeap 3y ago
  You seem frustrated with the environmentalist perspective. I think it's a common sensibility to just want to engage with engineering problem and theory craft solutions, don't let ant pesky things like conservation slow the discourse down, it's ballast! The fact is we're all playing at our ideals here. This is a message board, we dont decide policy. Consider having some more empathy for people who prioritize different things than you do.
  - version_five 3y ago
    I don't see how it's a perspective. It's the equivalent of "that's probably like, bad for the environment or something", which is the exact opposite of "curious conversation". If people want to have an adult conversation about the environmental negatives of a northwest passage shipping, cool. A shallow dismissal like the post I replied to isn't that, it destroys intelligent conversation. People are entitled to their opinions of course, I can see people didn't like my comment.
    - MrLeap 3y ago
      If you go on the attack immediately, that shuts the door on most intelligent conversations. If you re-read what Sp332 said, and your response, do you think there's much incentive for Sp332 to "share something concrete"? Do you believe that, in a vacuum, your comment looks like it came from someone who would engage with an alternative opinion in good faith? The fact that you're talking to me now makes me think you might engage in good faith! Ya built a wall to climb with your opener though. Every word of it reads like you're telling them to shut up.
- photonerd 3y ago
  The irony.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- sp332 3y ago
  It's annoyingly content-free, but since I didn't have time to look up details at the time, I thought I could at least bring up some of the stakes involved. I didn't try to convince anyone that shipping up there was a bad idea. It's just a nudge so interested people have a direction to look in.
labster 3y ago
Don’t ship oil through it then, ship food and consumer goods. Demand for oil is going to drop a lot in 20 years anyway.
- loeg 3y ago
  Cargo ships carry their own fuel, which can still leak.
  - hinkley 3y ago
    They run on some really nasty shit too.
  - jonasdegendt 3y ago
    There's multiple orders of magnitude in difference between the amount of fuel a ship carries, and the amount of oil a tanker can hold. Think measured in hundreds of thousands versus tens of millions of gallons. If we start accounting for every single externality for every solution for a problem we come up with, we might as well stop leaving the house at all.
    - Xylakant 3y ago
      The Fremantle Highway was burning and at risk of sinking in the Wadden Sea, off the Dutch coast of just a week ago. This would have severely damaged the entire habitat - and that was a car carrier only. Spills from minor incidents are a concern as well, especially in habitats that are important, slow to recover and already under a lot of pressure. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66393507 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66393507
    - loeg 3y ago
      A fuel oil spill from a cargo ship is not a trivial externality to be ignored! Yes, it's a smaller order of magnitude than an oil tanker. But it's not de minimis.
  - nradov 3y ago
    Long term the industry seems to be moving toward ammonia fuel. https://spectra.mhi.com/how-ammonia-will-fuel-the-ships-of-asia https://spectra.mhi.com/how-ammonia-will-fuel-the-ships-of-a...
justrealist 3y ago
This might be true in an absolute sense, but I'm really skeptical that it's true in a meaningful relative sense, because nobody has ever listed (to my knowledge) environmental habitats or biomes which are not sensitive. Like, if someone said "the Aleutians are extremely sensitive, but the Marianas are an OK place to have an oil spill all things equal" I'd grant the former more weight. And if the the counter is "all environments are sensitive" well OK, great, but that doesn't really help us make decisions in the real world.
- StanislavPetrov 3y ago
  It certainly can be meaningful (whether or not it is in this case). Obviously oil spills are devastating to any habitat, but some habitats are home to a wider variety of (and more critically) endangered wildlife and fauna than others. An oil spill in the Gowanus Canal, while terrible, would be far less meaningful than an oil spill in a much more pristine environment because the place is already mostly toxic (although not nearly as bad as it was in the past).
  - justrealist 3y ago
    I think that's a cop-out. Of course environments which we've already denuded of all ecology are more expendable. Can you name a pristine (or at least, not-sterilized) natural environment which it's relatively OK to destroy relative to the polar arctic?
    - kwertzzz 3y ago
      On land, I guess we would agree that an oil spill in a pristine rain-forest is worse than a pristine desert. If you need a quantitative measure, one can use e.g. the number of difference species per area (biodiversity) to know the area where an accident has the least impact. Or maybe the number of endangered species. Granted, computing these metrics are however quite difficult. However, what is easy to measure from space is the amount of chlorophyll in the surface water of the ocean. Besides coastal areas, the Arctic stands out as relatively chlorophyll rich. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AYool_SEAWIFS_annual.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AYool_SEAWIFS_annual...

There are some extremely sensitive habitats up north. A spill could be a disaster for some endangered species.

by sp332 3y ago

There are some extremely sensitive habitats up north. A spill could be a disaster for some endangered species.

That's really a throw away answer. Is there something concrete you want to share? As written it just sounds like a lazy excuse for not engaging with something, which could have been done by not commenting. I don't understand what the point of even writing it was.

MrLeap 3y ago
You seem frustrated with the environmentalist perspective. I think it's a common sensibility to just want to engage with engineering problem and theory craft solutions, don't let ant pesky things like conservation slow the discourse down, it's ballast! The fact is we're all playing at our ideals here. This is a message board, we dont decide policy. Consider having some more empathy for people who prioritize different things than you do.
- version_five 3y ago
  I don't see how it's a perspective. It's the equivalent of "that's probably like, bad for the environment or something", which is the exact opposite of "curious conversation". If people want to have an adult conversation about the environmental negatives of a northwest passage shipping, cool. A shallow dismissal like the post I replied to isn't that, it destroys intelligent conversation. People are entitled to their opinions of course, I can see people didn't like my comment.
  - MrLeap 3y ago
    If you go on the attack immediately, that shuts the door on most intelligent conversations. If you re-read what Sp332 said, and your response, do you think there's much incentive for Sp332 to "share something concrete"? Do you believe that, in a vacuum, your comment looks like it came from someone who would engage with an alternative opinion in good faith? The fact that you're talking to me now makes me think you might engage in good faith! Ya built a wall to climb with your opener though. Every word of it reads like you're telling them to shut up.
photonerd 3y ago
The irony.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sp332 3y ago
It's annoyingly content-free, but since I didn't have time to look up details at the time, I thought I could at least bring up some of the stakes involved. I didn't try to convince anyone that shipping up there was a bad idea. It's just a nudge so interested people have a direction to look in.

labster 3y ago

Don’t ship oil through it then, ship food and consumer goods. Demand for oil is going to drop a lot in 20 years anyway.

loeg 3y ago
Cargo ships carry their own fuel, which can still leak.
- hinkley 3y ago
  They run on some really nasty shit too.
- jonasdegendt 3y ago
  There's multiple orders of magnitude in difference between the amount of fuel a ship carries, and the amount of oil a tanker can hold. Think measured in hundreds of thousands versus tens of millions of gallons. If we start accounting for every single externality for every solution for a problem we come up with, we might as well stop leaving the house at all.
  - Xylakant 3y ago
    The Fremantle Highway was burning and at risk of sinking in the Wadden Sea, off the Dutch coast of just a week ago. This would have severely damaged the entire habitat - and that was a car carrier only. Spills from minor incidents are a concern as well, especially in habitats that are important, slow to recover and already under a lot of pressure. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66393507 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66393507
  - loeg 3y ago
    A fuel oil spill from a cargo ship is not a trivial externality to be ignored! Yes, it's a smaller order of magnitude than an oil tanker. But it's not de minimis.
- nradov 3y ago
  Long term the industry seems to be moving toward ammonia fuel. https://spectra.mhi.com/how-ammonia-will-fuel-the-ships-of-asia https://spectra.mhi.com/how-ammonia-will-fuel-the-ships-of-a...

justrealist 3y ago

This might be true in an absolute sense, but I'm really skeptical that it's true in a meaningful relative sense, because nobody has ever listed (to my knowledge) environmental habitats or biomes which are not sensitive. Like, if someone said "the Aleutians are extremely sensitive, but the Marianas are an OK place to have an oil spill all things equal" I'd grant the former more weight. And if the the counter is "all environments are sensitive" well OK, great, but that doesn't really help us make decisions in the real world.

StanislavPetrov 3y ago
It certainly can be meaningful (whether or not it is in this case). Obviously oil spills are devastating to any habitat, but some habitats are home to a wider variety of (and more critically) endangered wildlife and fauna than others. An oil spill in the Gowanus Canal, while terrible, would be far less meaningful than an oil spill in a much more pristine environment because the place is already mostly toxic (although not nearly as bad as it was in the past).
- justrealist 3y ago
  I think that's a cop-out. Of course environments which we've already denuded of all ecology are more expendable. Can you name a pristine (or at least, not-sterilized) natural environment which it's relatively OK to destroy relative to the polar arctic?
  - kwertzzz 3y ago
    On land, I guess we would agree that an oil spill in a pristine rain-forest is worse than a pristine desert. If you need a quantitative measure, one can use e.g. the number of difference species per area (biodiversity) to know the area where an accident has the least impact. Or maybe the number of endangered species. Granted, computing these metrics are however quite difficult. However, what is easy to measure from space is the amount of chlorophyll in the surface water of the ocean. Besides coastal areas, the Arctic stands out as relatively chlorophyll rich. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AYool_SEAWIFS_annual.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AYool_SEAWIFS_annual...