3 ms·

> By far the most environmentally friendly thing to do currently is to keep existing vehicles running for longer Not at all. Even if that were true (it is for

by tpm 3y ago

> By far the most environmentally friendly thing to do currently is to keep existing vehicles running for longer Not at all. Even if that were true (it is for some vehicle classes and use cases but not generally), CO2 emissions are not the only car-related emmissions. > The emissions from these ships is also likely directly acidifying our oceans too. But sulfuric emmissions are actually cooling the atmosphere, so limiting them won't do anything good for the climate. And to stop global warming it would not be enough anyway. > Then put in some regulation/tax regarding the import of materials or goods from countries that do not have good emissions standards. Done: https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustme...

bArray 3y ago
> Not at all. Even if that were true (it is for some vehicle classes and use cases but not generally), CO2 emissions are not the only car-related emmissions. Please see another comment (don't want to duplicate the comments on HN): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37998960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37998960 > But sulfuric emmissions are actually cooling the atmosphere, so limiting them won't do anything good for the climate. And to stop global warming it would not be enough anyway. Let's start ramping up sulphur fires then /s. I don't think this is a good option. I think getting a handle on shipping would make a quick enormous dent. > Done: https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustme https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustme... It's only as good as it can be enforced. Last time I checked I can still get cheap crap from China made with the worst environmental considerations.
- tpm 3y ago
  > I don't think this is a good option. It's certainly not a good thing to willingly emit sulfur into atmosphere, but removing such emmissions does nothing positive to battle climate change. > I think getting a handle on shipping would make a quick enormous dent. You can think that, but should also prove that. I think ocean shipping is quite down on the list because shipping is energy-effective. It only emits about 2.9% of total greenhouse gasses. By comparison, road transport is at about 10%.

by tpm 3y ago

bArray 3y ago

> Not at all. Even if that were true (it is for some vehicle classes and use cases but not generally), CO2 emissions are not the only car-related emmissions. Please see another comment (don't want to duplicate the comments on HN): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37998960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37998960 > But sulfuric emmissions are actually cooling the atmosphere, so limiting them won't do anything good for the climate. And to stop global warming it would not be enough anyway. Let's start ramping up sulphur fires then /s. I don't think this is a good option. I think getting a handle on shipping would make a quick enormous dent. > Done: https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustme https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustme... It's only as good as it can be enforced. Last time I checked I can still get cheap crap from China made with the worst environmental considerations.

tpm 3y ago
> I don't think this is a good option. It's certainly not a good thing to willingly emit sulfur into atmosphere, but removing such emmissions does nothing positive to battle climate change. > I think getting a handle on shipping would make a quick enormous dent. You can think that, but should also prove that. I think ocean shipping is quite down on the list because shipping is energy-effective. It only emits about 2.9% of total greenhouse gasses. By comparison, road transport is at about 10%.