3 ms·

To put this in perspective: for CO2 emissions (which is what we're talking about here, I guess?), you have the Big Four, in descending order of pollution: trans

To put this in perspective: for CO2 emissions (which is what we're talking about here, I guess?), you have the Big Four, in descending order of pollution: transportation, electricity, industry and other (mostly commercial/residential), for a total of about 65 Billion Metric Tons of CO2 per year. In transportation, the biggest polluter (by direct emissions) by far is shipping. This is about 8/65 (12%), compared to 1/65 (1.5%) for the much-maligned aviation sector, or the 4/65 (6%) for cars, that, for some reason, nobody likes to talk about. Then, when it comes to electricity, data centers are really quite marginal: 0.4/65 (about 0.6%). And, like aviation, the sector is taking measures to Be Better: higher airco setpoints, mandatory purchase of "green" electricity, etc. etc. Unlike the shipping sector, which pretty much continues to burn raw dinosaurs just because they're based in a jurisdiction that allows, nay, encourages that. So, if you want to get mad about emissions, start with things that actually matter, would be my take? I happen to be of the opinion that AI is bunk, and any energy invested in it is wasted, but that goes doubly or triply for the shipment of novelty hats...

woooooo 2y ago
Shipping has no authority, right? I recall reading they switch to heavier, dirtier fuel in international waters because it's not illegal. How would we even begin regulating that? Treaties and some new deep sea enforcement agency?
- abenga 2y ago
  Didn't a shift away from dirty fuel actually cause a short term increase in global temperatures in 2023 due to a reduction in Sulphur-tainted fuels? So this is being worked on, but with counterintuitive unintended effects.
- e3bc54b2 2y ago
  I don't get this point of dirty shit not being illegal in international waters making it legal somehow. Murdering people is still illegal in international water, we don't see people being boarded for international killing as a service. Why is shit fuel OK?
  - woooooo 2y ago
    I wasn't really speaking from a moralistic perspective, not calling anything "ok". Murder gets investigated by national authorities depending on the deceased's passport, but pollution on the high seas has noone? In charge?
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  Part of this is that besides CO2, the other pollution has local effects too. So places where ships moor for long periods have a local incentive to force them to burn cleaner fuels (or plug into shore for electricity) when in their immediate area. The industry does have various plans for the wider CO2 issue, similar to the airline industry. A recurring theme is that even mild regulation or carbon pricing (or Russia invading your neighbour) provides enough motivation for a lot of low hanging fruit to be found and fixed. In shipping, the practice of going really fast then waiting around for weeks is being phased out. It mostly hinges on contracts sharing the risks when it goes wrong one time in a hundred. They've also identified that one size fits all ship designs can have efficiency impacts depending on what speed they intend to move at, which can depend on cargo and purpose. The further you reduce the CO2 the harder it gets to wring out further improvements but they have a wide range of decarbonisation plans in motion.
okdood64 2y ago
> Unlike the shipping sector, which pretty much continues to burn raw dinosaurs just because they're based in a jurisdiction that allows, nay, encourages that. What's a realistic alternative to burning dinosaurs?
- ryandrake 2y ago
  Move production closer to the point of sale. Ship less stuff. Sell less stuff. All things nobody wants to do unless incentivized.
- meristohm 2y ago
  Buy less stuff. Make more of what you need. Go without novelty hats.
philipkglass 2y ago
What's the source of those numbers? Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are about 37 billion tons per year, not 65 billion: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions Shipping and aviation are about equal at 2% of total energy related CO2 emissions each: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/aviation https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/aviation https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/international-shipping https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/international-sh...
e3bc54b2 2y ago
> much-maligned aviation sector It is much maligned because unlike shipping that benefits nearly every single human being and is much more efficient (despite horrible lack of regulations) benefits per person, aviation is used by tiny population and minuscule accomplishments. That said, shipping does need a heavy global hand to get compliant. Cars are fair point, and there is serious action being taken by the big Govs to get them pollute less (both China and India have plans to phase out ICEs within next decade).

woooooo 2y ago

Shipping has no authority, right? I recall reading they switch to heavier, dirtier fuel in international waters because it's not illegal. How would we even begin regulating that? Treaties and some new deep sea enforcement agency?

abenga 2y ago
Didn't a shift away from dirty fuel actually cause a short term increase in global temperatures in 2023 due to a reduction in Sulphur-tainted fuels? So this is being worked on, but with counterintuitive unintended effects.
e3bc54b2 2y ago
I don't get this point of dirty shit not being illegal in international waters making it legal somehow. Murdering people is still illegal in international water, we don't see people being boarded for international killing as a service. Why is shit fuel OK?
- woooooo 2y ago
  I wasn't really speaking from a moralistic perspective, not calling anything "ok". Murder gets investigated by national authorities depending on the deceased's passport, but pollution on the high seas has noone? In charge?
ZeroGravitas 2y ago
Part of this is that besides CO2, the other pollution has local effects too. So places where ships moor for long periods have a local incentive to force them to burn cleaner fuels (or plug into shore for electricity) when in their immediate area. The industry does have various plans for the wider CO2 issue, similar to the airline industry. A recurring theme is that even mild regulation or carbon pricing (or Russia invading your neighbour) provides enough motivation for a lot of low hanging fruit to be found and fixed. In shipping, the practice of going really fast then waiting around for weeks is being phased out. It mostly hinges on contracts sharing the risks when it goes wrong one time in a hundred. They've also identified that one size fits all ship designs can have efficiency impacts depending on what speed they intend to move at, which can depend on cargo and purpose. The further you reduce the CO2 the harder it gets to wring out further improvements but they have a wide range of decarbonisation plans in motion.

okdood64 2y ago

> Unlike the shipping sector, which pretty much continues to burn raw dinosaurs just because they're based in a jurisdiction that allows, nay, encourages that. What's a realistic alternative to burning dinosaurs?

ryandrake 2y ago
Move production closer to the point of sale. Ship less stuff. Sell less stuff. All things nobody wants to do unless incentivized.
meristohm 2y ago
Buy less stuff. Make more of what you need. Go without novelty hats.

philipkglass 2y ago

What's the source of those numbers? Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are about 37 billion tons per year, not 65 billion: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions Shipping and aviation are about equal at 2% of total energy related CO2 emissions each: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/aviation https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/aviation https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/international-shipping https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/international-sh...

e3bc54b2 2y ago

> much-maligned aviation sector It is much maligned because unlike shipping that benefits nearly every single human being and is much more efficient (despite horrible lack of regulations) benefits per person, aviation is used by tiny population and minuscule accomplishments. That said, shipping does need a heavy global hand to get compliant. Cars are fair point, and there is serious action being taken by the big Govs to get them pollute less (both China and India have plans to phase out ICEs within next decade).