3 ms·

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 be

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.

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.