3 ms·

I didnt make a judgement, just pointing out a fact. That they are the most carbon efficient doesnt mean it couldnt be improved/replaced in the future however.

by kayoone 13y ago

I didnt make a judgement, just pointing out a fact. That they are the most carbon efficient doesnt mean it couldnt be improved/replaced in the future however. I just find it funny how politicians in my country try to save carbon emissions by enforcing a speed limit on highways or only let newer cars into the city areas...it just doesnt make no difference at all on a global scale.

GauntletWizard 13y ago
You did make a judgement: You compared the entire output of global shipping's carbon costs to just one (admittedly car-loving and industrious) country's intracontinental transport costs. You thought that this was somehow relevant and interesting to the conversation. You phrased it in such a way to make it out as a travesty. Yes, you made judgement.
- kayoone 13y ago
  those are just the vessels travelling through the panama canal, definitely not "the entire output of global shipping's carbon costs".
  - joosters 13y ago
    It's still widely open to misinterpretation. Does it refer to the carbon emissions while they pass through the canal, or is it the total carbon emissions of all ships that have passed through the canal? Is the statistic just showing that lots of ships go through the canal in a year?
  - TheSpiceIsLife 13y ago
    Specifically, the unqualified judgement you made was "nasty" in reference to "bunker fuel".
    - wmoser 13y ago
      Well to be fair, regardless of its suitability as a long term viable fuel source, it is nasty stuff. It's basically tar. It has to be kept heated to about 70c less it become to viscous and can't be pumped anymore and heated even more before being used in the engine.
    - kayoone 13y ago
      unqualified ? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-1...
forgottenpaswrd 13y ago
"That they are the most carbon efficient doesnt mean it couldnt be improved/replaced in the future however." The fact that transporting things by sea is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more efficient means that it is the last thing to improve-replace. "I just find it funny how politicians in my country try to save carbon emissions by enforcing a speed limit on highways or only let newer cars into the city areas...it just doesnt make no difference at all on a global scale." Politicians use to be ignorant of science. Having said that, cars and trucks are the biggest polluter in the world. I couldn't care less about "carbon emissions", but combustion particles, specially diesel from big truck, are really nasty for the environment.
- TheSpiceIsLife 13y ago
  Also, large cargo ships are one of the easier things to run on nuclear power. Take the Nimitz class carriers, for example, basically unlimited range and a 20 year refuelling cycle. Political palaver aside. Which makes shipping a relatively easy thing to fix if we ever perceive the need. (Though I'm not convinced several thousand nuclear reactors at sea is a brilliant idea). Edit: spelling and grammar.
TheSpiceIsLife 13y ago
Driving slower improves fuel efficiency (to a point). Newer engines designs, improved fuels, and engine emission control have had a huge impact on vehicle exhaust emissions and CO2 output per distance.

by kayoone 13y ago

GauntletWizard 13y ago

You did make a judgement: You compared the entire output of global shipping's carbon costs to just one (admittedly car-loving and industrious) country's intracontinental transport costs. You thought that this was somehow relevant and interesting to the conversation. You phrased it in such a way to make it out as a travesty. Yes, you made judgement.

kayoone 13y ago
those are just the vessels travelling through the panama canal, definitely not "the entire output of global shipping's carbon costs".
- joosters 13y ago
  It's still widely open to misinterpretation. Does it refer to the carbon emissions while they pass through the canal, or is it the total carbon emissions of all ships that have passed through the canal? Is the statistic just showing that lots of ships go through the canal in a year?
- TheSpiceIsLife 13y ago
  Specifically, the unqualified judgement you made was "nasty" in reference to "bunker fuel".
  - wmoser 13y ago
    Well to be fair, regardless of its suitability as a long term viable fuel source, it is nasty stuff. It's basically tar. It has to be kept heated to about 70c less it become to viscous and can't be pumped anymore and heated even more before being used in the engine.
  - kayoone 13y ago
    unqualified ? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-1...

forgottenpaswrd 13y ago

"That they are the most carbon efficient doesnt mean it couldnt be improved/replaced in the future however." The fact that transporting things by sea is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more efficient means that it is the last thing to improve-replace. "I just find it funny how politicians in my country try to save carbon emissions by enforcing a speed limit on highways or only let newer cars into the city areas...it just doesnt make no difference at all on a global scale." Politicians use to be ignorant of science. Having said that, cars and trucks are the biggest polluter in the world. I couldn't care less about "carbon emissions", but combustion particles, specially diesel from big truck, are really nasty for the environment.

TheSpiceIsLife 13y ago
Also, large cargo ships are one of the easier things to run on nuclear power. Take the Nimitz class carriers, for example, basically unlimited range and a 20 year refuelling cycle. Political palaver aside. Which makes shipping a relatively easy thing to fix if we ever perceive the need. (Though I'm not convinced several thousand nuclear reactors at sea is a brilliant idea). Edit: spelling and grammar.

TheSpiceIsLife 13y ago

Driving slower improves fuel efficiency (to a point). Newer engines designs, improved fuels, and engine emission control have had a huge impact on vehicle exhaust emissions and CO2 output per distance.