3 ms·

Pfft, the extra mile. Transporting your goods around the world on coal burning ships does not an environmentalist make.

lotsofmangos 13y ago
The only large commercial ships left that I am aware of that are still coal burning, transport coal. Very few ports are equipped to refuel coal.
- SixSigma 13y ago
  my mistake, I thought bunker fuel was a coal derivative 6 years ago 90,000 were running on bunker fuel http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/ http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/ 370 million tonnes of it get burned every year and the price is rising http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-11/ship-fuel-prices-seen-second-highest-ever-amid-crimped-supply.html http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-11/ship-fuel-prices...
  - lotsofmangos 13y ago
    Given the cost of fuel is rising, these guys will hopefully benefit. http://www.skysails.info/english/skysails-marine/skysails-propulsion-for-cargo-ships/ http://www.skysails.info/english/skysails-marine/skysails-pr...
username223 13y ago
Is shipping really a significant part of the environmental impact of making electronics in China and selling them in the US? Shipping is way more efficient per mile than most other forms of transport, and IIUC much of the environmental impact of devices comes from disposing of them and the toxic chemicals they contain.
- SixSigma 13y ago
  If they were really not profit centered then the making of electronics wouldn't be in China.
  - username223 13y ago
    I don't think anyone's claiming Apple's a charity -- at least I'm not. I actually had an honest question about relative environmental impacts, but that's probably not what we're talking about here, so nevermind. "Trying to make money" is not the same as "trying to make money in every possible way, no matter the consequences."
    - SixSigma 13y ago
      Efficient per mile only in terms of cost of operation. Pollution wise, planes would be less. The market is not very good at correcting for the future. Regulatory pressure would be the primary mechanism for change. But again, if Apple wanted to be more regulated they wouldn't be manufacturing in China.
      - username223 13y ago
        Planes? A bit of quick searching backs up what I thought -- ships are way less carbon-intensive than planes, though, to my surprise, less efficient than rail: http://carbonfund.org/how-we-calculate http://carbonfund.org/how-we-calculate And while I'm all for regulation, I'm basically pessimistic. Then again, overpopulation and nuclear escalation turned out less bad than I expected, so what do I know?

The only large commercial ships left that I am aware of that are still coal burning, transport coal. Very few ports are equipped to refuel coal.

SixSigma 13y ago
my mistake, I thought bunker fuel was a coal derivative 6 years ago 90,000 were running on bunker fuel http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/ http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/ 370 million tonnes of it get burned every year and the price is rising http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-11/ship-fuel-prices-seen-second-highest-ever-amid-crimped-supply.html http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-11/ship-fuel-prices...
- lotsofmangos 13y ago
  Given the cost of fuel is rising, these guys will hopefully benefit. http://www.skysails.info/english/skysails-marine/skysails-propulsion-for-cargo-ships/ http://www.skysails.info/english/skysails-marine/skysails-pr...

username223 13y ago

Is shipping really a significant part of the environmental impact of making electronics in China and selling them in the US? Shipping is way more efficient per mile than most other forms of transport, and IIUC much of the environmental impact of devices comes from disposing of them and the toxic chemicals they contain.

SixSigma 13y ago
If they were really not profit centered then the making of electronics wouldn't be in China.
- username223 13y ago
  I don't think anyone's claiming Apple's a charity -- at least I'm not. I actually had an honest question about relative environmental impacts, but that's probably not what we're talking about here, so nevermind. "Trying to make money" is not the same as "trying to make money in every possible way, no matter the consequences."
  - SixSigma 13y ago
    Efficient per mile only in terms of cost of operation. Pollution wise, planes would be less. The market is not very good at correcting for the future. Regulatory pressure would be the primary mechanism for change. But again, if Apple wanted to be more regulated they wouldn't be manufacturing in China.
    - username223 13y ago
      Planes? A bit of quick searching backs up what I thought -- ships are way less carbon-intensive than planes, though, to my surprise, less efficient than rail: http://carbonfund.org/how-we-calculate http://carbonfund.org/how-we-calculate And while I'm all for regulation, I'm basically pessimistic. Then again, overpopulation and nuclear escalation turned out less bad than I expected, so what do I know?