"15 of the world's biggest ships now emit as much pollution as the world's 760m cars" - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

MSD · 05-05-2009, 12:27 PM

Health risks of shipping pollution have been 'underestimated' | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Quote:

Britain and other European governments have been accused of underestimating the health risks from shipping pollution following research which shows that one giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50m cars.

Confidential data from maritime industry insiders based on engine size and the quality of fuel typically used by ships and cars shows that just 15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars. Low-grade ship bunker fuel (or fuel oil) has up to 2,000 times the sulphur content of diesel fuel used in US and European automobiles.

Pressure is mounting on the UN's International Maritime Organisation and the EU to tighten laws governing ship emissions following the decision by the US government last week to impose a strict 230-mile buffer zone along the entire US coast, a move that is expected to be followed by Canada.

The setting up of a low emission shipping zone follows US academic research which showed that pollution from the world's 90,000 cargo ships leads to 60,000 deaths a year in the US alone and costs up to $330bn per year in health costs from lung and heart diseases. The US Environmental Protection Agency estimates the buffer zone, which could be in place by next year, will save more than 8,000 lives a year with new air quality standards cutting sulphur in fuel by 98%, particulate matter by 85% and nitrogen oxide emissions by 80%.

The new study by the Danish government's environmental agency adds to this picture. It suggests that shipping emissions cost the Danish health service almost £5bn a year, mainly treating cancers and heart problems. A previous study estimated that 1,000 Danish people die prematurely each year because of shipping pollution. No comprehensive research has been carried out on the effects on UK coastal communities, but the number of deaths is expected to be much higher.

Europe, which has some of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, has dramatically cleaned up sulphur and nitrogen emissions from land-based transport in the past 20 years but has resisted imposing tight laws on the shipping industry, even though the technology exists to remove emissions. Cars driving 15,000km a year emit approximately 101 grammes of sulphur oxide gases (or SOx) in that time. The world's largest ships' diesel engines which typically operate for about 280 days a year generate roughly 5,200 tonnes of SOx.

The EU plans only two low-emission marine zones which should come into force in the English channel and Baltic sea after 2015. However, both are less stringent than the proposed US zone, and neither seeks to limit deadly particulate emissions.

Shipping emissions have escalated in the past 15 years as China has emerged as the world's manufacturing capital. A new breed of intercontinental container ship has been developed which is extremely cost-efficient. However, it uses diesel engines as powerful as land-based power stations but with the lowest quality fuel.

"Ship pollution affects the health of communities in coastal and inland regions around the world, yet pollution from ships remains one of the least regulated parts of our global transportation system," said James Corbett, professor of marine policy at the University of Delaware, one of the authors of the report which helped persuade the US government to act.

Today a spokesman for the UK government's Maritime and Coastguard Agency accepted there were major gaps in the legislation. "Issues of particulate matter remain a concern. They need to be addressed and we look forward to working with the international community," said environment policy director Jonathan Simpson.

"Europe needs a low emission zone right around its coasts, similar to the US, if we are to meet health and environmental objectives," said Crister Agrena of the Air Pollution and Climate Secretariat in Gothenburg, one of Europe's leading air quality organisations.

"It is unacceptable that shipping remains one of the most polluting industries in the world. The UK must take a lead in cleaning up emissions," said Simon Birkett, spokesman for the Campaign for Clean Air in London. "Other countries are planning radical action to achieve massive health and other savings but the UK is strangely inactive."

The calculations of ship and car pollution are based on the world's largest 85,790KW ships' diesel engines which operate about 280 days a year generating roughly 5,200 tonnes of SOx a year, compared with diesel and petrol cars which drive 15,000km a year and emit approximately 101gm of SO2/SoX a year.

Shipping by numbers

The world's biggest container ships have 109,000 horsepower engines which weigh 2,300 tons.

Each ship expects to operate 24hrs a day for about 280 days a year

There are 90,000 ocean-going cargo ships

Shipping is responsible for 18-30% of all the world's nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution and 9% of the global sulphur oxide (SOx) pollution.

One large ship can generate about 5,000 tonnes of sulphur oxide (SOx) pollution in a year

70% of all ship emissions are within 400km of land.

85% of all ship pollution is in the northern hemisphere.

Shipping is responsible for 3.5% to 4% of all climate change emissions

Your car, my car, and the car in front of you this morning that you couldn't see because of the wall of exhaust? A drop in the bucket when it comes to air pollution.

This worries me, not simply because of the effect, but because of the lack of alternatives. Bunker fuel, for those who don't know, is what's left over when you distill out all the stuff like gas, diesel, and natural gas. It's barely liquid, and needs to be heated to get it moving through the fuel lines. While we're worrying about miles per gallon on land, these ships are getting a few hundred feet per gallon. In the short term, it seems the way to minimize health risks in the short term is to require burning of clean fuel near land.

Here's a post from another forum dealing with cruise ships in Alaska:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Advent Horizon

Finally, on to ships. Bunker fuel burning ships are NASTY. In Juneau, where it's surrounded by mountains and there isn't a lot of wind in the summer, the cruise ships leave a blue fog over downtown. All the tourists comment about how clean our air is and I point them at the top of their ship. You can actually follow a ship around for up to several hours after it's left by the blue smoke trail. We NEED regulations on that shit because it's absolutely disgusting.

And some cruise lines do burn cleaner fuels. I know Carnival has a contract to burn biodiesel on their Alaskan cruises, I think they may have a similar contract in the Caribbean.

Edit: Here, I'll make it easy to see. This is one cruise ship, and it's idling. On a busy day we get seven. Now imagine them with a load of thousands of fatasses with all their engines spun up leaving an even bigger cloud. I don't have any better pictures of a clear day when you can really see the smog, mostly because I really don't want to be reminded of what it looks like.

Even when we have clean shipping zones around the coast, out on open water it's still a problem. The quick and easy thing to do about greenhouse gases is to retrofit ships with underwater exhaust pipes that diffuse everything into the water; this, of course, just shifts the problem to water pollution. Suggesting that private industry start operating nuclear-powered ships would rightfully open up a can of worms, but it seems to me like the only thing that could generate enough power to move these ships. I really don't know what can be done about it.

Xerxys · 05-05-2009, 12:45 PM

Freaky stuff!

FuglyStick · 05-05-2009, 12:55 PM

Those numbers are mind boggling.

Lucifer · 05-05-2009, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSD

This worries me, not simply because of the effect, but because of the lack of alternatives. Bunker fuel, for those who don't know, is what's left over when you distill out all the stuff like gas, diesel, and natural gas. It's barely liquid, and needs to be heated to get it moving through the fuel lines. While we're worrying about miles per gallon on land, these ships are getting a few hundred feet per gallon. In the short term, it seems the way to minimize health risks in the short term is to require burning of clean fuel near land.

A few hundred feet per gallon? I don't know where you get your facts, but here's something to think about:

On a single litre (about a 1/4 U.S. gallon) of fuel, one tonne of freight can travel 240 km by ship, compared with less than 100 km by train and less than 30 km by truck

Every mode of transportation carries an environmental footprint, and it’s important to note that the elimination of one maximum size Seaway vessel would require the addition of 875 truckloads on our highways, or the addition of 225 railcars to the rail system. Any addition of trucks or rail cars to our roads and railways would only serve to exacerbate current issues of congestion faced by those modes of transport and associated environmental effects.

Think about that the next time you are idling in traffic with a bunch of transport trucks on the highway.

HWYH20.COM

Quote:

What is Hwy H2O?

Hwy H2O is a 3,700-kilometer (2,400 mile) marine corridor between Canada and the United States. Comprised of the St. Lawrence River, St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes, Hwy H2O is a vital transportation artery that enables domestic and international trade and offers unique access directly into North America’s commercial, industrial and agricultural heartland.

The unfettered movement of vessels along the waterway ensures that cargo arrives reliably at its destination on time.

Hwy H2O is strategically positioned to play an important role in meeting our 21st century transportation and logistical challenges posed by changing markets, road congestion and overloaded coastal ports.
In addition to its crucial transportation function, the waterway is a popular recreational area enjoyed by millions and a natural resource that must be protected. Hwy H2O partners understand that the waterway is a shared resource that must continue to serve all of its distinct roles in perpetuity.

Hwy H2O by the numbers

* $285 billion – the value of the more than 2.3 billion tonnes of cargo carried along the St. Lawrence Seaway since its opening
* 4,363 – the number of vessel transits through the Montreal/Lake Ontario and Welland Canal section of the Seaway in 2005
* 281 days – the longest navigation season on record, set in 2004-2005
* 225,000 – the number of direct and indirect jobs related to the waterway
* 1 – the number of litres of fuel required to move one tonne of freight 240 kilometres by ship

Who is behind Hwy H2O?

Sponsors, Partners and Supporters of Hwy H2O include The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation and commercial entities such as ports and marine associated enterprises, associations and interest groups.

What are the objectives Hwy H2O?

Initiated in 2003, Hwy H2O works to identify and promote key opportunities for the marine mode to alleviate mounting pressures on our transportation system characterized by overloaded coastal ports and increasingly congested road and rail arteries.

With global trade forecasted to double or even triple within the next 20 years, the St. Lawrence Seaway offers unparalleled capacity to increase cargo volumes within its existing infrastructure. Hwy H2O is committed to raising awareness of the Seaway’s untapped potential for meeting current and future transportation challenges in an economically sound and environmentally responsible manner.

What is shortsea shipping and how does it work?

Shortsea shipping refers to the movement of cargo by water between points situated within relatively close proximity to one another. This may include domestic as well as international maritime transport along coastlines or within lakes and inland water systems.

The application of shortsea shipping along Hwy H2O is based on the reality that most ocean-going cargo and container vessels are too large to fit into the Seaway. Container vessels currently under construction are even larger yet, bringing about a future where only a limited number of coastal ports will be able to accommodate these enormous ships.

Accordingly, part of our vision of shortsea shipping along Hwy H2O sees large ocean-going container vessels docking at coastal ports (such as Halifax, Nova Scotia or Newark, NJ) where they would transfer their cargo to smaller "feeder" vessels, which would deliver the containers to a Seaway / Great Lakes port near their final destination.

It is important to note, ‘feedering’ would present the added environmental benefit of further mitigating the risk of introducing exotic or invasive species to the St. Lawrence Seaway / Great Lakes system that may be carried in ocean-going ships’ ballast water. Since feeder vessels would only transit routes within the waters of our own continental boundaries, they will not be carrying ballast water from overseas destinations. This approach would mitigate the potential introduction of aquatic invasive species to the Great Lakes / Seaway system via ballast water.

Other important benefits associated with shortsea shipping along Hwy H2O include the alleviation of congested road and rail arteries and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

What are the benefits of moving cargo by the marine mode along the Seaway?

Hwy H2O allows cargo to bypass border bottlenecks and congested railways and roads. The waterway’s available capacity and unrestricted movement of cargo in combination with the marine mode’s unmatched safety and fuel efficiency make moving cargo along Hwy H2O attractive to shippers, their customers and the businesses and communities who depend on the reliable delivery of their cargo.

What is being done to ensure that the issue of aquatic invasive species does not escalate?

Hwy H2O partners are committed to ensuring the waterway is maintained and developed in a manner that is environmentally and ecologically responsible.

Since ballast water carried by ocean-going vessels is one vector for the introduction of aquatic invasive species, requirements regarding ballast water management in the Great Lakes / Seaway System are among the most stringent in the world. Activities to address the introduction of new invasive species are occurring on international, national and state levels and the Great Lakes / St. Lawrence Seaway System has been on the forefront of this issue for many years.

Pending the development of treatment technologies, exchanging any freshwater ballast for saltwater is recognized as the most effective method to deal with any organisms that may be present. Ballast with a salinity (salt content) of 30 ppt (parts per thousand) or more is considered evidence that the tanks have been adequately exchanged and provide a suitably harsh environment for any remaining organisms. As part of the Enhanced Seaway Inspection (ESI) program for foreign flagged vessels, each and every vessel’s successful ballast water exchange is verified, including measuring the salinity of on-board ballast.

The Seaway Corporations have required vessels transiting the Seaway to also comply with two other standards of ballast water management that go beyond the requirements of the U.S. Coast Guard and Transport Canada. The Seaway regulations state that every vessel entering the Seaway after operating beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) must agree to comply with the “Code of Best Practices for Ballast Water Management” of the Shipping Federation of Canada dated September 28, 2000, while operating anywhere within the Great Lakes and the Seaway.

In addition, vessels that do not operate beyond the EEZ but do operate within the Great Lakes and Seaway (“lakers”) must agree to comply with the “Voluntary Management Practices to Reduce the Transfer of Aquatic Nuisance Species within the Great Lakes by U.S. and Canadian Domestic Shipping” of the Lake Carriers Association and Canadian Shipowners Association dated January 26, 2001.

These management practices expand upon the U.S. Coast Guard and Transport Canada regulations by requiring vessels to agree to regular inspections of ballast tanks and regular removal of sediment. Ocean vessels entering the Seaway must also agree to minimize ballasting operations under specified conditions.

Are there environmental benefits associated with utilizing marine transport?

Transporting goods by water delivers substantial environmental benefits, including:

* Energy efficiency – On a single litre (about a 1/4 U.S. gallon) of fuel, one tonne of freight can travel 240 km by ship, compared with less than 100 km by train and less than 30 km by truck

* Reduced ‘global warming’ emissions – Ships only emit one tenth the greenhouse gas emissions that trucks produce and half that of trains

* Increased safety – The marine mode is the safest mode of domestic and international freight transportation, thus reducing the likelihood of environmental harm caused by accidents and spills.

* Minimal noise – Marine transportation generates very little noise, when compared to other forms of transport

* Mitigated need for future highway and rail line infrastructure investment – Utilizing Hwy H2O decreases the need for new roadways and rail lines, the creation of which negatively impact quality of life, communities and the ecosystem

Every mode of transportation carries an environmental footprint, and it’s important to note that the elimination of one maximum size Seaway vessel would require the addition of 875 truckloads on our highways, or the addition of 225 railcars to the rail system. Any addition of trucks or rail cars to our roads and railways would only serve to exacerbate current issues of congestion faced by those modes of transport and associated environmental effects.

Cynosure · 05-05-2009, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucifer

Every mode of transportation carries an environmental footprint, and it’s important to note that [U]the elimination of one maximum size Seaway vessel would require the addition of 875 truckloads on our highways, or the addition of 225 railcars to the rail system.

Wait. Doesn't it take hundreds if not thousands of trucks and/or railcars to transport those goods from the container ships at the port, to all the warehouses and stores throughout the U.S., anyway?

If we really want to cut down on the colossal carbon footprint created by container ships crossing the ocean, back and forth, we should cut down on the vast number of goods manufactured overseas, along with the required massive exports and imports.

But that would be crazy, wouldn't it... ?

Lucifer · 05-05-2009, 01:54 PM

yes, it would be crazy! North American economy would be in even worse shape than it is now! That's partly why having the Great Lakes system makes such sense. It opens up places like Chicago, Milwaukee, Gary, Indiana and Burn's Harbor, Rochester, Cleveland, Toledo, Saginaw to International shipping via the St. Lawrence Seaway. Most of the road salt used in those cities and surrounding communities comes from Goderich, Ontario (a small town of about 15,000, and one enormous mine), and it comes in on Canadian ships throughout the shipping season.

Cynosure · 05-05-2009, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucifer

yes, it would be crazy! North American economy would be in even worse shape than it is now!

True. But how much longer can this planet bear an economy – and the lifestyle that is dependent upon that economy – like that of the U.S., especially since now that other countries, like China and India, are coming up to speed?

Lucifer · 05-05-2009, 02:08 PM

I don't honestly know and it's slightly off topic, but I always feel a little embarrassed that now that we've enjoyed the lifestyle, we can point our fingers at the 3rd world who are just getting there and say, "oh, you can't do that, it's bad for the environment." On the other hand, some of the 3rd world countries who can't compete in heavy industry are starting to kick the crap out of the 1st world in high technology areas. Also, notice Japan wiping the floor with the Big Three automakers.

FuglyStick · 05-05-2009, 02:17 PM

this will be met with derision, as people generally have their minds made up about those things, but the US auto industry is making vehicles just as reliable as the rest of the world now. Twenty years ago, the argument could be made that American cars were inferior to those from Asia and Europe in terms of quality; that simply isn't the case anymore, and reliability studies will support that claim.

Of course, that's not going to change anyone's mind who insists that American cars are inferior, even in the face of data that shows otherwise. But it's those misconceptions as much as anything which has crippled the US auto industry.

shakran · 05-05-2009, 02:36 PM

The topic, I think, is about large ships, not American vs. Japanese cars.

biznatch · 05-05-2009, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynosure

True. But how much longer can this planet bear an economy – and the lifestyle that is dependent upon that economy – like that of the U.S., especially since now that other countries, like China and India, are coming up to speed?

Whether the planet can handle it has always been irrelevant to how things happen. Sure, sometimes a law passes forcing technologies to become less harmful to the environment, but industry usually does what's cheapest and most practical.
If a shipping company decides they're becoming green, the rise in costs will probably make them lose customers.
The only time politicians react is when a oilspill, or something else that has a huge visual impact happens close to home. Then people get outraged, and politicians who want votes try and get laws passed. I might be a bit cynical, but I believe that's how it happens.

stevie667 · 05-05-2009, 03:06 PM

Nucular, it's pronounced Nucular.

Thats about the only way we'll get around this. It's all very well say 'omg, teh ships are teh evilz!', but how else do you propose we get all these goods around the world? Air? That'll be even worse.

Cynosure · 05-05-2009, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

The topic, I think, is about large ships, not American vs. Japanese cars.

True, but the subjects are related... and even dependent upon each other.

roachboy · 05-05-2009, 03:49 PM

so let's think about this. say both msd and lucifer are right. where does that leave us? well, the short of it is that the present model of capitalism is simply not sustainable. ocean shipping is fundamental to the entire globalizing capitalist order...which is a result of a significant mutation in the old centralized production model into one that's liked via automated forms of just-in-time systems, and so is comprised of supply chains..one of the main drivers behind this is that it enables externalization of costs like social and environmental responsibility, and enables the race to the bottom in terms of wages and working conditions---which is of a piece with the autonomization of capital....it's a highly centralized mode of doing things, but one which exploits newer technologies to get around problems of older-style mass production--for example j-i-t systems typically have quite flexible assembly lines, which enable shorter production runs...so it's a mode that in many ways is as or more centralized than was the older factory system, but it appears not to be. costs can be driven down by avoiding social and environmental responsibility and by continually pushing down wages through manoevering bids within the supply pool such that it makes sense from a profit viewpoint--but no other--to spread elements of a production chain all over the place geographically and connect the elements with container ships and combinations of rail and trucking. but there's a downside to this spreading, and it's in the transport linkages that hold the system together that you can really see them, at least from an environmental damage viewpoint.

but these things are invisible for most folk, so there's little in the way of politics surrounding this.

this form of centralization is THE problem that explains this entire mess that's being discussed in this thread. to get around it, there'd have to be a different politics of production and distribution--an emphasis on decentralization, say---pressure to move the elements of production closer to the rest of the system (distribution, etc) and to each other--a movement for force capital to accept the social and environmental responsibilities that follow from their ability to extract profit at all---folk would have to start seeing capitalism as a social system, it's outcomes as following from choices, not from forces of nature, not from some magical hydraulics that is somehow assumed to explain how markets operate.

this is the world that neoliberalism brought us all--to change it, we'd have to rid ourselves of the whole of the fog that it cast around capitalism and force a very different arrangement. short of that, lucifer's right--and so is msd--and if that's the case, we could all be fucked.

Charlatan · 05-05-2009, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevie667

Nucular, it's pronounced Nucular.

Thats about the only way we'll get around this. It's all very well say 'omg, teh ships are teh evilz!', but how else do you propose we get all these goods around the world? Air? That'll be even worse.

I don't see a single person suggesting air.

I think, if anything, the OP is simply attempting to inform us of what many do not know.

I am with Lucifer on this one. It is a an economy of scale. Yes, the ships are making a lot of pollution but given the amounts of goods they carry vs. the amounts that trucks and trains can carry, they are actually polluting less.

Comparing ships to cars is disingenuous. It's not as though people are taking ships to the corner store for a pack of smokes.

What needs to be done is that governments and industry need to invest now in clean power generation. Perhaps it is nuclear. Perhaps it is hydrogen. Perhaps it is using nuclear to create hydrogen. Maybe its something that will be invented by a kid in kindergarten today.

The point is, we need to invest in this today.

stevie667 · 05-06-2009, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I don't see a single person suggesting air.

I think, if anything, the OP is simply attempting to inform us of what many do not know.

Was just pre-empting someone saying that, because i had this same debate a few weeks ago, and someone came up with idea of building a fleet of Antonovs

Lucifer · 05-06-2009, 04:01 AM

well, when you consider the lift capacity alone, I think the re-birth of the Zeppelin may not be far in the future...

roachboy · 05-06-2009, 04:49 AM

i still think we're looking at this in too narrow a way: the Problem lay with the architectures of the socio-economic system that these transportation elements are part of.

for example if you are managing a supply chain by computer, the components are updated in real time, the system looks coherent and tight in terms of flows of objects and, by extension, geography. but that geography is possible because you have regular connecting transportation linkages--without them, it makes no sense to have, say, a facility in southern china, a facility in sri lanka, a facility in the bahamas and a facility in new jersey be part of the same production cycle.

the problem then is ot economy of scale but a particular set of ways to organize production around economies of scale.

it's a very basic political question.

MSD · 05-06-2009, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

The topic, I think, is about large ships, not American vs. Japanese cars.

People who hate American cars will drag them into any argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevie667

Nucular, it's pronounced Nucular.

Thats about the only way we'll get around this. It's all very well say 'omg, teh ships are teh evilz!', but how else do you propose we get all these goods around the world? Air? That'll be even worse.

It seems like that's the way to go, but think about what would happen if those ships that ran aground and spilled oil had nuclear reactors on them. It would probably be perfectly safe considering the amount of shielding and armoring they would put into it, but nuclear power barely has majority support in the US now and that kind of thing would get the shipping industry crucified by well-meaning environmentalists. Add to that the increase in piracy and the potential profit to be made on one ship's worth of any nuclear fuel, weapons-grade or not, and you have a whole new set of problems to overcome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucifer

well, when you consider the lift capacity alone, I think the re-birth of the Zeppelin may not be far in the future...

I am unabashedly, unconditionally pro-zeppelin. I think you're on to something here.

Baraka_Guru · 05-06-2009, 06:40 AM

As with most major problems, there are many facets to their solutions:

YouTube - ''The first kite-powered cargo ship''

At this point in our technological development, I expect nothing less than attempting to make efficient use of energy wherever possible. This is just one example.

roachboy is on the right track in terms of this being more than just a fuel usage issue. The production and distribution channels (not to mention packaging and storage) have been globalized and are another serious aspect to the problem.

That I can pick up a cheap bunch of bananas here in Toronto at any given time is something I take for granted.

shakran · 05-06-2009, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSD

People who hate American cars will drag them into any argument.

It seems like that's the way to go, but think about what would happen if those ships that ran aground and spilled oil had nuclear reactors on them.

Even worse than that, do we really want the Somalian pirates getting hold of a ship with a nuclear reactor on it? The Navy can get away with it because no one's gonna be able to take over a naval ship. The civilian ships would have to also be armed to the teeth before they were safe enough to become nuc boats.

bodykits · 05-06-2009, 07:22 AM

that is very interesting dude... Spooky..

BadNick · 05-06-2009, 07:39 AM

A more immediate solution than converting ships to other power sources (e.g. nuclear, fuel cell, etc) is burning cleaner fuel (e.g. diesel vs bunker). But even on existing ship engines that have high pollution emissions, you can add scrubbers that are very effective at cleaning the stack exhaust...this is just like has already been done with many landbased dirty-stack industries. And note that there are scrubber designs that don't just wash the dirt into the ocean, the dirt can be removed from the exhaust, stored (does not take up significant onboard space) and later disposed of properly in a non-polluting manner.

Charlatan · 05-06-2009, 04:24 PM

I agree that the global system of production and distribution is the main part of the problem but I don't see that system going anywhere anytime soon and as long as it exists, there will be a demand for shipping massive amounts of goods around the globe. Far better to find cleaner methods of shipping those goods.

Another vote here for Zeppelin shipping. There have been some massive advancements in Germany in the past 10 years.

roachboy · 05-06-2009, 04:31 PM

the global production system could be changed quite rapidly, actually. clamp down on capital flows and make it more expensive to move goods over long distances. for example. the system took shape very quickly and presupposed particular conditions--those conditions can change. we aren't talking about a revolution.

this despite my fondness for everything zeppelin.

Baraka_Guru · 05-06-2009, 04:33 PM

Even energy delivery systems need to be changed. If you look at the loss inherent in the current systems, you'd be appalled. Both problems are one of attempting to do everything over long distances, which is wasteful.

We're hanging on to our traditional models despite the fact that they were designed for intercity distribution, rather than international.

Lindy · 05-06-2009, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucifer

A few hundred feet per gallon? I don't know where you get your facts, but here's something to think about:
On a single litre (about a 1/4 U.S. gallon) of fuel, one tonne of freight can travel 240 km by ship, compared with less than 100 km by train and less than 30 km by truck

I won't argue with the basic fact, but the scale is waaay off. Some container ships are moving over 150,000 tons. Or tonnes, if you will. Not "one tonne of freight." In round figures, 37,000 gallons of fuel to move that ship your 240km.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i still think we're looking at this in too narrow a way: the Problem lay with the architectures of the socio-economic system that these transportation elements are part of....the problem then is ot economy of scale but a particular set of ways to organize production around economies of scale....it's a very basic political question.

Wow! This has to be serious if roachboy is willing to call it a Problem with an uppercase P.

The larger sustainability problem lies in the fact that the world population is closing in on SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE!

That is causing, and will continue to cause huge problems, because a population of seven billion is not sustainable (long term) regardless of whatever social and political "isms" prevail. The world is in desperate need of losing two or three billion living, breathing, eating, consuming, shitting, fucking, (and thereby reproducing) people. Through war, AIDS, swine flu, whatever. Any volunteers?

OK, not me either.

Lindy

Painted · 05-06-2009, 09:29 PM

This doesn't really apply to this argument, but I work in logistics, and FYI our business is quite slow these days. Luckily I'm on the shipping end of things, so I get all these great rates from trucking companies dying for business. Example: A few weeks ago I scored a FTL (full truckload) from near LA to Baltimore, for $760. The opposite lane (Baltimore-LA) is typically $3-4k.

Also FYI, weight is just one factor in shipping things. Cubic feet (Sometimes I do shipments of pillows - FTL but only 5-6k lbs. FTLs can go up to 50k lbs.), commodity (some carriers won't do fragiles, or stuff that's too expensive.), expedited shipments, trade regulations, etc.

ASU2003 · 05-21-2009, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSD

It seems like that's the way to go, but think about what would happen if those ships that ran aground and spilled oil had nuclear reactors on them. It would probably be perfectly safe considering the amount of shielding and armoring they would put into it, but nuclear power barely has majority support in the US now and that kind of thing would get the shipping industry crucified by well-meaning environmentalists. Add to that the increase in piracy and the potential profit to be made on one ship's worth of any nuclear fuel, weapons-grade or not, and you have a whole new set of problems to overcome.

Nuclear powered ships should be the norm. And I'm an environmentalist. As long as it's done safely, and the core/fuel can be ejected in the event of pirate takeover. It would need to be in a shielded reactor that could be retrieved by the navy afterwards.

But it is 8 gallons per mile to power those cruise ships.

MSD · 05-26-2009, 11:52 AM

I'm an environmentalist and pro-nuke, my concern is keeping everything safe. If we can do that, I'm all for it.

05-05-2009, 12:55 PM	#3 (permalink)
FuglyStick WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE! Location: Southern Illinois	Those numbers are mind boggling. __________________ AZIZ! LIGHT!

05-05-2009, 01:54 PM	#6 (permalink)
Lucifer Husband of Seamaiden Location: Nova Scotia	yes, it would be crazy! North American economy would be in even worse shape than it is now! That's partly why having the Great Lakes system makes such sense. It opens up places like Chicago, Milwaukee, Gary, Indiana and Burn's Harbor, Rochester, Cleveland, Toledo, Saginaw to International shipping via the St. Lawrence Seaway. Most of the road salt used in those cities and surrounding communities comes from Goderich, Ontario (a small town of about 15,000, and one enormous mine), and it comes in on Canadian ships throughout the shipping season. __________________ I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls. - Job 30:29 1123, 6536, 5321

05-05-2009, 02:08 PM	#8 (permalink)
Lucifer Husband of Seamaiden Location: Nova Scotia	I don't honestly know and it's slightly off topic, but I always feel a little embarrassed that now that we've enjoyed the lifestyle, we can point our fingers at the 3rd world who are just getting there and say, "oh, you can't do that, it's bad for the environment." On the other hand, some of the 3rd world countries who can't compete in heavy industry are starting to kick the crap out of the 1st world in high technology areas. Also, notice Japan wiping the floor with the Big Three automakers. __________________ I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls. - Job 30:29 1123, 6536, 5321

05-05-2009, 02:17 PM	#9 (permalink)
FuglyStick WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE! Location: Southern Illinois	this will be met with derision, as people generally have their minds made up about those things, but the US auto industry is making vehicles just as reliable as the rest of the world now. Twenty years ago, the argument could be made that American cars were inferior to those from Asia and Europe in terms of quality; that simply isn't the case anymore, and reliability studies will support that claim. Of course, that's not going to change anyone's mind who insists that American cars are inferior, even in the face of data that shows otherwise. But it's those misconceptions as much as anything which has crippled the US auto industry. __________________ AZIZ! LIGHT!

05-05-2009, 03:06 PM	#12 (permalink)
stevie667 Too Awesome for Aardvarks Location: Angloland	Nucular, it's pronounced Nucular. Thats about the only way we'll get around this. It's all very well say 'omg, teh ships are teh evilz!', but how else do you propose we get all these goods around the world? Air? That'll be even worse. __________________ Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

05-05-2009, 12:45 PM	#2 (permalink)
Xerxys Junkie Location: My head.	Freaky stuff!

05-05-2009, 02:36 PM	#10 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	The topic, I think, is about large ships, not American vs. Japanese cars.

05-05-2009, 03:49 PM	#14 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so let's think about this. say both msd and lucifer are right. where does that leave us? well, the short of it is that the present model of capitalism is simply not sustainable. ocean shipping is fundamental to the entire globalizing capitalist order...which is a result of a significant mutation in the old centralized production model into one that's liked via automated forms of just-in-time systems, and so is comprised of supply chains..one of the main drivers behind this is that it enables externalization of costs like social and environmental responsibility, and enables the race to the bottom in terms of wages and working conditions---which is of a piece with the autonomization of capital....it's a highly centralized mode of doing things, but one which exploits newer technologies to get around problems of older-style mass production--for example j-i-t systems typically have quite flexible assembly lines, which enable shorter production runs...so it's a mode that in many ways is as or more centralized than was the older factory system, but it appears not to be. costs can be driven down by avoiding social and environmental responsibility and by continually pushing down wages through manoevering bids within the supply pool such that it makes sense from a profit viewpoint--but no other--to spread elements of a production chain all over the place geographically and connect the elements with container ships and combinations of rail and trucking. but there's a downside to this spreading, and it's in the transport linkages that hold the system together that you can really see them, at least from an environmental damage viewpoint. but these things are invisible for most folk, so there's little in the way of politics surrounding this. this form of centralization is THE problem that explains this entire mess that's being discussed in this thread. to get around it, there'd have to be a different politics of production and distribution--an emphasis on decentralization, say---pressure to move the elements of production closer to the rest of the system (distribution, etc) and to each other--a movement for force capital to accept the social and environmental responsibilities that follow from their ability to extract profit at all---folk would have to start seeing capitalism as a social system, it's outcomes as following from choices, not from forces of nature, not from some magical hydraulics that is somehow assumed to explain how markets operate. this is the world that neoliberalism brought us all--to change it, we'd have to rid ourselves of the whole of the fog that it cast around capitalism and force a very different arrangement. short of that, lucifer's right--and so is msd--and if that's the case, we could all be fucked. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-06-2009, 04:01 AM	#17 (permalink)
Lucifer Husband of Seamaiden Location: Nova Scotia	well, when you consider the lift capacity alone, I think the re-birth of the Zeppelin may not be far in the future... __________________ I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls. - Job 30:29 1123, 6536, 5321

05-06-2009, 04:49 AM	#18 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i still think we're looking at this in too narrow a way: the Problem lay with the architectures of the socio-economic system that these transportation elements are part of. for example if you are managing a supply chain by computer, the components are updated in real time, the system looks coherent and tight in terms of flows of objects and, by extension, geography. but that geography is possible because you have regular connecting transportation linkages--without them, it makes no sense to have, say, a facility in southern china, a facility in sri lanka, a facility in the bahamas and a facility in new jersey be part of the same production cycle. the problem then is ot economy of scale but a particular set of ways to organize production around economies of scale. it's a very basic political question. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-06-2009, 07:22 AM	#22 (permalink)
bodykits Banned	that is very interesting dude... Spooky..

05-06-2009, 07:39 AM	#23 (permalink)
BadNick Riding the Ocean Spray Location: S.E. PA in U Sofa	A more immediate solution than converting ships to other power sources (e.g. nuclear, fuel cell, etc) is burning cleaner fuel (e.g. diesel vs bunker). But even on existing ship engines that have high pollution emissions, you can add scrubbers that are very effective at cleaning the stack exhaust...this is just like has already been done with many landbased dirty-stack industries. And note that there are scrubber designs that don't just wash the dirt into the ocean, the dirt can be removed from the exhaust, stored (does not take up significant onboard space) and later disposed of properly in a non-polluting manner.

05-06-2009, 04:24 PM	#24 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I agree that the global system of production and distribution is the main part of the problem but I don't see that system going anywhere anytime soon and as long as it exists, there will be a demand for shipping massive amounts of goods around the globe. Far better to find cleaner methods of shipping those goods. Another vote here for Zeppelin shipping. There have been some massive advancements in Germany in the past 10 years. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

05-06-2009, 04:31 PM	#25 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the global production system could be changed quite rapidly, actually. clamp down on capital flows and make it more expensive to move goods over long distances. for example. the system took shape very quickly and presupposed particular conditions--those conditions can change. we aren't talking about a revolution. this despite my fondness for everything zeppelin. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-06-2009, 04:33 PM	#26 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Even energy delivery systems need to be changed. If you look at the loss inherent in the current systems, you'd be appalled. Both problems are one of attempting to do everything over long distances, which is wasteful. We're hanging on to our traditional models despite the fact that they were designed for intercity distribution, rather than international. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

05-06-2009, 09:29 PM	#28 (permalink)
Painted Pleasure Burn	This doesn't really apply to this argument, but I work in logistics, and FYI our business is quite slow these days. Luckily I'm on the shipping end of things, so I get all these great rates from trucking companies dying for business. Example: A few weeks ago I scored a FTL (full truckload) from near LA to Baltimore, for $760. The opposite lane (Baltimore-LA) is typically $3-4k. Also FYI, weight is just one factor in shipping things. Cubic feet (Sometimes I do shipments of pillows - FTL but only 5-6k lbs. FTLs can go up to 50k lbs.), commodity (some carriers won't do fragiles, or stuff that's too expensive.), expedited shipments, trade regulations, etc. __________________ I came across a nice rack at the department store

05-26-2009, 11:52 AM	#30 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	I'm an environmentalist and pro-nuke, my concern is keeping everything safe. If we can do that, I'm all for it.