Shipping Emissions

[james_tigerwoods]

I've just glanced through the "Greenies say that Lamborghini is killing small fluffy animals" thread and it’s made me wonder this:

Worldwide governments and greenies are all going on about how cars and power stations are killing the environment and that they should make so many changes to save the planet (commendable I suppose).

I was listening to something on Radio 4 last week and from what I remember, shipping puts out far more pollution than cars and is, for the most part, unregulated - My question really is, why isn't shipping directly targeted and why does it seem to rarely merit much of a mention?

[davido140]

james_tigerwoods said:

I've just glanced through the "Greenies say that Lamborghini is killing small fluffy animals" thread and it’s made me wonder this:

Worldwide governments and greenies are all going on about how cars and power stations are killing the environment and that they should make so many changes to save the planet (commendable I suppose).

I was listening to something on Radio 4 last week and from what I remember, shipping puts out far more pollution than cars and is, for the most part, unregulated - My question really is, why isn't shipping directly targeted and why does it seem to rarely merit much of a mention?

possibly because it all happens in international waters where sailors can send all day crapping off the bow of the ship if the mood takes them and they are untouchable?

More likely motorists are in general a "soft target" comared to the very big business of shipping.

[RDE]

I learned from Grand Designs last night that manufacturing concrete produces a ton of CO2 for every ton made, and in a year makes more CO2 than aviation does. Yet people camp outside airports where highly efficient, tiny profit-margin airliners fly and whinge. I've never seen anyone camping outside a cement works with placards.

[davido140]

RDE said:

I learned from Grand Designs last night that manufacturing concrete produces a ton of CO2 for every ton made, and in a year makes more CO2 than aviation does. Yet people camp outside airports where highly efficient, tiny profit-margin airliners fly and whinge. I've never seen anyone camping outside a cement works with placards.

I can give you the reason for that..

It's because CO2 compaigners are s.

simples.

[GTIR]

Those Greenpiece ships are all old beyond life (commercial) bangers and are not very efficient, and they have six of them!

[Monki]

GTIR said:

Those Greenpiece ships are all old beyond life (commercial) bangers and are not very efficient, and they have six of them!

so the french secret service were saving the environment when they sank one in New Zealand then

[mybrainhurts.]

james_tigerwoods said:

I was listening to something on Radio 4 last week and from what I remember, shipping puts out far more pollution than cars and is, for the most part, unregulated - My question really is, why isn't shipping directly targeted and why does it seem to rarely merit much of a mention?

Because ships are slow and dull....

Greenies and governments want to punish fun...

[mybrainhurts.]

And what about diesel ambiwlanses....?

[Tom_C76]

RDE said:

I learned from Grand Designs last night that manufacturing concrete produces a ton of CO2 for every ton made, and in a year makes more CO2 than aviation does. Yet people camp outside airports where highly efficient, tiny profit-margin airliners fly and whinge. I've never seen anyone camping outside a cement works with placards.

Two things here really.

1. Concrete is pretty much essential, air travel is optional. Or would you rather not have a house?

2. Making cement does give off CO2. But once cast, the concrete absorbs the stuff like it's going out of fashion.

TC

[Tom_C76]

james_tigerwoods said:

I've just glanced through the "Greenies say that Lamborghini is killing small fluffy animals" thread and it’s made me wonder this:

Worldwide governments and greenies are all going on about how cars and power stations are killing the environment and that they should make so many changes to save the planet (commendable I suppose).

I was listening to something on Radio 4 last week and from what I remember, shipping puts out far more pollution than cars and is, for the most part, unregulated - My question really is, why isn't shipping directly targeted and why does it seem to rarely merit much of a mention?

Per mile travelled a ship puts out far more pollution than an HGV. But to move the same amount of stuff I think the answer would be rather different. Transport by boat is much more efficient as the thing floats so has very little friction to overcome.

[james_tigerwoods]

It's clearly a well known, documented fact about shipping, but I did know that as it's all in international waters - getting a consensus was/would be just about impossible, therefore noone does anything - Isn't that a tad ridiculous?

[RDE]

Tom_C76 said:

Two things here really.

1. Concrete is pretty much essential, air travel is optional. Or would you rather not have a house?

2. Making cement does give off CO2. But once cast, the concrete absorbs the stuff like it's going out of fashion.

TC

Well, i'm screwed either way. If there's no air travel I don't have a job!

Point taken though.

[Spiritual_Beggar]

Also, it's because THIS IS ALL A CON!

IF it actually was about 'Saving the planet, etc, etc', then Buses, Planes, Ships, Industry would be the focus for any green initiatives, since these are the heaviest polluting areas!!!

But it's not....it's about profit. And governments can target Joe Bloggs with his car because 'he' is not big enough to fight his corner and is an easy target!

[collateral]

AutoEx said the biggest 15 ships chuck out as much crap as all the cars on earth!

[a boardman]

what if you took all the worlds largest ships / supertanks out of the water,

would sea levels drop?

[Taffer]

Ships do generate a large amount of emissions, but it's unavoidable when you look at the size of the engines involved, and pollution regulation is well enforced. Any liquid discharge overboard cannot contain more than 15ppm of oil, even in international waters, and in many 'special areas' (e.g. Mediterranean, Black Sea, etc.) no discharge is allowed.

The MARPOL act has various annexes, Annex VI which deals with air pollution sets limits on emissions of Sulphur oxides and Nitrogen oxides, and ships are subject to limits on the amount of black smoke they can emit when flashing up the engines. Fines for breaking any of the MARPOL regulations are usually quite large, and the law is rigorously applied - Masters and Chief Engineers found guilty of breaking MARPOL have been fined over $100,000 and gone to prison in many cases.

About 97% of all the world's goods are moved about by ship, so they are essential services in the global market - when you factor in the volume of cargo they carry, emissions are actually quite low.

More info. on MARPOL here: http://www.imo.org/TCD/contents.asp?doc_id=678&amp...


Sorry to be a bit boring about it, but shipping is far from a free-for-all in pollution regulation, and without it, international trade would be in the st.

[Jaguar steve]

Tom_C76 said:

RDE said:

I learned from Grand Designs last night that manufacturing concrete produces a ton of CO2 for every ton made, and in a year makes more CO2 than aviation does. Yet people camp outside airports where highly efficient, tiny profit-margin airliners fly and whinge. I've never seen anyone camping outside a cement works with placards.

Two things here really.

1. Concrete is pretty much essential, air travel is optional. Or would you rather not have a house?

2. Making cement does give off CO2. But once cast, the concrete absorbs the stuff like it's going out of fashion.

TC

Surely it's all relative to your point of view?

Personally I wouldn't call the millions of tons of concrete that's being manufactured and transported and the environmental impact of doing so to construct the 2012 Olympic venue as essential for example.

You never hear the Ecomentalists protesting about that 'tho do you? and I'll bet not one of them has added up the total anticipated Co2 emmissions directly and indirectly related to staging the event.

Nobody really needs either the Olympic Games or a larger engined car. They are both causing more environmental impact than necessary. But presumably as there's been no protest from the 'Mentalists, the massive Co2 release from the Olympics is OK then, whilst the tiny difference between a V8 and a smaller engined car from a global total is not? Cs.

[hidetheelephants]

Taffer said:

Ships do generate a large amount of emissions, but it's unavoidable when you look at the size of the engines involved, and pollution regulation is well enforced. Any liquid discharge overboard cannot contain more than 15ppm of oil, even in international waters, and in many 'special areas' (e.g. Mediterranean, Black Sea, etc.) no discharge is allowed.

The MARPOL act has various annexes, Annex VI which deals with air pollution sets limits on emissions of Sulphur oxides and Nitrogen oxides, and ships are subject to limits on the amount of black smoke they can emit when flashing up the engines. Fines for breaking any of the MARPOL regulations are usually quite large, and the law is rigorously applied - Masters and Chief Engineers found guilty of breaking MARPOL have been fined over $100,000 and gone to prison in many a few cases.

Do you believe in the toothfairy by any chance? Santa? Fancy buying a bridge? It's in London Englandshire, and the tourists all love it; bargain for you sir....

Suffice to say, magic pipes exist and oily sludge continues to disappear from waste tanks on ships; most of the time nowt happens to stop it. The ability to monitor emissions into the air/sea when a ship is offshore is very limited, most of the ones that get nabbed are shopped by 3rd parties or disgruntled crew. If stack emissions are an issue, then I believe removing the sulphur at the refinery would be a lot more sensible than requiring every ship that burns HFO(the stty black tarry stuff) to be equipped with expensive flue gas scrubbers that may not work, will be a castiron bd maintenance nightmare, and may render the burning of HFO uneconomic. This is a bad thing as shipping is only cheap because HFO is cheap; if we have to burn something cleaner like diesel, the cost goes up££££.

I don't think much of oily water separators; those I've had the misfortune to encounter were both useless at their task and equipped with easily bamboozled monitoring equipment; a rare occurrence of German hardware being pants. A far simpler and cheaper solution would be to oblige all port authorities to receive oily waste for free/nominal charges; all incentive to ditch the stuff over the side vanishes and the seas become a cleaner place(this is copyright by the way; my licencing fees will be v. reasonable...)

Taffer said:

About 97% of all the world's goods are moved about by ship, so they are essential services in the global market - when you factor in the volume of cargo they carry, emissions are actually quitevery low.

More info. on MARPOL here: http://www.imo.org/TCD/contents.asp?doc_id=678&amp...

Sorry to be a bit boring about it, but shipping is far from a free-for-all in pollution regulation, and without it, international trade would be in the st.

Quite, people go on about globalisation/outsourcing/whatever; without shipping none of it's possible, although given some of the shite we ship in from China perhaps that would not be a bad thing...

[thinfourth2]

hidetheelephants said:

Taffer said:

Ships do generate a large amount of emissions, but it's unavoidable when you look at the size of the engines involved, and pollution regulation is well enforced. Any liquid discharge overboard cannot contain more than 15ppm of oil, even in international waters, and in many 'special areas' (e.g. Mediterranean, Black Sea, etc.) no discharge is allowed.

The MARPOL act has various annexes, Annex VI which deals with air pollution sets limits on emissions of Sulphur oxides and Nitrogen oxides, and ships are subject to limits on the amount of black smoke they can emit when flashing up the engines. Fines for breaking any of the MARPOL regulations are usually quite large, and the law is rigorously applied - Masters and Chief Engineers found guilty of breaking MARPOL have been fined over $100,000 and gone to prison in many a few cases.

Do you believe in the toothfairy by any chance? Santa? Fancy buying a bridge? It's in London Englandshire, and the tourists all love it; bargain for you sir....

Suffice to say, magic pipes exist and oily sludge continues to disappear from waste tanks on ships; most of the time nowt happens to stop it. The ability to monitor emissions into the air/sea when a ship is offshore is very limited, most of the ones that get nabbed are shopped by 3rd parties or disgruntled crew. If stack emissions are an issue, then I believe removing the sulphur at the refinery would be a lot more sensible than requiring every ship that burns HFO(the stty black tarry stuff) to be equipped with expensive flue gas scrubbers that may not work, will be a castiron bd maintenance nightmare, and may render the burning of HFO uneconomic. This is a bad thing as shipping is only cheap because HFO is cheap; if we have to burn something cleaner like diesel, the cost goes up££££.

I don't think much of oily water separators; those I've had the misfortune to encounter were both useless at their task and equipped with easily bamboozled monitoring equipment; a rare occurrence of German hardware being pants. A far simpler and cheaper solution would be to oblige all port authorities to receive oily waste for free/nominal charges; all incentive to ditch the stuff over the side vanishes and the seas become a cleaner place(this is copyright by the way; my licencing fees will be v. reasonable...)

I have yet to meet a OWS that actually works without the addition of some flushing water or lots and lots of buggering about to get it to run for ten minutes without sticking its head up its own arse.

As to CO2 emissions they are already limited as people seem to think that CO2 comes from nowhere. When it actually comes from the fuel that is burnt and to buy that fuel it costs MONEY and trust me no shipping company on this earth will spend MONEY when they don't have to hence the huge drive for marine engines to be efficient. So bringing in CO2 restrictions will do nothing more then ad yet another pile of paperwork for port controls to not understand, fk-up and fine a ship.