Econ

Well the CO2 is mentioned 'at least in the articles' and ships for example output twice as much CO2 as aircraft and goodness how much more than cars, it is also sulphur that causes cancer, not carbon dioxide... at the end of the day the point was why are people on land taxed and screwed continually for this 'on a green excuse' when what they take out of the cars fuel they allow the ships to burn and pollute the air and sea, they also do not seem to have much urgency in clamping down on it, probably because they the government makes money out of it. The pollution from ships goes out to the air at sea but it still gets moved around and a lot of the sulphur eventually gets back to us.

carter71

I don't disagree that the sulphur is bad, but just think about how much sulphur we used to create in the world when everyone was burning coal.

The point was it was a meaningless statistic designed to give people the impression cars ain't so bad after all. An equally accurate but misleading statistic would be:

"Scientists studying a sheep farm in Wales have made the amazing discovery that a single adult sheepdog produces more dog poo in a single day than every single car on the planet does in a year. For those that don't know, dog poo is extremely hazardous - and can causes blindness in children and miscarriage in pregnant women. And this one dog is producing more of it than all the cars in the world!"

Econ

Yes, then we caught on to the damage it was doing! The population is a lot bigger now and the * engines on these ships alone * are the size of some other small ships and burn bunker fuel which as mentioned before has up to 4.5% sulphur 'and put out a hell of a lot of CO2 also' (CO2 just for you carter )

... anyway one of the points I was trying to make was how we are being persecuted by tax and ads costing us money 'or the UK tax payer' that tell them to drive 5 miles less a week in order to be green when it kind of defeats the purpose if they permit these ships to belch out the amount of sulphur and CO2 they do with none or very little restriction, would it not have saved everyone a lot of money to just get Maersk to take the foot off the accelerator on one of their ships for 3 seconds every month. for want of another way of trying to put it!

...then if you had to run for the bus then that is CO2 produced by a natural means that is not possible to avoid... I miss the point on this last bit to be honest

Cape Blue

Unfortunately everyone is mostly still burning coal - its the major source of electricity in both the US and China - the worlds two largest polluters of CO2.

Cape Blue

The problem with ships and planes is that one country cannot act alone and it needs international agreement to make it work - otherwise they just buy their fuel in the nearest country with no restrictions.

I wasn't aware that SOx was a significant cancer-causing agent. It certainly is an acid rain issue.

To an extent the "people on land being taxed" is a non-issue wrt to ships emissions - if you made ships use cleaner fuel (I think we should) it would increase their costs and these would result in increased costs of goods - paid for by people on land.

carter71

but therein lies the problem. CO2 and sulphur don't equate. Cars don't produce sulphur, so saying that 16 ships produce the same amount is like saying 16 dogs produce more dog poo!

As for the CO2 belching, the quantity of fuel used is a fraction of the fuel being delivered (marine engines are usually 2 stroke CI engines). Hence the cars the ships are powering will produce FAR more CO2 than these belching ships. But little in the way of Sulphur, because they don't produce any!

But as has already been said, increase the cost of production or distribution, and you the consumer will foot the bill. An insatiable appetite, or maybe we're just hooked.

Just like any good drug, you'll happily pay any price at the pumps. Go on, you know you want some more...

Econ

Might not in you world but in this one car emissions contain sulphur, if you did a search on it you might save me and yourself some time.

No kidding! so I guess we should just go on making people get cancer and a lot of others ill so things can be cheaper... 'obviously not hooked'

Well as it happens we pay at the pumps on taxes and to get cleaner fuel (less sulphur and lead), the tax doesn't go anywhere near anything that is connected to what it is paid from 'or very little of it does' and that is what gets to people, the fact they are milked as motorists. The left overs of the fuel after we have paid to get it refined is bunker fuel.. the stuff the ships use in open sea without any worries.

I think the problem people complain about tax is not because the proceeds are going to make things a lot better for them but more because they are paying for making other peoples lives better and politicians ill spending their money, if merchandise prices went up so that people could have a more healthy life then I think people would put up, although the problem how is will they believe that if a politician where to do that and tell them that is why the price is going up

Econ

Yes, absolutely right... mind you, there is this thing called the EU who are involved with a lot of countries... 27 at last count I think, then there is the fact that every one of these countries use the ships that are connected with bringing goods in and trash out of those countries, in other words 'all throughout Europe'... Brussels, ah they don't seem too interested as they are probably busy filling their pockets with our money to do anything serious about it... as per usual.

Sorry but that is kind of obvious, what is more important anyway?... cheap goods or our health and our childrens health?

I think you are missing what I am saying... but what is the point of crying green, taxing us on it and making fuel cleaner then letting ships pump out the left over after the clean bits are passed on to cars... even though ships pump it out into the air at sea it still comes around as the air moves and the water absorbs the chemicals. It a bit like making people pay to have different bins for different types of rubbish and the rest that goes along with that then just chucking the rubbish all into the same hole... as is what happens to a lot of it probably.

warren d

I am pretty sure that every lump of coal and every drop of oil that can be extracted from the earth will be extracted and then burned for energy even if we all drove 5 miles less every week. It's still the same amount of pollution if it takes 20 years or 100 years to burn the coal and oil.
What gets me is these politicians that drive around in big cars, in their big offices and they live in big houses and they ask us to cut down on how far we drive (as if we spend half the week driving aimlessly about) and to turn off a silly little standby light on the TV because the energy saved could illuminate Birmingham or somewhere for a week. It's bollocks.

Cape Blue

The focus on a few politician's secure vehicles or Al Gore's flights are a classic misdirection technique to take the proles eyes away from the real issues such as parasitic electricity use that requires hundreds of power stations worldwide belching out CO2 and using up finite resources, but as long as the defenders of the status quo can get the poorly educated to foam about a few politicians flying to a meeting, they are off the hook.

rugbymatt

Nicely edited video.

carter71

The sulphur predominantly comes from the fuel - and is almost nothing because it's extracted, and seems to end up in the fuel tanks of large ships. Which is the big irony, isn't it, because the sulphur is merely displaced!

If I had barrels of sulphur compounds on my land, and then decided to tip the lot onto YOUR land - it would be a bit rich for me to then complain about you "not being very green"?

The CO2 will kill us long before the sulphur ever does. But it makes good headlines I suppose - and thats the trouble with veneer journalism. The issues are massively complex and inter-related - even the scientific community desn't get it right - but some journalist with a fixation for sulphur using the SI units of "a hell of a lot" and "massive" has just solved the world's problems!

I remember opening a double page spread - Telegraph I think it was - about 15 years ago. It showed a picture of a power station, and was captioned something like "Massive chimneys like this are belching smoke containing goodness knows what nasty chemicals into the atmosphere every day".

Shame they didn't do more research into the steam cycle used in power stations - they might have realised that the "massive chimneys" were only belching... eh... water...

warren d

You miss my point. It's hypocrisy. Those people are using up for more fuel than I am. Some of it is coming via those power stations that you mentioned.
I already use as little electric and oil etc as possible because the more I use, the more it costs me. I don't need somebody that uses more than me telling me to use less.
Everyone goes on about how much pollution China is causing but China is only causing pollution because it is producing products for us to use. Much of those products are not even necessary. If people stop buying things they don't really need then that would cut down on a lot of pollution. Politicians don't want us buying less items though so they tell us to not use standby on the TV and drive 5 miles less. It's a pathetic effort.

carter71

Damn straight! Everyone is told to replace their 10 year old car with a more environmentally friendly new one. The reality is that the energy / environment saved by switching will never cover the environmental impact of building the new car in the first place!

Once upon a time we bought items we could afford and used them until they broke, and then when they broke we got them fixed. Today, most of the world buys things they don't need with money they don't have to fuel a global economy that on built around replacing items before they go out of fashion!

If we addressed this waste, we all be a lot better off, albeit not in the money sense.

Econ

I think everyone knew it was steam and these where cooling towers! but the problem was the amount of coal they where burning at those power stations and not the steam going into the atmosphere.