Thursday, February 14, 2008

CATEGORY - SHIPPING

I think this deserves a category of its own.

For previous posts just search the 'Shipping' label below. One day I'll find time to archive 'em here.

This is shaping up to be a major issue, especially to one, such as me, who professes to be most concerned about enviROI. I have in the past given a pass to various activities that took place by boat (such as Dave's kite-towed post recently) on the notion that it must be oodles 'better'. Maybe we need to rethink. As with so much that involves an emission, maybe it's just the fact that we want something that is more the issue, rather than how it gets to us.

It's worth considering, and talking about, but let us not forget there is other stuff going on too. Some worse, and/or more pressing maybe.

Gaurdian - True scale of C02 emissions from shipping revealed

Guardian - NEW - No more plain sailing - A view from a side. Some interesting comments in reply.

3 comments:

Dave said...

It didn't take too long then. We mentioned this back in September 07 and wondered how long it would be before more of the media picked up on it.

And it's not just the CO2 emissions either, shipping accounts for some 20% of the planet's SO2 emissions because of the heavy bunker fuel used (which is high is Sulphur).

I wonder if shipping will now become the refocused target of the media now that they seem to have largely left the aviation industry alone for a while?

Peter said...

Just call him 'Dave the Scoop'.

Not just the catch but also a pretty prescient piece of editorial too!

Dave said...

The comments in the 'No more plain sailing' piece contain a very pertinent question, that no-one seems to have the answer to, as yet.

What are the emissions per ton of weight carried? We need to be able to compare road transport, shipping and air freight on a like for like basis.

As one of the comment writers says "I would estimate that, in terms of emissions per ton of weight carried, compared to road transport, shipping would be at least 10 times more efficient and 100+ times more efficient than air." My guess is that his estimate is way under the real figures, and would be more like 500 times and 1000+ times respectively.