Just wondering why these things aren't being phased out more aggressively especially in captain planet country (california) or if it really matters.
The containership situation can only have gotten worse since this article was published https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping...
The main threat of containership emissions from bunker fuel is the sulfur content which isn't very nice for the respiratory tract of humans and other mammals. That's why there are bans on burning that type of fuel within so many miles of port.
> CO2 is the main greenhouse gas emitted by ships. Methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from ship engines have a minor global warming role compared with CO2. Further, SOx, NOx, PM and VOC also have a minor role in global warming. Particulate matter arising from SOx emissions has a potential cooling effect and/or creates local climate disturbance (see section 6.1). The sulphur content of marine fuels will decrease due to IMO MARPOL Annex VI and other measures.
Page 27 says:
> Fuglestvedt et al[10] claim net cooling for shipping. Bows pointed out that their methodology was flawed as they did not account for cumulative effect of CO2[11]. That is, CO2 that has accumulated goes on accumulating, but other pollutant concentrations remain steady. The sulphate particulates have a relatively short lifetime in the atmosphere in terms of global warming.
[11] is http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13157-transport-emissi... .
Some CA cities ban their use entirely. https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/article/article/napa... says Yountville and Sonoma are two of them.