Hacker News Reader

Comment by SCAQTony | Hacker News Reader

Let's presume it is all true. Gizmag quoted a study that 15-container ships (just 15) dole out the same amount of pollution as 760-million cars. (I shit you not):

http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

God knows what coal and power plants produce but nonetheless, why does the IPSO and The Guardian have to scare the shit out of everyone instead of offering some sort of real, solution?

If this is all true and this is as dire as they say, one would think or suggest that the military take over the shipping duties of these 15-container-ships and use 15-nuclear-powered vessels instead? this would remove the carbon footprint of these polluting vessels and/or 750-million cars per day with way less waste?

Next, onto the power plants instead of the barbecues and lawn mowers?

View on HN

Not all journalism or scientific reporting is about presenting solutions, and pointing out the problems (especially of this severity, if the article is to be believed) is an important step. Furthermore, as the article says, I don't think anyone knows the solution. Even if we drastically reduce carbon emissions, it probably won't help.

I often find an attitude of dismissal and disdain towards environmental reporting like this on Hacker News. I think it stems from how we're so used to the optimism and can-do attitude of Silicon Valley that it's hard to digest how we may have created a problem we can't solve. It feels better to think "oh, they're just not being innovative enough in their solutions" and present oneself as above the fray.

But the stark reality, if the science is to be believed, is that we're on the path towards major environmental changes in the foreseeable future, and as of right now, we don't have a solution.

I agree with the criticism of HN. The lack of understanding of basic geography and the environment is shocking. Its like listening to a bunch of non-technical sales people discuss computer security.

    >  But the stark reality, if the science is to be 
    >  believed, is that we're on the path towards major 
    >  environmental changes in the foreseeable future, and as of 
    >  right now, we don't have a solution.

I'd disagree we're on the path. We are threading deep into woods that path leads (Hello poisonous jellifishes!).

I'm not sure we can turn, back, but if by some miracle scientists are all wrong, and we aren't doomed in the near future, we still need to be extremely careful of our impact on ecosystems.

The study talks about other pollutants (like Sulfur Oxide and other particulates), but not CO2. The amount of CO2 emited by these ships is not stated in the article, but can be estimated from their rate of fuel consumption. That said, in general ships are more efficient than cars, especially at this scale. It's entirely likely that the CO2 per mass of freight per distance covered by container ship is of the order of magnitude, or lower than in a car.

The sulphur issue is already being solved, and a solution will be in place by january 1, 2015

http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/A...

This is because of the sulphur emission control laws that will come into action then. Basically, ships will buy scrubbers that clean the exhaust gases, buy low sulphur diesel, or change to a completely different fuel.

The emissions control areas, or ECA:s as they are called, inlude US coasts, the North Sea, the English Channel and the whole Baltic Sea.

This will cause massive cost increases in shipping. Expect your import goods to be expensive and export profits to be less. Yet it will save lots of lives.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com