Slashdot Mirror
Carbon Dioxide From Ships at Sea To Be Regulated For First Time (theguardian.com)
Carbon dioxide from ships at sea will be regulated for the first time following a historic agreement reached after two weeks of detailed talks in London. From a report: Shipping companies will halve their greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 under the plan, brokered by the International Maritime Organization and binding across its 170 member states. The agreement will require a revolution among ships, which are overwhelmingly fuelled by heavy oils at present. In future, they will have to not only be more energy-efficient, but also make use of cleaner energy, in the form of batteries supplying electricity, solar and wind electricity generation, and perhaps even a return to sail in some cases, or more controversially to nuclear power, as some warships already use.
Environmental campaigners said the plan was not enough given the urgency of tackling climate change, though they welcomed the deal, which has taken decades of work. Greenhouse gas emissions from shipping and aviation were omitted from the 1997 Kyoto protocol and have been excluded from regulations on carbon ever since, even though shipping is used for 80% of global trade. Although shipping accounts for only about 2% of global carbon emissions, it has been a cause of particular concern, both because of the increased need for transport under the globalising economy and because many ships use dirty, carbon-rich fuels such as heavy diesel, which would be banned in many countries from onshore transport.
Environmental campaigners said the plan was not enough given the urgency of tackling climate change, though they welcomed the deal, which has taken decades of work. Greenhouse gas emissions from shipping and aviation were omitted from the 1997 Kyoto protocol and have been excluded from regulations on carbon ever since, even though shipping is used for 80% of global trade. Although shipping accounts for only about 2% of global carbon emissions, it has been a cause of particular concern, both because of the increased need for transport under the globalising economy and because many ships use dirty, carbon-rich fuels such as heavy diesel, which would be banned in many countries from onshore transport.
No, But the ones in power are, and are too interested in keeping their political position then to actually stand up for what is right.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You go after the largest achievable net reductions.
Globally 50 million tons of airfreight cargo are carried. Container ships alone carry 1.7 billion tons of cargo annually, and bulk container ships like ore carriers and tankers carry even more than that. You're going to have to achieve huge net increases in airplane efficiency to equal a marginal improvement in ship efficiency, and it's not like people have been ignoring aircraft.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Just wait for someone to point out that is you use the wind you will somehow alter the natural balance of something, taking energy where the earth was using it, and then affecting something or other.
Some have brought that up for wave and tide generation .
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
You're changing the question again. First you said, "But how will we make steel"? Then, you said, "OK, you can make steel without coal, but it's dirty" and now, "But how much steel can you make with clean charcoal"?
You keep moving the bar. Steel was made without coal for millennia, using charcoal. Steel can be made without coal using electrolysis. In our lifetime, we will see a time when coal is best left in the ground. We might already be there.
You are welcome on my lawn.