# Ships Emissions



## Duncan112 (Dec 28, 2006)

This on the BBC website

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15554523

So once again shipping is going to suffer (and make the rest of us suffer more due to the overall reduction required) on the back of what is at best pseudo science. 

I must confess a vested interest, when I first came ashore I went into consultancy on energy matters and became very involved in "Climate Change" (or more exactly the minimisation of legalised robbery, sorry environmental taxation) and speaking to Government policy makers it became abundantly clear how little they knew, other than it was a good wheeze for raising money wrapped up in a "for the benefit of mankind" spiel.

Unfortunately there are now too many non jobs at risk for anyone to admit a mistake has been made.


----------



## Derek Roger (Feb 19, 2005)

Back to the days of sail or is it forward to a new era of sail .


----------



## ART6 (Sep 14, 2010)

I am astonished that they haven't thought of charging an annual sea tax based upon CO2 emissions like they do for cars. Still, whatever they do, they might as well write off what is left of the UK shipping industry. That should solve the problem of global warming.

Mind you, I think there is merit in looking at how to also minimise the hot air emissions from Westminster.


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

Scrubber's


----------



## Pat Thompson (Jan 25, 2006)

Greetings,

Derek, it would be the supreme irony to transport oil in sailing ships.

Chadburn, scrubbers do have their place but not for happily married men (exclam)


----------



## G0SLP (Sep 4, 2007)

And yet, and yet...shipping is already the most efficient method of oil-powered transport. I suppose we're just seen as another 'easy target' by both governments and tree-huggers


----------



## GeeM (Mar 2, 2009)

Now the Marpol Annex VI Regs are really starting to bite with the 2008 amendments requiring Tier 2 engines In 2012 and Tier 3 In Emissions Control areas, the costs are really starting to Impact shipping. Two LNG powered supply Boats are being built for one of our Local owners here In the US Gulf of Mexico . The entire US Coast will be declared a Special Emissions area next year and the LNG powered vessels can easily comply. There are no present facilities to refuel these vessels and the US Flag hasnt decided how they will be manned. Will be Interesting to see what happens. For further details see the Marine Log Website


----------



## RayL (Apr 16, 2008)

Duncan112,

<<...what is at best pseudo science.>>

I can't sit quietly back and let you get away with a statement like that.

Can you explain why you - who seem to claim expertise on the topic - think that the wholesale burning of fossil fuels should have no consequences on the global climate?

Sea level is rising, and we are threatened by the melting of the arctic tundra - both of them potential disasters.


----------



## Derek Roger (Feb 19, 2005)

Pat Thompson said:


> Greetings,
> 
> Derek, it would be the supreme irony to transport oil in sailing ships.
> 
> Chadburn, scrubbers do have their place but not for happily married men (exclam)


I was thinking more of boring cruise passengers ; get them out of our faces for weeks instead of a few days .


----------



## Duncan112 (Dec 28, 2006)

RayL said:


> Duncan112,
> 
> <<...what is at best pseudo science.>>
> 
> ...


For millions of years the earth has been subjected to changes in temperature due to the natural cycle of things, currently we are approaching an interglacial maximum, which will be followed by a descent into the next ice age. 

The effects of anthropogenic emissions are miniscule compared to natural emissions. The argument will be put forward that anthropogenic emissions may be the straw that breaks the camels back, this will come from those that produced the discredited "Hockey Stick Curve" and the University of East Anglia which has an unenviable reputation for fudging data, not only with regard to climate change but also producing traffic data based on scanty assumptions to justify new road schemes.

Most of the data analysed to justify global warming due to anthropogenic causes conveniently discounts the Late Medieval Warm Period

Remember in the mid 1960's there was the conference on the global circulation of the atmosphere which used similar data to indicate that emissions would precipitate a new ice age. 

Note that I do not dispute that the climate is changing, merely that it is part of the natural cycle of things and any reduction in the use of fossil fuels would have a negligible effect on the rate of climate change . This is then used as an excuse to raise taxes on the basis of it being good for us.

IMHO a far greater threat to our future is the indiscriminate use of scarce fossil fuels before we have found a replacement for them.

Finally, it is very difficult for ground based emissions to get through the inversion layer into the upper atmosphere where the so called greenhouse gases are supposed to do the damage, they tend to get washed out (forming "Acid Rain", but that's another argument aside from Global Warming) which would tend to suggest that if any damage is being done, it is being caused by aviation sources which spend a good proportion of their time above the inversion layer. I see the occasional move to regulate or tax international aviation emissions but nothing substantiative yet.

I remain a sceptic as to man made climate change, and cynical as to the reasons for governments preoccupation with it as a fiscal tool.


----------



## Gareth Jones (Jul 13, 2007)

Duncan112 said:


> For millions of years the earth has been subjected to changes in temperature due to the natural cycle of things, currently we are approaching an interglacial maximum, which will be followed by a descent into the next ice age.
> 
> The effects of anthropogenic emissions are miniscule compared to natural emissions. The argument will be put forward that anthropogenic emissions may be the straw that breaks the camels back, this will come from those that produced the discredited "Hockey Stick Curve" and the University of East Anglia which has an unenviable reputation for fudging data, not only with regard to climate change but also producing traffic data based on scanty assumptions to justify new road schemes.
> 
> ...



(Applause)(Applause)(Applause) I was going to take up the cudgel but you've done it better than I could - well said Duncan.


----------



## RayL (Apr 16, 2008)

So ...

Do we believe you, or do we place our hopes on the former top man in the Royal Society, the scientist Sir Paul Nurse?

A year or so ago the hubbub about the U. of East Anglia furore had at last died down sufficiently for him to attempt a careful examination of what had gone wrong in that incident, and his conclusions were:

(a) The small team at East Anglia was overworked because they had been attempting to respond to too many queries. Moreover, they unfortunately lacked anyone with the type of personality to take the bull by the horns and properly explain the meaning of the apparently damning emails from c1998; had this not been the case then the furore might have been more short-lived. What the emails had been referring to - and with unfortunate terminology/poor English (but bear in mind that they were not intended for circulation) was that there was an inexplicable and troubling lack of correlation between the dendrochronology (tree ring dating) and the other data.

(b) The newspaper article that originally blew the story was written by a journalist who had little or no scientific knowledge, so he knew not of which he spoke. Nurse interviewed him in the do***entary I saw and the viewer was able to see this for him/herself. He was a naive who thought he had found a scoop.

(c) A troublemaking foreign power was behind the airing of the old emails and it simply suited their malign agenda at the time, so anyone jumping on that bandwagon was simply a dupe.

Despite all the above, I do not deny that the climate fluctuates naturally too. The Sun's power varies a lot also, but the data the scientists are paying attention to are over and above such things, and what the graphs are telling them is what they are at pains to tell us. Shall we just ignore their warnings and carry blithely on?


----------



## RayL (Apr 16, 2008)

Human population growth and expanded expectations in living standards have also to be taken into account. Just last week the world's population reached 7bn, and we were informed that it grew in the following manner:

1804 - 1bn
1927 - 2bn
1959 - 3bn
1973 - 4bn
2011 - 7bn

Anyone visiting China or India today would instantly see my point.


----------



## Gareth Jones (Jul 13, 2007)

RayL said:


> So ...
> 
> Do we believe you, or do we place our hopes on the former top man in the Royal Society, the scientist Sir Paul Nurse?
> 
> ...


 This will be the Paul Nurse who is a geneticist and obtained his Ph.D. from the University of East Anglia ? and still has association with that establishment ?


----------



## Gareth Jones (Jul 13, 2007)

RayL said:


> Human population growth and expanded expectations in living standards have also to be taken into account. Just last week the world's population reached 7bn, and we were informed that it grew in the following manner:
> 
> 1804 - 1bn
> 1927 - 2bn
> ...


 What has this got to do with the thread ?


----------



## spongebob (Dec 11, 2007)

Gareth Jones said:


> What has this got to do with the thread ?



More ships, more emissions?


----------



## RayL (Apr 16, 2008)

Pushing the QE2 a distance of 6" through the water consumed a gallon of oil.

How many millions of miles did she sail?


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

I read that various Port's are now offering a discount on a ship's berthing fee's if their emission's are below a certain level.


----------



## Duncan112 (Dec 28, 2006)

RayL said:


> So ...
> 
> Do we believe you, or do we place our hopes on the former top man in the Royal Society, the scientist Sir Paul Nurse?
> 
> ...


Ah but have you ever thought why Sir Paul Nurse or Nicholas Stern, both regarded as distinguished in their *OWN* fields were chosen to head up enquiries or report on issues - simply because they were regarded as a safe pair of hands by the establishment, despite their lack of knowledge of atmospheric systems and one assumes they were spoon fed the data our political masters wished them to consider to the exclusion of most else. 

The comment made regarding the population expansion is well taken, it is my belief that, the increasing deforestation of the world, and what little is left in this country and the increasing amount of concreting over land reduces the infiltration rate leading to more rapid run off and the flash flooding being experienced, this can be conveniently laid at the door of "Climate Change".

Finally, for the moment, if world government is so concerned about Climate Change and the Human influence why do they persist in having conferences in far flung places requiring huge amounts of first class air travel for themselves and all the other "imps, pimps and banjo players" rather than doing it all by video conferencing. I will review my scepticism when the political class reduce their travelling requirements.


----------



## PAULD (Sep 6, 2006)

I blame the liberal do gooders, they will be the first to complain though when there diesel for ther cars is 6 quid a gallon, When they cant afford to put the heating on when they are old thye will be first in the cue for heating allowance. and when theres reports of house burning down because people are using candles because there electric been cut of beacause they havn't paid the bill.
Who will be complaing- the liberal do gooders.
Its like prisons and prison sentences, long gaol terms may not reform crims but at least they cant reoffend while banged up. As for shorter prison sentences thats been happening steadily from the 60's has it worked NO.


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

PAULD said:


> I blame the liberal do gooders, they will be the first to complain though when there diesel for ther cars is 6 quid a gallon


They'll be cheering, not complaining - round here we are paying £6.30 a gallon *now *and that is at the supermarkets. Elsewhere it is nearer £7 a gallon.


----------



## RayL (Apr 16, 2008)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15994284


----------

