# Ships' CO2 'twice that of planes' (BBC News)



## SN NewsCaster (Mar 5, 2007)

Global emissions of carbon dioxide from shipping are twice the level of aviation, new maritime research says.

More from BBC News...


----------



## Keltic Star (Jan 21, 2006)

SN NewsCaster said:


> Global emissions of carbon dioxide from shipping are twice the level of aviation, new maritime research says.
> 
> More from BBC News...


Haven't these researchers got anything better to do. Our generation has already cleaned up the environment for the toke smoking eco-freaks. 

Don't see London smog 50's style anymore, there are fish in the Thames today, the Manchester Ship Canal does not boil over on a hot summers day and the trees in my garden have survived acid rain. In WW II and after during my days at sea, how much bunker C was deposited in the ocean? That didn't deplete the fish stocks, we ate them.

But don't anyone dare spill a drop of oil in my local harbour and harm our pet seals, ducks or dolphins and I agree with banning weed killer and fertilzer on lawns, saves me from having to spread the stuff and cuts down the mowing sessions.

Duck, incoming from Greenpeace and David Suzuki.


----------



## Duncan112 (Dec 28, 2006)

Be interesting to compare the CO2 emissions per ton mile - suspect ships would be lowest by a country mile but real facts have never got in the way of "research" in the name of a media bite.


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

Thats exactly the thing Duncan sure in CO2 per mile a ship does produce more BUT when you work it out at how much CO2 per Ton of cargo per mile then its absolutely miniscule.


----------



## tacho (Oct 13, 2007)

> CO2 per Ton of cargo per mile


Yes that is the only meaningful statistic. Furthermore as I understand it ships are burning a very coarse form of diesel.


----------



## Steve Woodward (Sep 4, 2006)

Researchers emit more hot air than anything else on the planet, save the planet eat a researcher !


----------



## Sarky Cut (Oct 11, 2007)

When I was working it was always referred to as an "economical haze"!

Coarse diesel, now there is a term to be conjured with, a new name for road tar/bitumen perhaps?


----------



## PollY Anna (Sep 4, 2006)

I read an article about our air. Today it is so Oxygen rich. If we go back to the eons of time when we were all climbing down from the trees our lungs were designed to absorb more carbon dioxide than we think. You only have to think about all the Volcano's popping off the air would have been a bit tough to breath. 

Regards Ron


----------



## UmbornePirate (Feb 3, 2007)

*Aircraft CO2 emissions at least 47 times that of ships*



Duncan112 said:


> .....CO2 emissions per ton mile.


Duncan 

*Aircraft CO2 emissions are at least 47 times that of ships*

Agree wholeheartedly, and with other subsequent posts above, and if the maritime industry needs a soundbite to kill this sort of statistical lunacy the above statement is accurate as far as UK trade per ton mile is concerned. Not only are aircraft emissions at least 47 times that of ship's, they are also largely discharged into the much more sensitive upper atmosphere.

It would take a little longer to get an accurate global figure and I suspect it would be even more favourable to the shipping case.

Pirate

So lets say it again

*Aircraft CO2 emissions are at least 47 times that of ships*


----------



## fred henderson (Jun 13, 2005)

As usual the BBC has published a simplistic sound bite about a complicated issue. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is only one of a number of pollution factors, but it is one area where shipping is not only better than air transport but it is also better than road transport. NOx (Oxides of Nitrogen), SOx (Oxides of Sulphur), particulate matter and smoke also need to be taken into consideration. Sadly, in general shipping comes out badly in all these other areas in terms of pollution per ton / mile. 

A major factor is the average age of the fleet. Car, truck and bus engines have radically and consistently improved over the past decade. Ships’ engines have also improved, but the operating life of a ship is far longer than road transport in the developed world. 

Within the EEC large ship disperses about 150 times more SOx per ton/mile than trucks. This is because EEC regulations are progressively requiring cleaner road diesel. By 2009 the EU road diesel sulphur limit will be down to 10 parts per million (PPM), while marine heavy fuel oil in Europe is 27,000 ppm. 

Large ships produce about 20% more NOx emissions per ton/mile than trucks, but coasters are about twice as bad as trucks. Ironically in view of the BBC report, the CO2 emissions per ton/mile of large ships are only 30% of the emissions from trucks and coasters about 60%. 

The major users of environmentally friendly modern marine engines are the big new cruise ships and ferries. The environmental performance of these ships is way ahead of all contemplated regulations. They are, however in the public eye, unlike most other shipping. The real environmental baddies are the 30 year old and over ships beloved by many of us on SN. Worst of all are the steamers.

Fred(Thumb)


----------



## Tony Breach (Jun 15, 2005)

There aint too many 30+ year-olds or steamers left. Do we have any info on the damage caused by discarded road vehicle tyres both in production & disposal? Surely we should calculate in identified pollutants/at building+in operation+at disposal/revenue ton/mile (or kilometer) over the lifetime of the unit. Would also be interested to learn the difference in emission pollutants from prime movers versus auxiliaries & whether 'cold-ironing' makes sense.

While aircraft may appear statistically more green-efficient, what would be the pollutant effect if we were to transport all normally seabourne wet, dry & liquid gaseous bulk, containerised, refrigerated, wheeled & other transportable cargoes by air - even if remotely possible? Same to include vehicle production & disposal. 

Been driving a Prius for a year & averaging 62.3 mpg but wondering if the eventual recycling of the battery may negate the operational efficiency.

How much do we actually know & how much nonsensical hype are we getting?

Confused & hopefully green!


----------



## cboots (Aug 16, 2004)

Thanks are due to Fred for his very informative post which emphasises the disparity between what the research has revealed compared to what hits the headlines as the ubiquitous "media bite." What some of the other posts reveal is a general fondness of shooting the messenger when the message is not quite what we want to hear.
CBoots


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

Unfortunately "research" is not conducted in a rational manner,
neither are the "facts" presented complete with all relevant parameters.
Which comes down to the inalienable fact that statistics can be made
to suit almost anyone's political agenda, or at best represents a naive
alarmist approach most often found in media hype. Having made Statistics
and research a subject of study at college, I always take a sideways look
at these nonsensical pieces of fiction. Best Wishes, Raymond


----------



## willincity (Jul 11, 2007)

Some interesting stats in this press release by INTERTANKO 
(A) 
http://www.intertanko.com/
(Smoke)


----------



## tacho (Oct 13, 2007)

That's more like it!

One litre of fuel on a modern VLCC (Very Large Crude Carrier) moves one tonne of cargo more than 2,800 kilometres; this is more than twice as far as 20 years ago. The average carbon footprint (in terms of CO2 per tonne-kilometre) of each of the world’s oil tankers is less than one tenth of that of a heavy truck and less than one hundredth of that of an aircraft.


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

Responsible members of the trade do take the environment seriously.
INTERTANKO does take the world seriously. 
You can accept their report seriously. Balance redressed.


----------



## fred henderson (Jun 13, 2005)

Tony Breach said:


> There aint too many 30+ year-olds or steamers left.


Tony

There are a lot of old ships still around. Earlier this year there were 30 ferries still in operation (a lot in the USA) that were built before 1963. There are 25 cruise ships that were built before 1964. Some of the tankers operated by Chevron, container ships by MSC and Fleet Oilers by the RFA, to name but three reputable owners, exceed 30 years of age. The emission standards from these ships are far worse than are allowed for trucks.

Fred(Thumb)


----------



## cboots (Aug 16, 2004)

Without passing direct judgements, as I have not read either report, it must surely be fair comment to point out that INTERTANKO have a direct interest in the area under consideration.
CBoots


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

They are also under direct public view, with international meetings and agreements, they are at the forefront of innovative and careful consideration of the life of our planet, including direct action on behalf of wildlife. I could say more, but that would be overstepping a confidence. Best Wishes, Raymond


----------



## Gareth Jones (Jul 13, 2007)

It's worth mentioning that there's a body of scientific opinion which suggests that increasing co2 in the atmosphere is the result of global warming not the cause of it.

Those scientists whose reputations are at stake will not tolerate any discussion of this - they call it a "closed discussion".

I believe that presently the co2 level is about 0.5% and that mans contribution is about 0.04%.

It can be shown that "hot spots" in the earth's history caused levels of 10% (This before mankind existed!) Where is it gone ? - cold seas will absorb co2 but as the seas warm, the co2 is released again. Which could be what is happening now.?


----------



## tacho (Oct 13, 2007)

> There are a lot of old ships still around.


There are a lot of old aircraft around as well. The B757 first flew in the early 80's so some of them must be pushing 25 years old. The 747 has been around longer than that. Same with motor vehicles. So the problem of old machinery polluting the environment is not confined to ships; and with respect to Fred Henderson I don't think he was suggesting that.

Aviation is one of the fastest growing and polluting of man's activities. I would respectfully suggest that Shipping by comparison is not expanding at any thing like the rate of aviation and is by far less polluting.

Personally I am convinced that Global Warming is closely linked to man's activities and the burning of fossil fuels in particular. The consequences of dealing with the problem are far reaching. Big business and finance are terrified of them and I do not think that terrified is too strong a word. 

If you consider the billions (Zillions) of £s €s and $s invested in current and new products and technologies which are hydrocarbon based.

Imagine the shift of power and influence if we were to shift radically away from our current petro based economy into something new.

Anyway I think that shipping has a great and interesting future.


----------



## fred henderson (Jun 13, 2005)

I have in fact, not made any comment about pollution from aircraft. My only observations were that CO2 is merely one type of pollution. As far as I know, ships are not a major CO2 problem. It is the other pollutants where ships are bad compared to trucks. In Europe trucks are subject to annual inspections and have a much shorter operational life than ships, with the result that they have the benefit of modern technology that has been introduced since a large number of ships in the current merchant fleet was built.
I think shipowners need to address this factor while it is still possible to have a rational debate leading to the introduction of a realistic replacement programme to correct the present situation. If they continue to ignore the fact that the current merchant fleet operating in European waters creates far more pollution per ton/mile than the road haulage fleet, the environmentalist fanatics will take charge and logic will be out of the window.

Fred(Thumb)


----------



## tacho (Oct 13, 2007)

I guess a lot of the ton mile pollution problem in European waters comes from Ro Ros which certainly do not make the most efficient use of space or deadweight capacity being designed primarily for wheeled cargo and fast turn arounds.

What about electric ferries? It's only 22 miles across the Dover Strait for instance it should be possible for an "electric boat" to swap out battery packs quickly at either end as required. I notice that there are a lot of electric boats appearing on our inland waterways at the moment. It should be possible to scale them up for short sea operation.


----------

