They emit a lot, but they transport … a very lot. Trucks are higher emitters per comodity.
Still both should be powered by something else like hydrogen (more interesting for ships I guess) or batteries…
And cruise ships should be IMHO taxed so high (the tax should probably directly go to countermeasures), such that only very rich people are able to (not that I grant them the fun, but they should finance this climate disaster in every possible way…)
I looked into carbon offsets of shipping containers from China to the US as part of my job. I was shocked at how little was emitted per container - Probably cost around $40 of offsets for one 45 footer.
Like you said, the bigger issue is the trucks needed for last mile / between distribution centers.
Based on what a reasonable carbon price should be, I don’t think you would need to tax them to oblivion. They would just need to pay their fair share.
This website suggests that it is about 0.4 tonne of CO2 per passenger per day. Canada’s current carbon tax is $65 per tonne. So a 7 day cruise would be $182 per passenger in carbon pricing. This is just ballpark and yes you can argue that carbon prices should be higher.
For whom though? I think if your product is going to be very expensive because of that you,ll try to find ways (less carbon emissive) to make it cheaper, and for others, who have low emissions already, they get an advantage. Also rich people generally emit much more carbon than poor people.
I’m a little bit tired of the argument, that everything gets expensive, like the money just goes to nirvana, it’s a tax and a tax should steer industries (mostly) to do the right thing (in this case emit less CO2). The money can go directly to people e.g. in the form of a universal basic income.
For the ability to produce enough food. It’s not the tax that’s the issue it’s that the climate will make industrial food production unviable. We will rapidly exit the conditions that underpin the viability of the modern economy. The only work of value will be making food and related tools in a volatile climatic environment. The bill will not be payable in money, is my point. That is, a tax will be woefully inadequate.
Certainly, it will be really “interesting” how to produce food for ~10 billion people in this uncertain future. But if we finally learn to accept that e.g. cattle isn’t the way forward, I think it may be possible with plant-based food. Although something like vertical farming etc. is definitely not viable today, it may be in the future. And at least currently it’s totally possible to sustainably produce enough (plant-based) food.
I think we’ll learn to adapt, that much I trust in agricultural-technological advancement etc.
But it will be “meaty” for most people and conflicts will arise (as they already are, see e.g. the conflict in Sudan that is indirectly related to climate change already, similarly as Syria previously (there were quite a few droughts the years before))
Absolutely, and it’s astonishing, that still so few people see how “deep in shit” we already are, and I really hope that very soon ( < 5 years or so) a lot more people through whatever means will start to see that. But I think it’s not a good idea to go into the doomsday mood, I don’t think that helps either (individually, say depression etc. inability for action). But yeah it’s depressing how little this topic is still relevant in politics etc. and how little the scientific community is/was heard, that is telling us that we need to change like > 70 years ago (and a very soft transition would’ve been possible since than, not so much now unfortunately, whether we do it, or nature does it…).
Sure it is, but I think that’s still better than if every individual needs to drive their own car through half the country to buy coffee. Shipping needs to happen in any way. Sure we could order less stuff from the internet, so individual house door shipping would be less, but that’s a drop in the ocean, compared to the other named factors
Trucks, like cars are on a transition to become EVs, with Tesla leading the industry there as well. Of course people will then complain regarding lithium and other bullshit, hence why I think we should stop listening to extremists.
Lol, trash reasoning. “Extremists” that want to start building communities that dont require you to drive everywhere. Just because evs are slightly better then gas doesnt mean its good to keep making cars a centralizing point we build our society around.
lower parking availability, increase public transport availability and frequency.
Low density places:
They need their cars, they can keep them.
Remove zoning restrictions, and parking requirements
so there is more mixture of commercial and residential places shortening transport distance, allowing for even avoiding public transport and just walking/biking replacing this.
More biking infraestructure.
Fair taxes to car owners,
that means, othe people not having to support the huge car projects that cost more than they can get from the taxes they do on cars.
Also regulations on environmental design of cars, basically gaining back the progress we had done on car efficiency that was taken back by everyone wanting an SUV instead of a turismo.
For me what you’re describing is communism, sorry.
Being able to own a private vehicle it’s, in my opinion, a fundamental part of freedom of movement. Sure, public transportation should also exist, but should be the option not the rule.
All cities should have specific places for bikers, I agree with that, you should be able to move whatever you want. Being anti private vehicles it’s commie for me.
Sorry but you’re just passing the same leftist propaganda, that all would be fixed if you took the cars from people. Cars are a fundamental part of freedom of movement and taking them shouldn’t and isn’t the solution for anything at all.
High density zones are just symptom of the city being overcrowded, and for that there’s really no solution.
Public transportation, biking lanes, should existing should be the rule, not a bandaid for the fact that the city you live is overcrowded or its design is utter garbage.
For me what you’re describing is communism, sorry.
Being able to own a private vehicle it’s, in my opinion, a fundamental part of freedom of movement. Sure, public transportation should also exist, but should be the option not the rule.
All cities should have specific places for bikers, I agree with that, you should be able to move whatever you want. Being anti private vehicles it’s commie for me.
My guess would be for EV everything. Plant trees in the city roads to lower the average temperature, the countries themselves should create tax incentives for people to move out from overcrowded cities as well.
But sure, easy to just end personal vehicles all together right? People like you are the reason our politicians are so shit.
Realistically, EVs are useful as a stopgap solution. They could be used to cover the transition as we expand public transit like EV busses, trains, subways, etc.
EVs are basically clean vehicles. All the emissions from them come either from their production or from where their energy comes from. The latter is easily solvable by going nuclear and renewable. Also old EV batteries can be recycled and repurposed as grid storage.
There’s no silver bullet to stop CO2 emissions, there’s a shitload of solutions being studied right now that will need to be implemented.
Really not a choice, carbon emissiosn have to stop. EVs dont do that. Urban trees are not going to revese climate change. Wow, you’re saying people need to keep lowering denisity.
Shipping? Shipping is about 2 % of global CO2 emissions.
Large ships emit a lot of sulphur oxides (SOx). E.g. cruise ships emit more than all cars of Europe. SOx is not a greenhouse gas, but it’s a nasty pollutant nonetheless.
They emit a lot, but they transport … a very lot. Trucks are higher emitters per comodity.
Still both should be powered by something else like hydrogen (more interesting for ships I guess) or batteries…
And cruise ships should be IMHO taxed so high (the tax should probably directly go to countermeasures), such that only very rich people are able to (not that I grant them the fun, but they should finance this climate disaster in every possible way…)
I looked into carbon offsets of shipping containers from China to the US as part of my job. I was shocked at how little was emitted per container - Probably cost around $40 of offsets for one 45 footer.
Like you said, the bigger issue is the trucks needed for last mile / between distribution centers.
Based on what a reasonable carbon price should be, I don’t think you would need to tax them to oblivion. They would just need to pay their fair share.
This website suggests that it is about 0.4 tonne of CO2 per passenger per day. Canada’s current carbon tax is $65 per tonne. So a 7 day cruise would be $182 per passenger in carbon pricing. This is just ballpark and yes you can argue that carbon prices should be higher.
We are quickly arriving at an unpayable bill.
For whom though? I think if your product is going to be very expensive because of that you,ll try to find ways (less carbon emissive) to make it cheaper, and for others, who have low emissions already, they get an advantage. Also rich people generally emit much more carbon than poor people.
I’m a little bit tired of the argument, that everything gets expensive, like the money just goes to nirvana, it’s a tax and a tax should steer industries (mostly) to do the right thing (in this case emit less CO2). The money can go directly to people e.g. in the form of a universal basic income.
For the ability to produce enough food. It’s not the tax that’s the issue it’s that the climate will make industrial food production unviable. We will rapidly exit the conditions that underpin the viability of the modern economy. The only work of value will be making food and related tools in a volatile climatic environment. The bill will not be payable in money, is my point. That is, a tax will be woefully inadequate.
Certainly, it will be really “interesting” how to produce food for ~10 billion people in this uncertain future. But if we finally learn to accept that e.g. cattle isn’t the way forward, I think it may be possible with plant-based food. Although something like vertical farming etc. is definitely not viable today, it may be in the future. And at least currently it’s totally possible to sustainably produce enough (plant-based) food. I think we’ll learn to adapt, that much I trust in agricultural-technological advancement etc. But it will be “meaty” for most people and conflicts will arise (as they already are, see e.g. the conflict in Sudan that is indirectly related to climate change already, similarly as Syria previously (there were quite a few droughts the years before))
The odds that the adaption is rapid and doesn’t cause extreme changes in the daily conditions of everyone are vanishing.
Absolutely, and it’s astonishing, that still so few people see how “deep in shit” we already are, and I really hope that very soon ( < 5 years or so) a lot more people through whatever means will start to see that. But I think it’s not a good idea to go into the doomsday mood, I don’t think that helps either (individually, say depression etc. inability for action). But yeah it’s depressing how little this topic is still relevant in politics etc. and how little the scientific community is/was heard, that is telling us that we need to change like > 70 years ago (and a very soft transition would’ve been possible since than, not so much now unfortunately, whether we do it, or nature does it…).
We are quickly arriving at an unpayable bill.
With modern open-loop scrubbers large ships don’t emit SOx anymore…
…instead they just dump it into the sea. Science!
shipping is also trucks dude… and all the other nasty ways we move products around the world…
Sure it is, but I think that’s still better than if every individual needs to drive their own car through half the country to buy coffee. Shipping needs to happen in any way. Sure we could order less stuff from the internet, so individual house door shipping would be less, but that’s a drop in the ocean, compared to the other named factors
Trucks, like cars are on a transition to become EVs, with Tesla leading the industry there as well. Of course people will then complain regarding lithium and other bullshit, hence why I think we should stop listening to extremists.
Lol, trash reasoning. “Extremists” that want to start building communities that dont require you to drive everywhere. Just because evs are slightly better then gas doesnt mean its good to keep making cars a centralizing point we build our society around.
So… what’s your solution? Everyone using public transportation?
It ain’t that hard,
High density places:
lower parking availability, increase public transport availability and frequency.
Low density places:
They need their cars, they can keep them.
Remove zoning restrictions, and parking requirements
so there is more mixture of commercial and residential places shortening transport distance, allowing for even avoiding public transport and just walking/biking replacing this.
More biking infraestructure.
Fair taxes to car owners,
that means, othe people not having to support the huge car projects that cost more than they can get from the taxes they do on cars.
Also regulations on environmental design of cars, basically gaining back the progress we had done on car efficiency that was taken back by everyone wanting an SUV instead of a turismo.
:)
Figure you also believe Santa.
yea yea but you won’t answer to me mate, loss of time to talk with u :)
For me what you’re describing is communism, sorry.
Being able to own a private vehicle it’s, in my opinion, a fundamental part of freedom of movement. Sure, public transportation should also exist, but should be the option not the rule.
All cities should have specific places for bikers, I agree with that, you should be able to move whatever you want. Being anti private vehicles it’s commie for me.
Sorry but you’re just passing the same leftist propaganda, that all would be fixed if you took the cars from people. Cars are a fundamental part of freedom of movement and taking them shouldn’t and isn’t the solution for anything at all.
High density zones are just symptom of the city being overcrowded, and for that there’s really no solution. Public transportation, biking lanes, should existing should be the rule, not a bandaid for the fact that the city you live is overcrowded or its design is utter garbage.
For me what you’re describing is communism, sorry.
Being able to own a private vehicle it’s, in my opinion, a fundamental part of freedom of movement. Sure, public transportation should also exist, but should be the option not the rule.
All cities should have specific places for bikers, I agree with that, you should be able to move whatever you want. Being anti private vehicles it’s commie for me.
Everyone walking or biking.
So… you have no solutions?
My guess would be for EV everything. Plant trees in the city roads to lower the average temperature, the countries themselves should create tax incentives for people to move out from overcrowded cities as well.
But sure, easy to just end personal vehicles all together right? People like you are the reason our politicians are so shit.
Realistically, EVs are useful as a stopgap solution. They could be used to cover the transition as we expand public transit like EV busses, trains, subways, etc.
EVs are basically clean vehicles. All the emissions from them come either from their production or from where their energy comes from. The latter is easily solvable by going nuclear and renewable. Also old EV batteries can be recycled and repurposed as grid storage.
There’s no silver bullet to stop CO2 emissions, there’s a shitload of solutions being studied right now that will need to be implemented.
Really not a choice, carbon emissiosn have to stop. EVs dont do that. Urban trees are not going to revese climate change. Wow, you’re saying people need to keep lowering denisity.
more people the better yeah