Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Aviation Footprint : Ships' CO2 'twice that of planes' (Merged)

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Aviation Footprint : Ships' CO2 'twice that of planes' (Merged)

Old 18th Oct 2007, 13:00
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Post Aviation Footprint : Ships' CO2 'twice that of planes' (Merged)

Now that most of the media and protesters have had a go at the high carbon footprints the aircraft leave, does anyone know when I can go down to the docks and join other protesters and the media in demonstrating against ships that come and go into UK ports?

As far as I have read, shipping accounts for approx double the amount that aircraft leave.

So there should be double the protest about aircraft.

thanks
BAe146/RJ is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2007, 13:12
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Essex
Age: 49
Posts: 118
from what I read it's considerably more than double and shipping is the fastest growing sector by far - not aviation as most of the enviroterrorists insist.
Not buying loads of plastic crap shipped from china for christmas would be far more beneficial for the environment than trying to stranglehold aviation.
However this isn't about the environment its about raising taxes so it plays better with the great unwashed to tax the business traveller rather than little chavneys latest ipodpspdvdeo
AlexL is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2007, 13:59
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Shipping is not visible to the public.

Set out clear facts (with the helpful aid of images showing the environmental destruction caused), and the argument could be settled - especially in light of the shipping industry doing absolutely nothing to lower the pollutive impact except through efficiency driven by economic fundamentals.
Re-Heat is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2007, 14:36
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cardiff, UK
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
especially in light of the shipping industry doing absolutely nothing to lower the pollutive impact except through efficiency driven by economic fundamentals.
Nice argument and well put. Pity its factually incorrect though

So there should be double the protest about aircraft.
Think positive and suggest halving the aircraft protesting
Mariner9 is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2007, 17:58
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Well mariner - it isn't, by virtue of the fact that you don't hear about it in public, which was my point - the shipping industry operates largely in international waters, and there are few environmental limitations on the emissions in large global ports - Los Angeles comes to mind as one that has done nothing and is highly polluted.

Point me towards a global body that regulates the pollutants coming out of ships, that has changed it standards significantly in the past 50 years, and to which you expect Pamanamian and Liberian vessels to adhere to...then you can call it factually incorrect.

While aviation is globally visible, it has been prodded to a response on an individual country/airline basis, even it in reality the actual effort has been as non-responsive as that of the global shipping industry.

At least the weight and efficiency penalty of aviation force continually improving standards of manufacturers in both industries - however, the effect is far greater in aviation by the nature of the machine lifting itself entirely into the air rather than floating.
Re-Heat is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2007, 19:55
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,403
Yes well ... as a LibDem councillor I do spend a certain amount of time with people who give me funny looks about my hobby.

My answer to them is that my flying (when not cancelled by weather) is about equivalent to driving an extra ten miles to work every day, which puts it into some sort of perspective. And yes, some of them have been for rides with me.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2007, 20:10
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 110
Why criticize another form of transport?

Aviation CO2 accounts for, depending on who does the math., between 2% & 6% of man made emissions.

Burning rainforest accounts for 18%.

Why is much of this forest being burned - so sugar cane can be grown to satisfy the green lobby - to produce bio-fuel.

And some suggest that we should burn this in aircraft.
BillS is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2007, 06:59
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Location
Posts: 259
Post BBC Report: Ships' CO2 'twice that of planes'

Ships' CO2 'twice that of planes'

By Matt McGrath
Environment reporter, BBC News





Global emissions of carbon dioxide from shipping are twice the level of aviation, one of the maritime industry's key bodies has said.
Some 90,000 ships ply the world's oceans


A report prepared by Intertanko, which represents the majority of the world's tanker operators, says emissions have risen sharply in the past six years.
Previous International Maritime Organisation estimates suggested levels were comparable with those of planes.
Some 90,000 ships from tankers to small freighters ply the world's oceans.
Clampdown considered
Intertanko says its figures are the most realistic estimation of the current levels of CO2 from ships.
It says that growth in global trade coupled with ships burning more fuel to deliver freight faster has contributed significantly to the increase. Dragos Routa, the technical director of Intertanko, told the BBC the figures were a work in progress but the levels of emissions had risen sharply. While there are few accurate measures and even fewer restrictions on the amounts of carbon dioxide that ships can emit at present, governments in many parts of the world are considering a clampdown as part of their efforts to tackle global warming.
AltFlaps is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2007, 07:06
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire physically; Perthshire and Pembrokeshire mentally.
Posts: 1,611
Back to four-mast clippers, then. Or nuclear power.
Wingswinger is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2007, 07:12
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Age: 42
Posts: 500
I don't wish to be unkind....but this is hardly news, and I don't think it's rumour, and it's not really about aviation at all.
I think that bringing attention to every lazy media non-story will just add to the problem and hype related misinformation really.


(edit: posted while in Rumours and News)

Last edited by ChocksAwayUK; 19th Oct 2007 at 08:30.
ChocksAwayUK is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2007, 07:23
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Age: 55
Posts: 240
I don't wish to be unkind....but this is hardly news, and I don't think it's rumour, and it's not really about aviation at all.

... oh dear, Friday morning....

BW
bladewashout is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2007, 08:19
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 131
"I don't wish to be unkind....but this is hardly news, and I don't think it's rumour, and it's not really about aviation at all."

I dont wish to be unkind either .... I think it is worthy of putting on here. All the hype that goes on in the news about air travel and aircraft polluting the planet, causing climate change, global warming etc etc.
Airlines come in for a lot of stick over this, when infact air travel is just a small percentage of the problem.
Brian Fantana is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2007, 08:38
  #13 (permalink)  
bnt
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland. (No, I just live here.)
Posts: 714
Lets see if any journo "joins the dots" between this story and the container ship, full of toys from China, that arrives in Felixstowe every November...

However, I note that these are total CO2 figures, not pro rata figures (e.g. CO2 per tonne of freight), so I'm not in a hurry to draw any conclusions from them...
bnt is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2007, 08:45
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Onboard the Newaer
Posts: 56
What about aircraft carriers?..that's aviation related!
Snifferdog is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2007, 08:59
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cardiff, UK
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Point me towards a global body that regulates the pollutants coming out of ships, that has changed it standards significantly in the past 50 years, and to which you expect Pamanamian and Liberian vessels to adhere to...then you can call it factually incorrect
Suggest you google Marpol. Voluntary from 1973, then mandatory from 1983 Mandatory regulations for ALL ships, with compliance regularly checked by Port State Control. Mandatory oil discharge monitoring equipment fitted to all tankers. Standards continually being reviewed and tightened. For example, last year, sulphur content specs of marine fuels tightened to reduce SO2 emissions. On going review of disposal of cleaning residues from dry cargo vessels with revised procedures expected by Christmas.

I say again, your argument was factually incorrect
Mariner9 is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2007, 09:16
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Very relevant to this site!
Tigs2 is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2007, 10:06
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Here's another container ship;



I think AltFlaps's aviation related point was that
Global emissions of carbon dioxide from shipping are twice the level of aviation


Forgive me if I'm being thick here but if the tonnage of ships under way is greater than the tonnage of aircraft in the air, would we not expect ships to convert more fuel to atmospheric gas?
GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2007, 10:08
  #18 (permalink)  

Grandpa Aerotart
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SWP
Posts: 4,620
What the environazis miss is the fact it aint got **** all to do with CO2 in the first place.

It doesn't matter to the planet how much oil a tanker burns, or the tugs in harbour, or the pleasure boats of what ever type whether they do 10kts or 35kts...nor does it matter how much fuel aircraft burn.

Transport and energy production will get more efficient in time driven by normal economics...GW aint got a thing to do with it and the greenie's plaintive cries will just inhibit the process.

I'll be looking to increase my carbon footprint significantly late next mth and early Dec as I take off in my aircraft and do some serious travelling...and the greenies can kiss my ar$e...what's more as my child is off at college I'll be roaring around all alone most of the time...just to make it a little less efficient and get up the tree huggers just a little more
Chimbu chuckles is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2007, 10:10
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Daylight Saving Free Zone
Posts: 731
I'm surprised someone hasnt posted about the fabled "Chem-wake" these boats generate.
sprocket is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2007, 10:19
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
As a total even less relevant aside, I bet the EMMA MAERSK arrived in China with empty containers.
GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.