REPORT: Pollution from 15 of world's biggest ships equal that of world's 760m cars
Says James Corbett, professor of marine policy at the University of Delaware: "Ship pollution affects the health of communities in coastal and inland regions around the world, yet pollution from ships remains one of the least regulated parts of our global transportation system." It sounds serious, but how bad could it be? Staggeringly, if a report by the UK's Guardian newspaper is to be believed. According to their story, just one of the world's largest container ships can emit about as much pollution as 50 million cars. Further, the 15 largest ships in the world emit as much nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide as the world's 760 million cars.
The problem isn't necessarily with the ships' 109,000-horsepower engines that endlessly spin away 24 hours a day, 280 days a year. In fact, these powerplants are some of the most fuel efficient units in the world. The real issue lies with the heavy fuel oil the ships run on and the almost complete lack of regulations applied to the giant exhaust stacks of these container ships.
The good news is that pressure is building from various governments around the world, including the United States, which just recently introduced legislation to keep these ships at least 230 miles away from U.S. coastlines. Similar measures are likely to follow in other countries like the United Kingdom.
[Source: guardian.co.uk | Photo: Ra Boe - C.C. 2.0]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
Carlos 2:02PM (6/02/2009)
Governments also need to look into commercial vehicles. They alone account for 20% of vehicles on the road.
Reply
Jared 2:17PM (6/02/2009)
Commercial vehicle emissions are already heavily regulated here in the US.
some1 2:25PM (6/02/2009)
"keep these ships at least 230 miles away from U.S. coastlines."
if global warming is true, then how would this solve anything?
Jim 2:30PM (6/02/2009)
"if global warming is true, then how would this solve anything?"
I think they're talking about toxic pollutants (HC, CO, NOx) and not GHG.
Jim 2:31PM (6/02/2009)
@some1:
I think the thought of suppliers not getting their goods within 230 miles of one of the biggest markets in the world would be enough to introduce change.
Yaroukh 3:31PM (6/02/2009)
What makes you think such number calls for regulation? Do you understand that it can't be "0 pct"? (One reason is that it would make lots of ppl scream "Non-commercial vehicles generate 100pct of emissions! Let's regulate!" :)
I just wonder based on what you think it has to be regulated.
SimbaDogg 3:52PM (6/02/2009)
@some1
imagine if UPS wasn't allowed to deliver packages directy to your driveway w/ their big trucks, but had to park 1/4 mile away from every house they deliver to, then deliver to the house on foot. The sheer costs of ferrying thousands of containers 230 miles out to the mainland would be HUGE. and i seriously doubt that they'd be able to pass 100% of the added cost onto the customer. simple fix...spend a couple hundred thousand dollars and retrofit the ships w/ some emission control devices.
Noidor 4:09PM (6/02/2009)
Problem is governments...especially in UK are attacking anyone who drives an SUV through an obnoxious series of taxes. Same is about to happen in US. In reality all this is a bigger socialist approach to taxing the rich indirectly, and of course it's justified through "protecting the environment". I never believe anything government says...ever.
Polly Prissy Pants 4:40PM (6/02/2009)
"simple fix...spend a couple hundred thousand dollars and retrofit the ships w/ some emission control devices."
Or just make stuff that's going to be for sale in America in America. But then you'd have to deal with all the people who would now be driving to jobs they didn't have before. And the hit to Budweiser and video game sales would be devastating.
Rich 8:21PM (6/02/2009)
@Noidor: yeah, because the rich can't afford taxes. Fight socialism! Tax the poor!
Alex 2:03PM (6/02/2009)
Holy crap. That puts things into a bit of perspective.
Reply
info 2:25PM (6/02/2009)
A better comparison than with cars would be to compare the emissions of one of these ships with the number of trucks it would take to move the same number of containers. I am not saying that trucks wouldn't do better, but we are talking freight after all. and while comparisons are being made, also include freight trains as well.
Dinger 3:37PM (6/02/2009)
@info
Seeing as these ships are taking goods across the oceans, a feat the even an electric truck/car would find difficult - let alone trains - trying to ascertain which is more fuel efficient is moot.
They are not competing forms of transportation.
Looking into air vs. ocean going freight would be good.
However, comparing either to ground based transportation... when there is a decidedly noticeable lack of ground, gets you nowhere.
tankd0g 4:26PM (6/02/2009)
Trucks don't float, silly.
Mehdi Cheddadi 2:03PM (6/02/2009)
"The problem isn't necessarily with the ships' 109,000-horsepower engines"
I want that, in my car.
Reply
Alex 2:23PM (6/02/2009)
I dunno...
http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2006-08/world-largest-diesel-engine.jpg
think you can fit that in your car? Might require a little too much work on the firewall :)
why not the LS2LS7? 2:25PM (6/02/2009)
That engine is played out. The new versions make 114,000HP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%A4rtsil%C3%A4-Sulzer_14RTFLEX96-C
Lucas 2:56PM (6/02/2009)
DYNO QUEEN!
Craig 4:09PM (6/02/2009)
I'm sure Leno will find a way.
Toy Yoda 5:02PM (6/02/2009)
Screw the car. Put in your motor cycle!!!