Essay by Eric Worrall
Yet another freedom sapping international treaty committee of unelected apparatchiks.
A new ruling says countries – including NZ – must take action on climate change under the law of the sea
Published: May 24, 2024 6.13am AEST
Karen Scott
Professor in Law, University of CanterburyIn a significant development for small island nations threatened by rising seas, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) has found greenhouse gases constitute marine pollution.
The tribunal handed down a unanimous advisory opinion this week in its first climate-related judgement. It declared countries must take measures to combat climate change in order to preserve the marine environment under the law of the sea.
…
Some institutions associated with UNCLOS, such as the International Maritime Organization, have taken steps to address climate impacts on the ocean. But countries have been reluctant to do so. They have often asserted the primary mandate regarding emissions reductions and climate adaptation lay with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The tribunal’s advisory opinion confirmed, for the first time, that the 168 UNCLOS parties must address climate change and ocean acidification in order to comply with their obligations under the law of the sea.
First, ITLOS confirmed that greenhouse gas emissions and the heat generated by a warming climate meet the definition of “pollution” under Article 1(4) of UNCLOS. This is important because under Part XII of UNCLOS, states have obligations to prevent, control and mitigate pollution of the marine environment from any source.
Second, the tribunal confirmed the obligation under Article 194 of UNCLOS to prevent and control pollution applies to greenhouse gas emissions. This includes emissions already accumulated in the atmosphere. States therefore must take all necessary measures to address climate change pollution and ocean acidification.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/a-new-ruling-says-countries-including-nz-must-take-action-on-climate-change-under-the-law-of-the-sea-230420
What can I say? ITLOS have just earned themselves a place on the international treaty bonfire which we all hope will take place out the back of the White House in 2025.
The day to day impact, at first, is likely to be minimal. Nobody wants an end to shipping, in my opinion this is likely just part of the ongoing Pacific Island shakedown of anyone naive enough to give them handouts.
If cargo ships actually stopped operating, it would be an unimaginable economic and social disaster for the very island nations which brought the case.
So why bring the case? Pacific Islanders have had centuries of experience playing great powers off against each other, and manipulating international perceptions in ways which result in the islanders receiving money. Islanders are some of the smartest people on the planet, as you quickly learn if you have any islander friends. Thousands of years of brutal inter-island conflicts killed off all the stupid ancestors.
You would imagine a new requirement for net zero shipping might resurrect nuclear cargo ships, but any suggestion international shipping should go nuclear will be stomped by the very people who claim we need to reduce CO2 emissions. Greens rarely support “solutions” to an issue they claim is a planetary emergency, unless the solutions involve victimhood and embracing global communism.
Disregarding the volume of cargo being carried and the number of sailing ships that would be required to replace all the diesel shipping just think about the disruption that would take place going from a point to point powered transportation system where a ship went from any point a to any point b. Compare to sailing ships following mainly the trade winds. The multiplier effect of moving to smaller ships and slower ships would then be effected again by the trade winds issue.
In law merchant vessels have to be unarmed. What jolly target would nuclear powered ones make.
Utter madness
In the end there will be no alternative to nuclear ships, and if that means they need guns, they will get guns, or an escort of armed vessels.
It is amazing how fast laws can be changed when people face economic ruin and social unrest, if they are not.
There is an excellent article on the issues facing maritime nuclear vessels here, and this is a pertinent excerpt:
As with all things nuclear. the regulations are out of date, overly restrictive and based on ‘precautionary principle’ guesswork from the 1960s and onwards.
I’m curious where you get this; when did it happen? Merchant ships were armed well into the 1800s, I think at least some were armed during the American Civil War 1861-5, but won’t swear to it. I’m curious how and when it changed.
arold the Chemist says:
At the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 is 427 ppm by volume. This is 0.839 grams per cubic meter of air.
Why is the concentration in air so low? The answer is that most of CO2 is absorbed by the ocean water and by the abundant sea plants. Lots CO2 is fixed by the plants on land.
We really don’t have to worry about CO2.
But when is the ocean turning acidic? Its a big threat that the ITLOS has now addressed, so they must know chemistry too.
The pH of the ocean is 8.1 and is fairly stable. A portion of the CO2 would be converted bicarbonate and carbonate anions.
Sure thing, Harold. These people have never heard of “buffering.”
What is the CO2 carrying capacity of an infinitely buffered, biologically active, alkaline solution? Asking for a friend.
Never. The ocean is turning acidic never. It’s pH is about 8. If that number is getting lower over time it will never reach seven, much less less than seven. There is no “sea water acidification.” Perhaps there may be some “sea water less alkalization” – clumsy to say but at least not a lie.
If the pH of the oceans ever did go below 7.0, we’d have more to worry about than temperatures and CO2 from fossil fuels!
PS Why do they always say, “More Acidic” when “Less Caustic” would also be true?
Stop the stupid, self-serving scare-mongering
That is not possible because 1) there is not enough fossil fuel left over, and 2) 3.5% salt in the sea, which forms many compounds with C, H, O, CL, Na, which sustain flora and fauna in the oceans, and precipitate to the ocean floor, as they have been doing for hundreds of millions of years, when CO2 was as high as 5000 ppm
Not this nonsense again. These people are environmentalists who are too thick to understand, never mind even apply, the hard science you have to measure, versus make up and agree on..
Only those who don’t understand the pH sale or buffering would say such stupid things about a 0.1pH change from 8.2 to 8.1 representing a 30% change in acidity because its a logarithmic scale. These morons can’t do basic maths either. It simply isn’t. On the ionic scale, that is made logartithmic to better represent the actual chemical effects, its 3 part per million. The ratio between 10^8.2 and10^8.1 they mis represent is irrelevant, obviously.
This includes complete consensual science duffers in NOAA, etc. I wrote a letter about this. Here it is. Nobody wants to publish the facts, of course.
On the ionic measure the difference between 10^8.1 and 10^8.2 in 10^14 Full scale is 3 parts per million. Not a lot. I even added a picture someone kindly contributed.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5k1v3bhth7rj9lseizsb4/pH-letter-3.0-2.docx?rlkey=yaxnhn0r65cwk6zcwlokcrlw0&dl=0
Story tip?
Thank you.
I had forgotten that pH was base 10 logarithmic.
3 ppm. 70% of the surface is water. The claim of 280 to 430 ppm atmospheric. Hmm… I guess the oceans boiling (/sarc) keeps the waters from absorbing more CO2 and the scalding atmosphere (/sarc) alters the partial pressure downward.
The pH of the ocean is 8.1. A portion of the CO2 is fixed by conversion to bicarbonate and carbonate. This forms a buffer which maintain the pH at 8.1.
Oh. So then those who say the ocean is turning acidic are wrong.
That makes the 168 UNCLOS parties job to address ocean acidification easier.
Thank you for contributing your knowledge to the ITOS ruling.
“it would be an unimaginable economic and social disaster for the very island nations which brought the case.”
It really is about time people started saying, “Ok.. if that’s the way you want it…
Let the people making these stupid frivolous claims feel the bite of what they are asking.
2 to 3 weeks of, “sorry, we can’t sail to the island because it would emit too much CO2..”
See if these clowns really want this.
Not that silly acidification line…
Let’s not tell Al Gore, or he’ll start claiming it’s like battery acid.
Start claiming AGAIN.
A solution to such issues would rob green of its sources of revenue. That’s why they keep moving the goal posts.
If CO2 concentrations remain around 400+ or even 500 – 600 ppm how many millions of years will it take before the Oceans become acidic? My brain hurts thinking about it!
It won’t.
What in the oceans “eat” CO2?
What in the oceans eat the algae and plankton and other flora?
What is the output of those fish digestive systems.
What happens when ocean flora dies?
Answer, the CO2 becomes C and sinks to the bottom. Ultimately it is sublimated and goes into the GAIA furnace where it is converted into oil and methane (and other things).
It is part of the earth’s carbon cycle. Millions of years, certainly, but very real.
Oh, and more CO2 in the oceans benefits shell fish given the aquatic chemistry makes calcium carbonate and other compounds the shell fish “eat” to make shells, coral, etc.
“how many millions of years will it take before the Oceans become acidic”
NEVER !
The Cargo Ships of the Future
The outline plans for the new ships are based on HMS Royal George, which was launched at Woolwich Dockyard in 1756. As an optional extra to deal with modern piracy and terrorist attacks the ships can be upgraded to carry least 100 guns. ….
HMS Mary Rose?
Can it carry up to 20,000 containers like modern container ships? 🙂
No
“have taken steps to address climate impacts on the ocean”
What steps do they suggest we take to address the ocean’s impact on the climate?
but.. but… carbon pollution is the “prima causa” of everything- it probably even caused the Big Bang so it’s not logical to even ponder that the ocean might impact the climate /s
Eric Worrall is an expert in reporting delusional leftist ideas and proposals that make leftists appear to be fools. Sometimes I have to do more research because the ideas are so stupid they seem like Babylon Bee sarcasm rather than reality. But they are always reality.
Thanks Richard. The silver lining of this never ending parade of climate insanity is we get a few laughs.
Well, you have to laugh or you would cry. As my old english teacher used to say, “Clotted tosh and curdled balderdash”. But I suppose the production of this new ITLOS development kept the authors from polluting the street corners.
I wonder if the electricity generated at Drax by burning N. American wood pellets will be used to make the steel for these new net zero ships.
Nah, they’ll be built of Chinese steel made using coal.
Very expensive laughs that quickly turns to sorrow every where such wind/solar/battery/EV/heat pump idiocies have been implemented
Row, row, row your boat….
A job creator! Clean and green jobs!
I can’t tell from the picture. Is that a bireme or a trireme?
It’s a future cruise boat- everyone has to row. 🙂
Do they give out participation trophies?
Anyone who doesn’t participate, in the future, will be thrown overboard.
“Do they give out participation trophies?”
Only to low-IQ leftists. !
Just to make them “feel” good !
Battery powered Cargo ships are already here, and their range will only increase in in the future. Not even here Hydrogen will have any chance of getting market shares.
And demand for Bulk shipping will drop with the reduced usage of fossil fuels.
Where?
Gadzooks! Battery powered long haul trucks are already a joke, with so much weight capacity taken up by the batteries. I can’t imagine how much batteries for long haul cargo ships would take up. A long extension cord would weigh less.
You’re hilarious.
That is his intention.
To prove that all AGW-apostles are gormless idiots.
100% success !!
Did you leave out some (/sarc) notations?
Let’s just ask one question. How long with those ships have to stay in port to charge up for a 1000 mile trip? Assume a 100,000 lb loaded displacement, that includes however many batteries needed.
You are correct. The demand for bulk shipping will drop with the restrictions on fossil fuels that power the cargo fleet. And that will be a negative impact to some 8 billion people.
“How long with those ships have to stay in port…” I think the first question would be which ports have the electrical capacity to charge them. Most island nations would no longer be ports-of-call. Of the few that were, it would be interesting to see how happy the natives would be while doing without electricity for the several days required to charge each cargo ship that called.
their range will only increase in in the future
Evidence? (not speculation)
Yes! They also could charge the battery’s, with electrodes dipped in sea water./sarc
From one side of a canal to the other.
OMG you really are a gullible little moron, aren’t you !!
Bulk shipping will NOT reduce, because normal people will not want to lower their life-style to the miserable existence you expect everybody to embrace.
Idiot.
“unless the solutions involve victimhood and embracing global communism.”
So true!
This ruling will undoubtedly apply to Great Lakes shipping too. Retrofitting a 1000 foot freighter with sails would be impractical so wooden sail ship would need to be made from scratch. So logging will need to start up again. Sailmakers will be in demand and marlin spike seamanship will come back in to fashion.
On the bright side we will need more hemp for all the ropes needed to hoist the mainsail.
Not sure that the call for action was directed at ocean commerce emissions rather than general planet wide emissions.
Ocean transport is by far the least CO2 emitting means of transporting goods, as well as the most economically efficient.
Maybe they should hire the Chinese navy to enforce it.
Not available. Too busy destroying coral reefs to build islands for military bases.
Also the ICC Hague today ordered Israel to halt Rafah offensive. Are all courts mad?
We all have to stop polluting…. STOP BREATHING!
Net-Zero cargo ships?
Sounds like an opportunity to recycle some of those worthless windmills.
Just fit them with smaller blades (so the masts won’t need to be so tall) and gear them to propellers!
The solution is ultra long extension cords to convert all ships to cable ferries..
Were these ‘sinking’ Island Nations named? Inquiring minds.. etc.
“Atlantis” comes to mind.
The US is not a party to the LoST.
“A Pirate Looks at Forty” by Jimmy Buffett
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o0Oft05oFE
Mother, mother ocean, I have heard you call
Wanted to sail upon your waters since I was three feet tall
You’ve seen it all, you’ve seen it all
Watched the men who rode you, switch from sails to steam
And in your belly, you hold the treasures few have ever seen
Most of ’em dreams, most of ’em dreams
Yes, I am a pirate, two hundred years too late
The cannons don’t thunder, there’s nothing to plunder
I’m an over-forty victim of fate
Arriving too late, arriving too late …
Didn’t we already try and replace “net zero cargo ships” for more efficient alternatives?