Climate Campaigners Horrified Global Shipping Will be Allowed to Grow

Guess essay by Eric Worrall

Climate campaigners are upset that the climate targets recommended by the UN International Maritime Organization don’t include a requirement that overall CO2 emissions be reduced.

Campaigners criticise global deal on carbon emissions from shipping

Green groups say agreement will allow emissions to continue to rise in the next decade

Fiona Harvey Environment correspondent
Sat 24 Oct 2020 03.32 AEDT

Governments have rejected calls for tougher regulation of international shipping, settling instead for new rules on reducing greenhouse gas emissions that campaigners say will imperil the Paris climate goals.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), the UN body that regulates international shipping, agreed on Friday after a week-long online meeting to make an existing target legally binding: to reduce the carbon intensity of shipping by 40% compared with 2008 levels in the next 10 years.

The conclusions, reached by ministers from around the world despite calls from the UK, Ireland, New Zealand and others for more stringent curbs on emissions, will go forward to the IMO’s marine environment protection committee for acceptance next month.

Campaigners said the deal would allow carbon dioxide emissions from shipping to continue to rise in the next decade, despite warnings from scientists that global emissions need to be brought down sharply over that period.

Read more:

I can’t help thinking international shipping organisations are missing an opportunity to turn the tables on climate activists.

One of the few geoengineering proposals which seems unlikely to kill people is to seed the ocean with iron oxide. Iron is the primary limiting nutrient for microscopic plant life over vast stretches of ocean. Even a few extra tons of iron delivered to the ocean surface could make a significant difference to algae growth over a vast area.

If ships could inject small quantities of cheap low grade iron into their exhaust, either as a fuel micro-additive or via a mechanism to inject powdered oxide into their exhaust stream, or even simply toss a few bags of iron oxide over the side as they travel, they would be in a strong position to claim their activities were a net climate benefit.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 23, 2020 6:41 pm

Or just stop painting the hulls and let the rust fall into the sea and do the job…

Meanwhile, I note once again that the harshest critics of international travel are the governments of offshore islands who seem hell-bent on killing their own tourist industries and isolating themselves from the rest of the world even after the Coronavirus ends.

Adam Gallon
Reply to  JOHN T. SHEA
October 23, 2020 10:52 pm

All for show & the money from the guilt that travellers will cause them to be inundated by Neptune!

Steve Case
October 23, 2020 7:00 pm

One of the few geoengineering proposals which seems unlikely to kill people is to seed the ocean with iron oxide. Iron is the primary limiting nutrient for microscopic plant life over vast stretches of ocean. Even a few extra tons of iron delivered to the ocean surface could make a significant difference to algae growth over a vast area.

If ships could inject small quantities of cheap low grade iron into their exhaust, …

For God’s sake, quit trying to figure out ways to help the climate warriors reduce CO2. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it is not a problem, it doesn’t need to be reduced. Don’t buy into their argument. Their goal isn’t to control the climate, their goal is to control you.

Dodgy Geezer
Reply to  Steve Case
October 23, 2020 8:02 pm


Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
October 23, 2020 10:04 pm

I was pretty amazed to see the usually radical Eric going along with this BS.

ANY attempt or suggestion of ANY form of “geo-engineering” must be rejected forthwith. If we allow these hubristic fools to start screwing with the climate, the only likely outcome will be that they trigger the next glaciation.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), the UN body that regulates international shipping, agreed on Friday after a week-long online meeting to make an existing target legally binding:

Since when does the UN have the authority to make “legally binding” decisions on nation states?

Is the faire and lovely Fiona just attempting to talk up the powers the UN has ?

Dudley Horscroft
Reply to  Greg
October 24, 2020 9:14 am

The “UN” has no authority. The authority comes from the International
Maritime Organization, which is composed of delegations from all the developed and most of the developing countries. There are a number of treaties between the members States, of which the most important are SOLASD and MARPOL. The following is part of the explanation from the IMO site:

“This procedure has been used in the case of conventions such as the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 and SOLAS 1974, all of which incorporate a procedure involving the “tacit acceptance” of amendments by States.

Instead of requiring that an amendment shall enter into force after being accepted by, for example, two thirds of the Parties, the “tacit acceptance” procedure provides that an amendment shall enter into force at a particular time unless before that date, objections to the amendment are received from a specified number of Parties.

In the case of the 1974 SOLAS Convention, an amendment to most of the Annexes (which constitute the technical parts of the Convention) is `deemed to have been accepted at the end of two years from the date on which it is communicated to Contracting Governments…’ unless the amendment is objected to by more than one third of Contracting Governments, or Contracting Governments owning not less than 50 per cent of the world’s gross merchant tonnage. This period may be varied by the Maritime Safety Committee with a minimum limit of one year.

As was expected the “tacit acceptance” procedure has greatly speeded up the amendment process. Amendments enter into force within 18 to 24 months, generally Compared to this, none of the amendments adopted to the 1960 SOLAS Convention between 1966 and 1973 received sufficient acceptances to satisfy the requirements for entry into force.

The enforcement of IMO conventions depends upon the Governments of Member Parties.

Contracting Governments enforce the provisions of IMO conventions as far as their own ships are concerned and also set the penalties for infringements, where these are applicable.

They may also have certain limited powers in respect of the ships of other Governments.

In some conventions, certificates are required to be carried on board ship to show that they have been inspected and have met the required standards. These certificates are normally accepted as proof by authorities from other States that the vessel concerned has reached the required standard, but in some cases further action can be taken.

The 1974 SOLAS Convention, for example, states that “the officer carrying out the control shall take such steps as will ensure that the ship shall not sail until it can proceed to sea without danger to the passengers or the crew”. This can be done if “there are clear grounds for believing that the condition of the ship and its equipment does not correspond substantially with the particulars of that certificate”. (This is Port State Control, for which Australia is a vigorous member, and markedly reduced the number of “rustbuckets” arriving in Australian waters.)

An inspection of this nature would, of course, take place within the jurisdiction of the port State. But when an offence occurs in international waters the responsibility for imposing a penalty rests with the flag State.

Should an offence occur within the jurisdiction of another State, however, that State can either cause proceedings to be taken in accordance with its own law or give details of the offence to the flag State so that the latter can take appropriate action.

Under the terms of the 1969 Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas, Contracting States are empowered to act against ships of other countries which have been involved in an accident or have been damaged on the high seas if there is a grave risk of oil pollution occurring as a result.

The way in which these powers may be used are very carefully defined, and in most conventions the flag State is primarily responsible for enforcing conventions as far as its own ships and their personnel are concerned. The Organization itself has no powers to enforce conventions.”

From the wording of the newspaper report it would appear that there will be no problem in getting sufficient agreement for the 40% reduction in carbon intensity – whatever that means. However, whereas “UK, Ireland, New Zealand and others [want] more stringent curbs” it is by no means certain that there will not be sufficient objections from USA, Panama, Greece, Liberia and other maritime nations, to prevent the amendment entering into force.

When publicized it is plausible that shipowners in a large number of smaller maritime nations object to the requirement and will persuade their governments to object.

robin townsend
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
October 25, 2020 6:57 am

Wow, thanks, but TL:DR.
Concise version; The IMO has no authority, but it provides a meeting place for governments to negotiate and agree conventions and other documents that they agree to be bound by.
So the IMO member state delegates and other representatives (of which i am regularly one) agree to hammer out some text. They sign this text and then wait for it to be ratified and ‘enter into force’.
Ratification is the process by which countries take the text and transcribe it into their own law; telling the IMO at the same time.
Once enough countries have ‘ratified’ the text, then it ‘enters into force’, which generally means that any ship can expect it to be applied to them when the enter into any port.

There is a lot more detail as your text no doubt correctly details, but the above is enough for Greg i hope.

Tom Gelsthorpe
Reply to  Greg
October 25, 2020 11:53 am

If climate “warriors” — or whatever damn fool label is next — go ahead with geo-engineering the once & future climate, there are several possibilities besides hastening the next glaciation.

1. They could make the weather better one place and worse another place. For instance, more rain in the Sahel where it would be a benefit, and more rain in Southeast Asia where they already have more than enough. Or less rain in the the Sahel where the Sahara would quickly advance southward, and less rain in Southeast China where it might be a benefit. Etc.

2. Geo-engineering could go too far, and cripple marine life, cause a shift in the Labrador Current & Gulf Stream, and make densely populated Europe both colder & drier, which would NOT be a benefit. Beware in all cases of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

3. Geo-engineers could get blamed for changes they didn’t cause, the way CO2 is blamed for stuff it doesn’t do. Opportunities for orgiastic scapegoating and rising international tensions are virtually limitless.

4. Emanating from all three above scenarios, and many, many more, tort lawyers, international courts, media meddlers, hypochondriacs, crybabies, Mother Earth religious fanatics, and more, could sue anyone conceivably liable for screwing up the geo-engineering programs. We already see such absurdities in the U.S. where municipalities are suing oil companies for ruining the climate. Never mind that the judges and tort lawyers drive cars to get to the courtrooms; media scavengers, too: plus they all sit around and argue in heated & cooled rooms, in modern buildings, with comfy clothes on, and full bellies, and go home to swanky modern digs with all sorts of conveniences — NONE of which would exist, but for the advent of fossil fuels over the last two centuries.

The most unlimited resources of all are the abilities of hypocrites to lie and pretend, and for zealots and ingrates to bite the hands that feed them. Such is the unending March of Folly.

Reply to  Steve Case
October 23, 2020 8:17 pm

I completely agree. Any attempt to placate the tiger will result in you being eaten whole, soon after. These people are not interested in listening, learning or negotiating, they just want to win and win now,
As for reducing Global Shipping, after the Alarmists many attempts to mandate population reduction including euthanasia, reducing Global Shipping is really quite small beer.

Reply to  Steve Case
October 23, 2020 9:35 pm

Agreed. More CO2 is needed in the atmosphere for the overall wellbeing of the planet!

Reply to  Steve Case
October 23, 2020 9:58 pm

More algae means more fish. More fish means more fish fry’s. Yummy

October 23, 2020 7:06 pm

China would never sign into any deal that limits shipping. Neither would all the other countries that depend heavily on exports. Co2 is not a problem. It is being used by marxists to get their agenda implemented.

Reply to  Stevek
October 23, 2020 7:28 pm

Not just the countries the depend on exports, but the ones that depend on imports as well.

October 23, 2020 7:11 pm

Just need to put in AOC’s high speed rail.

Reply to  Scissor
October 23, 2020 7:14 pm

Yes with the bridge across the ocean to run the trains. Should cost too much.

Reply to  Stevek
October 23, 2020 7:29 pm

Who cares, it’s not like they are spending their own money.

Tom Gelsthorpe
Reply to  MarkW
October 25, 2020 11:55 am

Touché! Your other observations are good, too.

Reply to  Scissor
October 23, 2020 7:49 pm

Yabbut, guys, we already have high speed rail. I can watch it live and running on railcam live any time I want to. Since you literally cannot ship heavy freight at a high speed, it becomes a moot point, unless you REALLY, REALLY want bad accidents, don’tcha know.

The high speed rail is passenger rail, for the most part. Amtrak has been doing it for a long time, although not all cities have passenger rail service for anything but commuters getting to and from work. Before that, it was Santa Fe, Norfolk & Western, and bunch of others. Any city worth its name has passenger rail service for commuters, including New York City and dozens of others. So how is it that I know about this and that self-important bimp AOC seems to be unaware of it? I used to take Metra into the city and back outbound to get home at night.

Like the rest of you, I find the insular attitude of people like AOC to be more than offensive, but since she can’t bring herself to take the train from NYC to WDC, as many people do these days, I really can’t do anything but point at that ignorant birdbrain’s remarks and giggle. We’ve had “high speed rail” for passengers for many decades. Maybe she needs to go outside once in a while.

Reply to  Sara
October 24, 2020 8:01 am

You might be surprised, but there’s videos of 80-90 or more mph trains from the 1930-40s in the US. The high-speed passenger rail service was already working in places way back then. But people eventually chose cars (and later airplanes) instead, at least in the US. That’s was their choice.

Reply to  Sara
October 24, 2020 10:27 am

OH, I know that, Beng, but the high speed rail I’m referring to is strictly the passenger service – and since these ignorant – er, uninformed – politicians seem to think it does not exist, we must prove them wrong.
I used to be able to get a train from my home town to Chicago, which took about 3.5 hours by rail and 6++ hours by car. That was in the 1960s. Amtrak doesn’t go to my hometown any more. If it did, I could visit my sister every other month. I miss that kind of thing. And I have no desire to drive 325 miles one way for that, especially with winter coming on.

Reply to  Sara
October 25, 2020 7:13 am

When I was young, back in the early ’70s, Amtrak was great. Rode the Crescent from Picayune, MS to Atlanta to visit family quite a few times. Rode it again in ’87, what a disgusting and disappointing experience. Very sad.

October 23, 2020 7:17 pm

And global shipping is catching up for lost time. Apparently there isn’t a dock left available for containers and the containers themselves are crammed full.

Reply to  TRM
October 23, 2020 9:06 pm

I am trying to buy a recumbent tricycle and am told it is a mile off the California coast.

Mike Dubrasich
October 23, 2020 7:22 pm

Dear Eric,

Why in the world do you feel it’s worthwhile to attempt to placate crazies by dumping dirt in the ocean? The alarmists are nuts. You can never ever satisfy nutty people. Altering the ocean nutrient content is not the answer to anything.

Better idea. Defund the UN. Defund junk science. Defund the crazies. Leave the oceans alone. Please do NOT re-engineer the oceans for any reason, including but not limited to pandering to delusionals.

Seriously Eric, buddy. Warmer Is Better. Never give an inch.

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
October 25, 2020 9:46 am

Isn’t that the reason that we build artificial reefs – out of decommissioned ships, for instance?

Tom Gelsthorpe
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
October 25, 2020 12:01 pm

Splendid comment, Mr. Dubrasich. The best I’ve seen in months. And that’s saying A LOT! Even here on WUWT where insightful remarks are relatively abundant, you don’t see many as good as yours — and based on a simple, usually overlooked, easily provable premise: “You can never ever satisfy nutty people.”

Thanks for cutting to the chase. Please contribute more often.

Loren C Wilson
October 23, 2020 7:51 pm

And how do we feed the world if we can’t ship our grains by bulk freighter to them? Everything the warmists want to do hurts the poor people of the world more than anyone else.

October 23, 2020 7:57 pm

Just the latest alarmist target. I believe they sit around consuming products brought to them using fossil fuels and try to think of more ways to sabotage their existence. I wish they would succeed without impacting me.

October 23, 2020 8:32 pm

Eric, thanks for constantly stepping up and taking one for the team by reading Guardian articles so that we don’t have to.

But maybe all content sourced from The Grauniad should just be included in the “Friday Funnies” post?

Steve Richards
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 24, 2020 12:32 am


October 23, 2020 8:50 pm

The UN has already nixxed the idea of iron fertilization, it’s considered dumping! A native group on the west of Canada tried it a couple times, and had record salmon catches both years. However they were threatened with all kinds of charges, and the news articles of the time were full of scientists falling over themselves condemning the very modest but very successful experiment, as being dangerous and yet ineffective – regardless of the obvious results.

Reply to  PCman999
October 23, 2020 9:00 pm

And no I don’t believe CO2 is anything but plant food and soda fizz, but iron fertilization will make up for all the fish we’re taking and best of all shut up the eco-commi-fascists so they can’t use co2 as an excuse to shut down civilization.

Reply to  PCman999
October 23, 2020 10:58 pm

I don’t think the iron “fertilization” by the Haida Gwaii and the record salmon catches were necessarily cause and effect. It takes more than twice to confirm such a correlation. Also most people have slipped about 5 decimals in their calculation of how much iron would have to be mined to spread on the ocean. The ocean is really, really, really massive compared to say the entire production of an iron ore mine……

Loren C Wilson
Reply to  DMacKenzie
October 24, 2020 11:15 am

The effect was discovered by correlating good salmon runs with volcanoes that spread iron-rich ash onto the specific are of the ocean where the young salmon live. Then it was tested by spreading iron in the desired area. The corresponding salmon harvests were significantly better. The effect takes a year to occur since the salmon have to grow up eating more good food due to the increased phytoplankton and zooplankton. The papers were pretty well supported.

October 23, 2020 9:09 pm

The worlds biggest experiment in reducing CO2 “emissions” conducted over the last 9 months has done nothing to change measurable global CO2 trends . Fuel use has fallen of a cliff, yet CO2 trends on. Its almost like whatever we contibute is so microscopic it doesnt influence trends. Then you also have to beleive it matters and arrogant enough to think you control everything.

Reply to  yarpos
October 23, 2020 10:02 pm

A 10% drop that lasted only a few months and has largely returned to normal. Given the noisy nature of CO2 measurement’s it’s not at all surprising that such as small and short term drop is not readily visible in the data.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  MarkW
October 24, 2020 12:17 am

If it is indeed correct that anthropogenic CO2 emissions, whose tonnes per day can be measured, is the dominant cause of CO2 measured in the air, then YES, a 10 % reduction for half a year will be readily detected.
OTOH, if anthro flux is only 10% or so of current CO2 flux and the 90% is natural such as outgassing from oceans, decay of plant material and similar, the NO, we will not see this emissions reduction among the noise if its measurement.
It boils down to your preference for one of the competing mechanisms. Scientists who know the answer are in disgrace if they hide it for whatever reason, but for now we have a deafening scientific silence, apart from old retired scientists like me who have actually worked the numbers and written it up on past editions of WUWT. Geoff S

October 23, 2020 9:56 pm

Basically they are declaring that world trade must shrink.
Their masters in China aren’t going to be happy with that.

October 23, 2020 11:10 pm

How do they think that shipping is going to reduce CO2 emissions short term? Be it nuclear or some new fangled renewables idea, it will cost dearly to convert or replace the ships.

I think it’s hilarious, most solar panels, certainly in Australia are shipped from China. As are are the ores and necessary materials to create renewables, shipped from one developing nation to the next.

Just one project, the 10 gigawatts Sun Cable project in the Northern Territory will likely require around 37 million panels. Renewables are creating a major part of the problem in regard to shipping emissions.

I can think of a way to very quickly reduce emissions from shipping.

John Pickens
Reply to  Megs
October 24, 2020 12:09 am

Thank you, Meg’s.
I was going to make this exact point.
I simply don’t understand the desire of the climate alarmists to force the shut down the fossil fuel industry.
They claim that solar and wind are cheaper, if that is so, then fossil fuels will diminish on their own.
Maybe they don’t believe their own rhetoric.

Steve Richards
October 24, 2020 12:35 am

Clipper ships, crewed by ex oil industry workers. Solve two problems in one go. Do I need to add a /sarc

Reply to  Steve Richards
October 24, 2020 12:22 pm

You can significantly increase crew requirements by using sails, right? More jobs is good, right? Or maybe just hire loads of people to swim and push the ship.

Joe Adams
October 24, 2020 12:43 am

Phytoplankton take CO2 out of the ocean. The idea is to take it out of the atmosphere.
The rate that they take CO2 out of the water has nothing to do with the physical rate at which CO2 can go in and out of solution, which is controlled by the number of molecules present at the surface and the temperature of the water and air.
If the ocean contains 52 times more CO2 than the atmosphere, then the amounts of extra plankton that you need must be staggering, to make an effect on the number of molecules at the surface available to go out of solution.
Someone must know how much iron is needed to to turn enough of all that CO2 into plankton, and where the CO2 they ingest goes, and for how long till it is CO2 again, and where. Then there is the question of oxygen depletion caused by the blooms of zooplankton and other creatures which eat all the extra phytoplankton, and by combining it with that oxygen, turn the phytoplankton back into CO2? Lots of study grants involved in it all.
Looks like there is big hole here that they can pour “sustainable” money into by digging up Aussie iron ore, processing and transporting it to Antarctic waters and dumping it in the sea. So it will stay on the agenda for another century or two, milking the system between those proposing it and studying its possible benefits and those paid to study its potential disasters.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joe Adams
October 24, 2020 6:36 am

“Phytoplankton take CO2 out of the ocean. The idea is to take it out of the atmosphere.
The rate that they take CO2 out of the water has nothing to do with the physical rate at which CO2 can go in and out of solution, which is controlled by the number of molecules present at the surface and the temperature of the water and air.”

That’s a good question, Joe.

Anyone have an answer to this? Can iron filings in the ocean reduce the level of CO2 in the atmosphere?

October 24, 2020 1:23 am

I remember a poem from school called Cargoes by John Masefield.

Quinquireme of Nineveh from distant Ophir,
Rowing home to haven in sunny Palestine,
With a cargo of ivory,
And apes and peacocks,
Sandalwood, cedarwood, and sweet white wine.

Stately Spanish galleon coming from the Isthmus,
Dipping through the Tropics by the palm-green shores,
With a cargo of diamonds,
Emeralds, amythysts,
Topazes, and cinnamon, and gold moidores.

Dirty British coaster with a salt-caked smoke stack,
Butting through the Channel in the mad March days,
With a cargo of Tyne coal,
Road-rails, pig-lead,
Firewood, iron-ware, and cheap tin trays.

Maybe the activists could volunteer to row new quinquiremes (along with more CO2 per ton of cargo) or man the ropes (oops, am I allowed to say that?) on the new galleons. Perhaps Greta could show them how as she has sailed once across the Atlantic.
It seems that we are now in the third verse with cheap stuff being imported along with the tin trays, as well as the commodities we need to feed ourselves and live a modern lifestyle, not forgetting the smart phones and tablets.

Peta of Newark
October 24, 2020 1:27 am

Quote:cheap low grade iron ”

IOW, any and all steel manufactured/recycled/processed in China. Surely *some* folks here will have tried to use/cut/bend/weld that rubbish and *then*, should you actually fabricate something for use out-of-doors, it will rust so fast as to nearly catch fire.

Maybe what EW suggests is already happening. If and when you see farmers tilling fields that are red/orange/yellow in colour and with even modest clouds of dust blowing up behind their machines – there goes the iron.

See also the same colours in flood water – iron makes those colours.
Just in case no-one was aware, *that* is why the continental shelves are so productive for fishies and other sea-going critters and the deep ocean has less life about that the average Saharan sand dune.

What about embedding iron into plastic food & drink containers.
Anaemia is a widespread condition these days, esp amongst the girls. It makes you physically and mentally tired. (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome)
But, to be able to use iron, you need lots of Vitamin B9, also B12

But B9 (Folate) is The Killer because if you ain’t getting enough of that in the womb and for the 1st three years of life, you find yourself with Downs Syndrome, Aspergers Disease or Autism.
Did a documentary series I saw recently say the 12% of US kids/people are now Autistic

B12 protects against dementia but also is involved with ‘proteins’ and what are viruses if not ‘proteins’

Do you get Pins & Needles much, do your fingers/feet/toes tingle some or all of the time?
1) That is from eating sugar and or drinking alcohol
2) That is from a deficiency of B vitamin

You DO NOT get Vitamin B from eating vegetables
The Turkeys REALLY ARE ‘Voting For Christmas and in soooo many other ways also – let Sleepy Joe tell you about, and possibly inflict them upon you

Coeur de Lion
October 24, 2020 2:06 am

We have the same stuff going on here in UK . A Conservative Party (god save us) leaflet praising Hampshire County Council for ‘ tackling climate change ‘ by various silly methods. It’s so EMBARASSING!

October 24, 2020 2:23 am

Biden wants to shut down America’s oil industry, so America will have to import fuel and all the other products derived from oil and now the loons want to cripple shipping! Pray for trump.

October 24, 2020 2:33 am

Actually, not a whole lot of iron, compared to world iron use, is needed to encourage plankton growth. One of those little known facts is- a large part of the ocean is virtual desert with no upswellings to bring nutrient rich water back up, and low oxygen content so fish can’t breathe. Putting a string of buoys with air compressors and a pipe going straight down 100 feet would oxygenate a lot of water. The buoys are bobbing up and down- a few weights on a lever arm and SSD some connecting rods to a piston you’ve got simple compressor.

As for iron and algae blooms, you’d only need to outfit a few ships on regular trade routes to keep them in action. But if you look at maps of world shipping traffic there are huge swaths of ocean where ships rarely appear. Transiting from Hawaii to New Zealand with a midpoint target to make the crew Golden Dragons we went 5 days without a sonar contact. You’d have to dedicate a few ships to that to keep them seeded.

October 24, 2020 4:39 am

I have a great idea, so bear with me.

Let’s round up all the ecohippies and climate-whatevers – in short, anyone who wants to try to “control” the planet, and move them all to their very own island. It’s likely they’d all fit into a container ship’s hold, which would give the crew something to do, but their need their very own island where nothing is wrong…. everything is just fine…. there are no threats to the climate there…. everything is just fine.

I read that article and still can’t figure what it is that got their undies in a wad. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

Bryan A
Reply to  Sara
October 24, 2020 8:30 am

Might I suggest the Island of Antarctica?

Bryan A
Reply to  Sara
October 24, 2020 8:31 am

OR… Perhaps the Isle of MANN

Reply to  Sara
October 24, 2020 10:30 am

Okay, but what do you have against penguins, if I may ask? They might not like having anything except the science people down there.

And Mann? It’s already occupied.

I suggest one of the unoccupied islands in the Aleutian chain. Nothing up there but big bears and birds and cold weather. There are also places in Siberia that have not had a human living there in millenia. Cold, yes, but lovely in the spring and summer…. up near the Arctic circle somewhere.

Bair Polaire
October 24, 2020 5:02 am

Ships cool the planet!

According to the IPCC, shipping is the only industrial sector with a negative climate impact in the next 20 years when it matters most. Cooling from NOX and SO2 overcompensates for warming from CO2. According to the Supplematary Material shipping is permanently cooling the planet by 0,03 K.

See Figure 8.34, (b) p. 720, Chapter 8, IPCC AR5, 2013
See also Supplementary Material Table 8.SM.10

comment image

October 24, 2020 6:27 am

Co2 is good for the planet, good for plants and good for humans. Which is precisely why leftist morons screech endlessly for it to be reduced.

Just Jenn
October 24, 2020 7:07 am

You know instead of screaming about how shipping increases the dreaded CO2 of their nightmares, why not just invent teleportation of goods?

Oh wait, that would mean they’d actually have to take a BIOLOGY course where one of the first things they will learn is CO2 is LIFE. The horror~!

October 24, 2020 7:43 am

Elderly cruise ship passengers could add ample iron to the oceans by simply tossing some of their Geritol overboard.

Gordon A. Dressler
October 24, 2020 8:33 am

Hey, no need to worry about this.

If Joe Biden and Kamala Harris get elected, they have promised to transition the US off “oil” (i.e., petroleum and its refined products that are used as fuel). Since ALL large ocean-transiting cargo ships use a range of crude oil-derived fuels (ranging from Bunker C to diesel), the US ocean cargo transportation industry will be forced to buy fuel for their ships from foreign suppliers of such, but at what inflated prices?

And it will then be only a matter of time before the Biden/Harris administration issues an Executive Order banning all US commercial vessels from purchasing oil-derived fuels from foreign suppliers.

Or instead perhaps Biden/Harris are of the mindset that solar, wind, geothermal and hydro “green renewables”, together with massive batteries, can indeed replace evil, “polluting” fossil fuels for all ocean-transiting marine vessels. Go figure.

Keith Harrison
October 24, 2020 3:03 pm

Ammonia fueled engines are being developed. Made from hydrogen this fuel could get the industry where it seems everyone wants it to go.

So how do we produce economical hydrogen that is carbon dioxide free? Answer: We can’t.

But as long as the industry says it is made from clean hydrogen, blue or green, activists will be happy not to point out the flaws.

And industry can claim a win.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Keith Harrison
October 25, 2020 4:59 pm

The higher heating value, in units of BTU/pound, of ammonia is 9,690 compared to 12, 800 for ethanol, 14,00 for anthracite coal, 19,300 for diesel, 19,860 for kerosene, and 21,700 for propane (ref ). Therefore, with such low energy density, no component engineer seriously considers ammonia as a viable replacement for other fossil fuel-derived energy sources.

Also, the vapor pressure of ammonia at 70 deg-F is 129 psia, and at 100 deg-F it is 212 psia; meaning that higher pressure storage vessels (=$$$) will be needed if the stored ammonia is not to be actively refrigerated (=$$$) so as to maintain it as liquid instead of much less dense gas.

Keith Harrison
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
October 26, 2020 10:52 am


I have no dog in this fight so to speak . Engines are being developed for ammonia combustion as this article reveals,—an-important-step-towards-carbon-free-shipping-2737809

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights