From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian Cunningham
Sounds like the grown-ups are back in charge!
A landmark deal to cut global shipping emissions has been abandoned after Saudi Arabia and the US succeeded in ending the talks.
More than 100 countries had gathered in London to approve a deal first agreed in April, which would have seen shipping become the world’s first industry to adopt internationally mandated targets to reduce emissions.
But President Trump had called the plan a “green scam” and representatives of his administration had threatened countries with tariffs if they had voted in favour.
Reflecting the pressure countries faced, the Secretary General of the International Maritime Organisation Arsenio Dominguez issued a “plea” for this not to be repeated.
In a dramatic conclusion on Friday, when countries should have been voting to approve the deal, Saudi Arabia tabled a motion to adjourn the talks for a year.
The chairman said this would mean that the agreement was not approved, as key timelines for the treaty would have to be revised.
The motion passed by just a handful of votes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3vnl0yxg53o
If the deal had gone through, it would have simply loaded more cost onto the cost of imports, as there is no cost effective alternative to diesel.
We are already finding out the same thing with aviation sustainable fuel targets.
Virtue signalling politicians at conferences like this cannot change the harsh realities of life, no matter how many resolutions they vote for.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is the sort of proposal that does not survive sunlight. Green EU apparatchiks being manipulated by the Chinese Communist Party, or how most of the UN usually operates.
Given how dependent China is on exports to keep their economy afloat, I doubt they would be that eager to force a policy who’s main goal is to make shipping more expensive.
I have seen accounts that Chinese yards are the only practical choice for the required refits. The PRC often acts at cross purposes with itself.
The Chimese were in favour, because their shipping fleet is younger than the global average and therefore likely to benefit under rules that pay those with lower emissions, plus it stood to give an enormous boost to their shipyards as owners get forced to buy new ships and scrap their existing fleet sooner.
That’s what I understood as well. The push for more efficient ships would hurt countries like where we don’t make big container ships and tankers, and help countires like SOuth Korea, and China where 90% are made.
“more efficient ships”
I can’t help but think of Benny Hill “more fish and chips”.
Grocery cart races.
China is supposedly a big backer of this. As I understand it, they pay new cleaner ships a reward financed by the tax on older polluting ships. Of course there will be overhead losses from redistributing the tax, ha ha; we can all guess whose pockets that disappears into.
So China wins twice, from operating the newest ships and getting the rewards, and from building newer ships for others.
It is a complex cap and trade system so ships under the cap can sell credits from the underage to ships well over the cap.
Down the hall from my lab is a poster written on a polypropylene board with colored markers held to the wall with plastic pushpins.
It says something to the effect, “Fossil fuels kill. Keep their carbon in the ground.”
Yup! Hypocrisy, that is all they have, and all they will ever have.
They’re too obtuse to be hypocritical
Sounds like some lab rats have escaped.
We need a cat.
Rats are better than this.
If I were you I’d take it down- or trash it somehow.
Better yet just add some fine (or not so fine) information at the bottom, like
“P.S. This message is written on a polypropylene board with colored markers held to the wall with plastic pushpins, all of which are made with petroleum products, so it would not be here without fossil fuels.”
I was thinking of something along those lines.
“so it would not be here without fossil fuels.”
And likely neither would the hypocrites.
In the break room of a former employer they had a white board on which someone wrote a new “inspirational” method every week. One week the message was something about being committed.
I added an addendum, that there is a short distance between being committed, and ought to be committed.
For some reason, a couple of days later, the white board was gone.
Keep it in ground and they couldn’t manufacture windmills, solar panels, batteries or EVs. D’oh!
Keep it in ground and you can’t even mine.
The system will collapse way before it reaches the most basic manufacturing.
Fossil fuel save lives because these are used by firetrucks and ambulances. Fossil fuels keep us from freezing to death in winter. Fossil fuels by the heavy machinery used to grow food. I will stop for for now.
Most of these people also feel that there are too many people on the planet.
Yep. Meaning, everyone but them is “surplus.”
Good! Finally, something positive for the Human Race out of an IMO meeting.
Now perhaps they will reconsider IMO2020 fuel regulations that have already jacked costs for ship operators considerably and are said to have contributed to “glowball” warming.
It gets hard to see what useful functions the IMO provides, so perhaps better still would be more pressure from Trump with an eye to disbanding it.
The IMO2020 regulations were about reducing the sulphur content in ships’ fuels from at most 3.5% to at most 0.5%. The result is seven times less sulphur oxides in the air which seems to me like a very good thing. Often ports have surrounding residential areas and it definitely is a health benefit to the people living there.
A side effect of this is that there are less particulates in the air reflecting sunslight, and this is thought to have increased the effective amount of sunshine reaching the surface. So in that sense, yes, the measure will have increased temperature. Doubt though that it is a) evenly distributed over the planet, and b) whether anyone actually notices this.
Seven times less sulphur oxides in the air sounds good, but is not the whole story. Natural sulphur oxides plus Man’s contribution is very roughly 500 million tons a year, with each source contributing equally. The shipping industry’s share was 10 million tons and has reputedly dropped to 3 million tons. So wrt the actual atmosphere the drop is 1.4%, which we can’t even measure.
During this same time period, active volcanoes, a major contributor of sulphur oxides, have increased 50% in number (roughly from 27 to 43). This is well within natural variability but shows how variable the natural production of sulphur oxides is, and how insignificant the reg changes in shipping make..
What health benefit? My family had 2 school/kindy children back in 1976 when we lived for a year 600 metres from a smokestack belching unscrubbed SO2 from a smelter at a very large copper sulphide mine (Mount Morgan, Queensland). We cannot report any health effect, good or bad, because nothing seems to have been affected.
Stop joining the chorus of bed setters who see catastrophe in chemical after chemical at levels so low that they need expensive, dedicated instruments to detect it. Harm to human health is rare. Predictions of harm are multiplying like rabbits. Geoff S
Check your percentages. Very little crude carries 3.5% sulfur and most of this sulfur is removed before it gets to processing units. The measurements should be in parts per million. 0.5% also is an enormous amount of sulfur. Low sulfur diesel in US must be 15 parts per million or less.
I also think the reduction in sulfur content of marine fuel oil started 15 years ago. 2020 might have been the final phase.
You are correct in its effect on temperature yet the verdict is still out on how much. The recent decrease in cloudiness might be linked to this as it has been noticed over shipping lanes. They need a decade or two more data to draw a better conclusion.
This point needs to be made. While nations point to CO2 for recent warming so many other things are going on. Removing SO2 is a good thing. If it comes with warming then so what. It just puts temps back where they were before SO2 was put into the atmosphere.
The sulfur compounds in crude tend to be in the heavy end, so are concentrated into heavier products. Art is correct about marine fuel oil specifications.
I stand corrected. I saw 0.1% somewhere 1000 ppm. Checked again and now see 0.5%.
“sulphur oides in the air which seems to me like a very good thing.”
Maybe it is. Maybe it is in the noise. What was applied was the linear zero threshold rule, which in essence states that anything we say is bad is bad except at zero.
Humans have evolved over the long term and our biology has mechanisms to cope with non-zero things. Unfortunately it is zealots, not scientists making the call.
Did they also order the volcanoes to reduce smoking 7 times? I would like to see them try to enforce this part.
They don’t care about global warming. For them it’s means to an end. Jacking up shipping costs is what they want, and all the downstream effects caused by it.
We recently drove by their building in London. Very nice.
Starmer wanted to sign the UK up for this. He hates his people.
Not as much as we hate him.
And then some.
And yet the people voted for Labour, and his constituency returned him.. not everyone hates him.
Some idiots are useful.
20% of the registered electorate in the UK voted for Labour, and this gave Starmer his landslide victory. The 80% of the electorate who DID NOT vote for Labour can go bloody whistle. That’s some mandate.
Some people can be bought by the very people they hate.
But Greese and Bulgaria refused to go along with the EU dictat.
I think Greece did as well.
Fran, “Greese” should be “Greece”.
If spot a typo after posting a comment, move the lower mouse pointer to lower right of the comment area. There will appear a small gear wheel, click on it and following the instructions for making corrections. You have a five minute window for making corrections after posting a comment.
“A landmark deal to
cut global shipping emissionsde-industrialize the West”Fixed!
And the deindustrialisation has reached right now a new milestone.
The WEF-EU greek Greek government, hardcore green globalist proxies posing as conservatives is going for a 13 hour workday.( just the 1st of many steps on the way to 18th century working standards)
Someone must somehow compensate for cheap green energy and Its abundance and all the green/climate jobs with 0 productivity.
Coming soon to a Gulag country near you.
When I was in Greece a few years ago, my host had hired Albanians to do some construction. He said no Greeks do any manual labour.
Your host may have not told you the truth..
Greeks are not really the working guys,like most southern Europeans and I know many of them.
But the thing is that in Greece they have been hiring for many decades Albanians because they are willing to work way below average payment.
Same with Mazedonia.
In Mazedonia they have native Albanese people yet they rather hire illegals from Albania to harvest Watermelons
Since the EU austerities the greek got used to work low paid jobs .
My guess is if you knew how much the host is paying those Albanian dudes you’d have punched him in the face.
On the other hand many people who earn 50 dollars an hour have no problems with someone who does real work being only paid 2 dollars.
“Virtue signalling politicians at conferences like this cannot change the harsh realities of life, no matter how many resolutions they vote for.”
Their goal is to make life a much harsher reality for the plebs, and hopefully kill off a large number.
Next up – legislation to set pi equal to 3. Pandering to the innumerate vote.
Come on folks! They want us to go back to 15th century tech with wind mills why not go back thousands of years to sail ships.
Living in caves would stop emissions – concrete etc etc – from building….
Please note that the conferees do not live in mud huts. Their lives are excessive. They didn’t walk to the conference. They don’t eat bugs. They’re NPH’s (narcissistic psychopathic hypocrites).
Sauce for the goose…
There would much emissions from the burning of wood for food cooking and cave heating in winter.
Buy stock in companies that forge shovels in the blacksmith tradition. There’s going to be a lot of manure to shovel off the streets.
So, the US isn’t following our shining example?
Landmark global shipping deal in tatters after US pressure
Yet we were reliably informed…
Miliband argued the overall deal ‘sends the signal that the clean energy transition is unstoppable’. – Daily Mail
Ed Miliband warns Trump that net zero is ‘unstoppable’ – Daily Telegraph
Donald Trump can’t stop the battle to save the planet, claims Net Zero Secretary Ed Miliband – Standard
Could mad Ed really be wrong /sarc.
Other than that he fears that it could be stopped, Mad Ed would have no reason for saying that nut zero is “unstoppable”.
The impossible is unstoppable? Miliband logic.
Trump just proved that Miliband was stoppable.
Passed by a handful of votes means more than 50. Trump blindsided them so they stepped back. What happens next remains to be seen over the year until next IMO meeting. Green wheel in spin.
One of the reasons I am skeptical of net zero, is the rejection of the most practical solution.
The USN has been safely using nuclear power for over 75 years.
Good! This is the best news of the day because it would be just another excuse for either governments or producers utilizing maritime transport to have an excuse to jack up prices, as if consumers aren’t absorbing enough transportation costs already.
A new world is here. Transmutation of Carbon to Oxygen via counter-rotating hot and cold plasmas can make the Bunker C oil emissions breathable. See https://www.tiktok.com/@shawnryanshow/video/7353024942142803230?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc
If the UN succeeds in successfully bringing back that proposal then those countries that oppose it should withhold their regular contributions to the UN by the same amount.
I could be mistakend, but I recall Trump stated exactly that.
The US must stop financing crackpot international outfits like this. We have wasted our money on them for far too long.
One cannot disagree with the results. But c’mon. Every agreement seems to be the result of the threat of tariffs. It’s like he has Tourette Syndrome.
I just asked google how many cargo ships use heavy fuel oil.
answer: over 90,000. The total daily consumption for the world’s ships is staggering, with estimates of 7.29 million barrels per day. That includes HFO and MFO (distillate fuel used in coastal waters).
HFO may contain up to 3.5% sulfur. Diesel is also used but very expensive. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is also used.
Cargo ships usage is about 56% HFO. I read numbers as high as 75% but there appears to some uncertainty as to the actual percentages.
They will be back. The money lure compels them and in the diplomatic darkness binds them.
And the ones for this tax? The countries that have had their hands out for the past couple of decades.
These grown-ups were always in charge. As such, they were the ones who let things go this way. Rather obviously.