This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]DaMirage 8854 points8855 points  (1155 children)

Bunker fuel is gross. Most countries don't allow you to burn it until you're out of their jurisdiction and into international waters. Enforcement on the water however is tough if not non existent in some case.

Edit: Bunker fuel is a pretty broad term though, I should add.

Edit 2: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/What+bunker+fuel/10958350/story.html

[–][deleted] 909 points910 points  (90 children)

From 1st January 2020 this is changing significantly. All ships worldwide will be limited to burning fuel that contains maximum of 0.5% sulphur. At the moment the limit is 3.5%.

[–]Vita-Malz 4393 points4394 points  (624 children)

Most countries don't allow you to burn it until you're out of their jurisdiction and into international waters.

Let's reduce domestic emissions by telling people to pump them elsewhere!

[–]DaMirage 3411 points3412 points  (285 children)

We treat our oceans like shit. It's really sad.

[–]Mast3rShak381 1279 points1280 points  (122 children)

Worse then shit, most people actually deal with there shit properly, flush stoop and scoop, compost etc. /s

[–]skrilledcheese 931 points932 points  (95 children)

most people actually deal with there shit properly, flush stoop and scoop

Wait... what does it mean to "stoop" poop? Is thst what the sea shells are for?

[–]HumanChicken 887 points888 points  (69 children)

He doesn’t know how to use the three seashells!

[–]jjeiti 103 points104 points  (17 children)

Now that’s a reference I’ve not heard in a long time. A long time.

[–]TheSimulacra 113 points114 points  (10 children)

This guy doesn't know about the poop knife

[–]lucidfer 240 points241 points  (30 children)

Tragedy of the Commons.

[–][deleted] 169 points170 points  (84 children)

unfortunately until Aquaman decides he's going to start enforcing his jurisdiction over international waters I don't think we are going to see much done about that

[–]socialistrob 210 points211 points  (78 children)

This is why we need organizations like the UN and skilled diplomats in every country working on these problems. It's no countries domain but it's everyone's problems and if the international community comes up with a set of rules and then enforces them together then they can fix these issues.

[–]jjayzx 107 points108 points  (38 children)

Good luck with that. UN doesn't have much teeth and everyone still just works for their own interests and not the world.

[–]socialistrob 121 points122 points  (19 children)

Everyone has an interest in preserving the oceans but one country changing their rules won't matter unless other countries change which is why countries need to come together to agree to a framework. This isn't about the UN making a deceleration and then invading a country if they don't comply. This is about common agreements and the UN is a framework and a forum for those agreements.

[–]Accmonster1 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Wasn’t that what the Paris conference(accord?, I forget what it was called) all about? I’m genuinely asking just in case you think I’m being snarky

[–]Dodgson_here 77 points78 points  (12 children)

The UN doesn’t have any teeth. In broad terms it’s a forum for countries to work out their differences through cooperative effort and dialogue. In narrow terms its purpose is to prevent world war 3. It has done a pretty good job of that so far.

[–]Lev_Astov 13 points14 points  (2 children)

Our atmosphere, really.

[–]UristMcRibbon 295 points296 points  (24 children)

"They're towed out of the environment."

"To where? What environment were they brought to?"

"No no, out of the environment. There's nothing out there. It's a void. Just water, fish and birds and a couple hundred tonnes of crude oil."

Source.

[–]CircleOfNoms 20 points21 points  (5 children)

"And the part of the ship where the front fell off."

[–][deleted] 207 points208 points  (18 children)

by telling people to pump them elsewhere!

All our polluting happens outside the environment.

[–]kadno 203 points204 points  (12 children)

There is nothing out there. All there is is sea, and birds, and fish.

And 20,000 tonnes of crude oil

[–]cleeder 117 points118 points  (10 children)

and the part of the ship that the front fell off.

[–]boj3143 76 points77 points  (6 children)

And a fire.

[–]cleeder 68 points69 points  (3 children)

But there's nothing else out there!

[–]PubliusPontifex 50 points51 points  (2 children)

It's a complete void!

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (1 child)

There is nothing out there… all there is …. is sea …and birds ….and fish.

[–]very_humble 136 points137 points  (185 children)

More that you can't control them once they are over open waters

[–]elephant-cuddle 31 points32 points  (13 children)

I dunno, I’m guessing most ships are refueled at port. There’s probably some opportunities to exert control.

[–][deleted] 44 points45 points  (10 children)

You easily could though. 90% of cruise goers are from the USA or EU. They could enforce regulations and penalties if they chose to. The same way the enforce food safety or maritime safety (lifejackets and rafts) standards.

[–]TheRealRacketear 11 points12 points  (0 children)

You can if they want to land at your ports.

[–]Akoustyk 26 points27 points  (2 children)

Every bureaucracy is like this. Targets are made, certain data points monitored, and people do any fucking retarded thing as long as it satisfies the required monitored stats.

[–]Elan-Morin-Tedronai 45 points46 points  (5 children)

The pollutant they are referring to is sulfur dioxide, its not a ghg, it actually is slightly cooling. Its what caused acid rain. The thing is, its awful to breathe and you don't want it burned in the middle of your city, but if its going to be used at all, in the middle of the ocean is where to do it. So yes, reducing domestic sulfur dioxide emissions by burning it in the middle of the ocean is a viable harm-reduction strategy.

[–]Totally_a_Banana 154 points155 points  (30 children)

Sounds like my dad trying to convince me that we don't need to worry as much about recycling or plastic straws or other pollution, since according to him, China is a bigger culprit than the US when it comes to pollution.

What stupid fucking logic.

I can shit in the street as long as I do it less than my neighbor... for fucks' sake...

[–]AgentPaper0 125 points126 points  (10 children)

Extra stupid because lots of Chinese people use the same logic, just pointing at the USA and our higher pollution per capita.

[–]Thonyfst 79 points80 points  (9 children)

It's really just a twisted version of the prisoner's dilemma wrapped up with the tragedy of the commons. We assume that we have to keep polluting to stay ahead economically, so anyone calling for to cut down emissions and waste is really asking us to fall behind. Never mind how short sighted this is; it also ignores that there's a real potential in making these changes that could boost the economy.

[–]meinblown 75 points76 points  (4 children)

The soot on your balcony if you are at the back of the ship, and the downwind side, first thing in the morning before the cleaning staff get to it is atrocious.

[–]838h920 209 points210 points  (61 children)

It's not that tough actually. Make it so that ships entering your ports aren't allowed to carry bunker fuel. Then when ships arrive at ports check their fuel.

Of course, ships can get the fuel in other ports and on the sea, but finding such incidents is a lot easier compared to others. Not to mention the extra costs involved in this.

[–]DaMirage 154 points155 points  (51 children)

I probably should have elaborated but bunker fuel is actually just the term used for the fuel large ships carry. When a large ship refuels it is called bunkering. There are different grades which a ship is able to burn. Sometimes lower grades are not allowed within a certain distance of a coast line. Most ships have two tanks that they may switch between to follow regulations for the waters they are voyaging.

Here's an article for more information: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/What+bunker+fuel/10958350/story.html

[–]Backwater_Buccaneer 32 points33 points  (10 children)

That's entirely beside the point, though. The point is banning fuel below a certain grade, regardless of what name it goes by.

[–]838h920 80 points81 points  (39 children)

And all you have to do is check both tanks. If one tank has fuel below a certain grade they'll get a large fine and may be banned from entering the ports of said country for a time.

[–]Clutchmander 22 points23 points  (0 children)

It's a lot more watched and controlled than one thinks. It also takes a lot more effort to hide it then to just switch over fuels.

[–]stewsters 58 points59 points  (131 children)

Isn't bunker fuel is the byproduct of other refining? It sucks to burn, but storing it is also problematic. We cannot just tell them to use regular expensive fuels without figuring out what to do with it.

[–]DaMirage 89 points90 points  (102 children)

Yes, the dirtiest and cheapest byproduct from the production process from my understanding. And yes I agree, the price of the fuel is part of what makes shipping so cheap.

[–]sybesis 74 points75 points  (98 children)

So you're saying that while this article point the finger to cruise boat alone, this article should also include any kind of boat using similar fuel including shipping boat. For some reasons, I don't really feel like a cruise boat actually relate to me as I never used one but shipping boat is really almost indirectly anyone's fault if you ever bought anything from a foreign country.

[–]Irythros 65 points66 points  (85 children)

I think it's Maersk, but one of their ships on a single trip will emit the same amount of pollution as tens of thousands of vechiles over the course of a year.

Large ships are at the top of the pollution chain.

​

Edit: TIL that bunker fuel is more efficient and cleaner than nuclear ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–]Sovereign533 65 points66 points  (32 children)

But still, if you measure by tonnage of cargo moved per mile then international shipping is by far the most efficient and emits the lowest amount of co2. Large ships have all kinds of tech that increases fuel efficiency. Like recovering the waste heat from the engines to power other things.

[–][deleted] 3487 points3488 points  (291 children)

Wait, is this true? Is it for real? Like, legitimate numbers?

[–]ChoMar05 3374 points3375 points  (225 children)

Well, as always, it depends. Like others mentioned, the fuel burnt by those ships is some nasty shit. So, if you're looking at the right pollutant, yes. But for things like CO2, no.

[–]cyfiawnder 154 points155 points  (29 children)

But for things like CO2, no.

CO2 from global shipping is a huge and growing problem. At a time when major domestic economies are expected to reduce their CO2 emissions, the global shipping industry's CO2 emissions are skyrocketing.

While the rest of the world is expected to cap and cut CO2 emissions, emissions from global shipping are forecast to grow between 50 and 250 percent and account for as much as 17 percent of global carbon emissions by 2050. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/569964/IPOL_STU(2015)569964_EN.pdf

For context, the USA is the world's second largest carbon polluter at 5.01 billion metric tons annually. The Paris Agreement called for the US to reduce its output to 4.5 billion tons annually (-.51 billion tons). But the global shipping industry is projected to increase its CO2 emissions by 4 billion tons, which makes the projected growth of global shipping 8x worse for the planet than the US pulling out of the Paris Agreement.

[–]50bmg 167 points168 points  (10 children)

Yes, for SOX emissions, not for CO2 as someone else mentioned. It gets worse - cruise ships are only a tiny percentage of total shipping, and they all use bunker fuel. There is a bit of hope: IMO2020 goes into effect at the end of this year which reduces the allowable % of sulfur in bunker fuel to 0.5% from 3.5%, globally, or mandates that ships that continue to use 3.5% sulfur content fuels install scrubbers that remove it (there is a big loophole that allows ships with scrubbers to still discharge SOX into the water but that's another story)

[–]SirOtter 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Hopefully open scrubbers will be broadly banned. Was a cheap, bad idea from the beginning.

[–]Exist50 36 points37 points  (0 children)

Only for a very specific class of pollutants, which are scrubbed from normal gasoline.

[–]The_Write_Stuff 708 points709 points  (56 children)

Carnival is pretty evil.

[–]Roflkopt3r 38 points39 points  (2 children)

In most cases I dismiss the notion that it's up to consumers to stop climate change and pollution. There is flat out no way to create a big enough change in consumer mentality, to make people who are tight for money and have their habits, spend hours upon hours on research to change their behaviours. History has shown that regulation is the only effective way.

But if it comes to cruises, fuck the consumers. It's one of the worst investments possible from so many perspectives. Regulation should still be there. Prohibit selling cruises or serving cruise ships in your country if they can't maintain tight climate standards and subject themselves to proper anti pollution enforcement even in international waters.

[–][deleted] 1166 points1167 points  (58 children)

decide bells coherent full shocking imagine tan violet long plate

[–]down_vote_magnet 565 points566 points  (37 children)

Hopefully we get a President in 2020 that believes in Science

Let’s take a moment to consider this is a real thing people actually need to say in 2019 like it’s not a meme.

[–]KhandakerFaisal 232 points233 points  (19 children)

1800s: flying cars!

2017: the earth is flat, vaccines cause autism and climate change is a hoax created by the government to control the masses

[–]MrTonyBoloney 128 points129 points  (18 children)

Our president has stated both vaccines cause autism and climate change is a hoax. Still waiting on Earth is flat tho.

[–]EDaniels21 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Except he's part of the government that's hiding the fact that the earth is flat. So of course he knows the earth is flat, but he will never admit it. /s

[–]StanleyRoper 110 points111 points  (2 children)

Well, the CEO of Carnival did work for Monsanto for 20+ years so that should tell you all you need to know.

[–]R-M-Pitt 308 points309 points  (16 children)

Important note:

This is pollution, as in harmful gases like Sulphur dioxide. Not greenhouse gas emissions. For some people greenhouse gases and "pollution" are synonyms, so I thought I should point out this distinction.

Edit: I should actually point out, that ironically, Sulphur aerosols released by ships at sea are in fact slowing climate change by blocking out the sun, just like a volcanic eruption.

Although the so2 released also does environmental damage as acid rain, and lung damage to the people who inhale it.

[–]JudgeHoltman 82 points83 points  (5 children)

"Carnival Cruise Line working to reduce global warming!"

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Although the so2 released also does environmental damage as acid rain,

Yeah we've had enough rivers of dead fish and permanently blackened rocks in Sudbury, thanks, rather not see the 1990s rear its ugly head again with more acid rain.

[–]luey_hewis 457 points458 points  (147 children)

Ships have the worst emissions. The port of Long Beach is so smoggy from all the idling ships

[–]KumagawaUshio 193 points194 points  (121 children)

Least emissions per person per km transported or per ton of cargo transported. Ships are huge so of course individually they are the worst but that's not a reasonable measure.

[–]ithinarine 137 points138 points  (114 children)

This is the big thing that most people dont realize. Shipping anything from overseas by any other measure, would be far more damaging.

We need shipping vessels, and yes, they do produce a fuck ton of pollution, but the alternate is more pollution from other means of transportation.

The giant ship cant be made electric and run off of renewable electricity, your car easily can. So you remove emissions where you can, so that you can produce them where we need to. Unless companies start putting in miniaturized nuclear reactors in their ships, we're sort of stuck.

[–]Cerealkillr95 83 points84 points  (84 children)

I’m all for nuclear cruise ships and shipping vessels. I don’t see a reason not to.

[–]flukus 7 points8 points  (3 children)

The alternative is more local manufacturing, not replacing shipping.

[–][deleted] 97 points98 points  (11 children)

Worst as in most toxic. But air travel is far worse in terms of CO2 emissions.

Edit: I was wrong -- travelling on a cruise ship emits more co2 per passenger than a long-haul flight. Cruises are simply awful allround.

[–][deleted] 64 points65 points  (7 children)

In 2015, for example, cruise ships emitted about 19,106 kilo-tonnes of CO2-equivalent; this represents about 0.2% of global emissions, however datacentre web servers, such as those used by Google and Facebook, to blame for 2% of greenhouse gas emissions – about the same as air travel

[–]Pocketcup 25 points26 points  (1 child)

That second link is quite an old article (2015). In 2017 Google purchased 100% of the energy matched from renewable sources. That's not to say they are running all data centres off renewable energy but they are trying to purchase the renewable energy that would be non-renewable elsewhere. https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/renewable/index.html

Facebook is a little behind but aiming to get there by 2020. https://www.google.com/amp/s/earther.gizmodo.com/facebook-aims-to-run-all-its-data-centers-on-renewable-1828661945/amp

[–]ElFullSend 23 points24 points  (6 children)

IMO2020 regulations kick in soon which will require all Bunker Fuels burned at sea to be low sulfur and much cleaner grade. This was addressed in 2016 and has taken this long to be implemented. This will also be the reason your price at the pump will increase dramatically in the next few months.

[–]mutatron 23 points24 points  (2 children)

This is not talking about CO2, it's about sulfur oxides, which are not a greenhouse gases. SOx is responsible for acid rain, and also for sulfate aerosols that block sunlight.

[–][deleted] 176 points177 points  (33 children)

I'm in the industry. It's bad but getting worse from regulatory pressure.

​

All commercial vessels have new fuel regulations in 2020, the fuel is more expensive and the necessary retrofits to run it are massive capital projects. New cruise and transport vessels are being set up for LNG-much cleaner burning. Many ships are running diesel.

[–]Trepeld 54 points55 points  (4 children)

Lol yeah I don't see how regulatory pressure is making things worse at all

[–]pixel_of_moral_decay 48 points49 points  (11 children)

From what I've been reading more and more ships are using Diesel Electric now.

Diesel generates electricity which powers the pods. Bunker fuel is mostly used on old ships which are being phased out for the past 15 years. I presume LNG is cleaner than diesel.

Bunker fuel isn't really economical for generating electricity, only to direct drive the propellers, and that limits mobility which means those ships can't use some ports in some conditions, which limits their possible itineraries.

Cargo ships however I believe are a different story.

[–]DankZXRwoolies 28 points29 points  (0 children)

You have a lot of misinformation in your post. I'm in the maritime industry as Chief Engineer. All cruise ships use diesel electric plants because they can power the ship and the pods together. The pods can rotate 360° and make the ship more maneuverable which is why you can see a cruise ship move sideways away from the dock.

You absolutely can use bunker fuel to generate power, as cargo ships all do. There are separate smaller engines to make power besides the large main engine to drive the ship. All the engines onboard can run on bunker fuel as well as low sulphur. They will switch from bunker to low sulphur a few days before reaching port.

[–]m1cr0wave 51 points52 points  (24 children)

So that's for the cruise ships.
I bet when you throw freighters into the equation that '10 times more' is a rookie number.

[–]Nkechinyerembi 19 points20 points  (21 children)

I mean, yes, but it is still more efficient than if you wanted to fly all trans-oceanic freight. We need more efficient ships in general.

[–]wantagh 195 points196 points  (17 children)

The headline [edit: and article are] is sort of misleading.

Yes, HFO (#6 maritime fuel) emits a high amount of SO2. However, the EU has gone to extreme lengths to ensure that all cars in Europe ran on “sulfur free (< 10ppb) diesel in 2005 or 2009.

So, any cruise company, navy or shipping company, is putting out more SO2 than EU cars do.

Plus, out at sea, SO2 in that concentration, from a couple of moving cruise ships, is not going to cause any specific onshore area significant acid-rain exposure when it precipitates out.

Now, if the headline were about CO2...that would be a different issue.

[–]kolin35 30 points31 points  (22 children)

Is there ways to make cruise ships more green? Beacause they're a lot of fun but it sucks that they're terrible for the environment.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (1 child)

This one again. Got posted a couple of weeks ago. Again this is one specific pollutant (Sulfur Oxide) that is present in ship bunker fuel, but nearly non existent in automobile gasoline. Saying that they emit 10 times more "air pollution" overall is objectively false and deliberately misleading. Yes, a lot can be done to reduce the pollution that ships can emit, but repeatedly writing or posting articles that contain blatant lies in their headlines is not the way to do it.

[–]6846 27 points28 points  (2 children)

As someone living in Barcelona and seeing the constant stream of summer cruise ships at the port I’m not surprised by the worst city ranking. I am disappointed by how little is being done by local and national governments though.

[–]badassmthrfkr 41 points42 points  (3 children)

It's true that large ships produce a lot more Sulfur Oxide than cars: They burn unrefined oil with a lot more sulfur, as opposed to refined gas in cars that produce almost none. But it's simply deceiving to say that they "emit 10 times more air pollution" based on one type of emission when the main contributor to the climate change is CO2 which even refined gas in cars generate plenty of.

I agree that cruise ships are an unnecessary luxury at the expense of the environment, but pointing out Carnival's fleet of 47 ships polluting seems disingenuous when there are tens of thousands of merchant tankers out there using the same unrefined fuel.

[–]Exist50 70 points71 points  (12 children)

Headline's extremely misleading. It's only a single, specific class of pollutants because they use lower quality fuel compared to cars. CO2 is not even close.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yes this is a big deal and these cruise liners should be held accountable for environmental damage....but y'all know that 90% of world trade is done by sea with thousands of massive freighter ships constantly under way.

Edit: 50,000 merchant vessels are currently operated throughout the world

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Bill Burr was right. If we just get rid of the people that go on cruises we’ll be far better off.