
15 Biggest Ships Create More Pollution Than All Cars in the World (2013) - danboarder
http://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-biggest-ships-create-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars-in-the-world/
======
mkaufmann
The article lacks a description of which specific form of pollution is
compared.

When talking about pollutants is important to keeps the following points in
mind:

\- Is the pollutant effecting health?

\- Is the pollutant effecting climate change?

\- Is the amount of pollution locally concentrated or very distributed?

Cargo ships typically have a very high emission of nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and
sulphur dioxide. When emitted by cars / factories on the mainland these often
strongly contribute to harmful smog especially in megacities or cities with
poor ventilation. Also they can be generally bad to the ecosystem also on the
water due to causing acid rain etc.

The main pollutants on cargo ships have a very strong short term effect but
are often out of the air in a few weeks. Because of that they don't rise to
the atmosphere and don't directly contribute to long term climate changes.
Thus I think the comparison in the article is very dangerous. When considering
pollutants that effect climate change cars are more dominant.

So depending on which effects are discussed reducing pollutions from cars can
still be benefitial. As an additional thought, the polutions of the cargo
ships are spread out over a very large geographich area while the exhausts of
cars are much more concentrated around cities. So when considering ones own
quality of living, cars have a much bigger impact.

I think an article that better manages to discuss the subject is this one from
the guardian:
[http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-...](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-
pollution)

Excerpts:

\- Shipping is responsible for 18-30% of all the world's nitrogen oxide (NOx)
pollution and 9% of the global sulphur oxide (SOx) pollution.

\- Shipping is responsible for 3.5% to 4% of all climate change emissions

~~~
knodi123
> Because of that they don't rise to the atmosphere

Funny choice of words. It reminded me of the classic sketch,

Interviewer: So what do you do to protect the environment in cases like this?

Bob Collins - Australian Senator: Well the ship was towed outside the
environment.

Interviewer: Into another environment...?

Bob Collins - Australian Senator: No, no it's been towed beyond the
environment, it's not in the environment.

Interviewer: No but from one environment to another environment...?

Bob Collins - Australian Senator: No it's been towed beyond the environment,
it's not in an environment.

~~~
Lionleaf
Here a link to the sketch if anyone's interested:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcU4t6zRAKg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcU4t6zRAKg)

~~~
oska
Official and better quality version:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM)

------
SeanDav
1 ship producing the same pollution as 50 million cars? I find this very, very
difficult to believe. Let's look at some numbers: The biggest ship engine in
the world has around 25,000 litres displacement, weighs 2,300,000 kg, produces
109,000 hp and has a fuel efficiency of 0.26 lbs/hp/hour.

Using very conservative equivalent estimates for a car of 1 litre, 100 kg, 75
hp and 0.6 - 50 million cars would displace 50 million litres (2000 times more
than ship engine), weigh around 2175 times as much, produce 34,000 times as
much power and use 79,000 times as much fuel.

Keeping in mind the ships engine is very fuel and thermal efficient, 1 ship
producing equivalent pollution to 50 million cars just does not seem
plausible, in the slightest.

~~~
michaelwww
The article addresses this in the paragraph containing the line "...these
powerplants are some of the most fuel efficient units in the world. The real
issue lies with the heavy fuel oil...lack of regulations applied to the giant
exhaust stacks"

Have you ever been stuck behind a car with a broken exhaust system? The amount
of pollution coming out of such a car is surprising, and that's with
relatively clean gasoline.

"But, unlike power stations or cars, they can burn the cheapest, filthiest,
high-sulphur fuel: the thick residues left behind in refineries after the
lighter liquids have been taken. The stuff nobody on land is allowed to use."
[[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-1...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-
create-pollution-cars-world.html)]

I'm not saying you're wrong. 50 million does seem high, but there are other
factors. A a former Navy nuke technician, I'm wondering why these ships aren't
nuclear powered. I suppose it is the cost.

~~~
wolfgke
> A a former Navy nuke technician, I'm wondering why these ships aren't
> nuclear powered. I suppose it is the cost.

I rather assume the risk of terrorism.

~~~
XorNot
This is not a serious risk. You could easily armor the reactor module to
resist any amount of pirate weaponry, and rig it so when damaged it just drops
to the bottom of the ocean intact.

Getting into it isn't a threat either: terrorists aren't going to be plasma
torching into a reactor and surviving long enough to do anything.

~~~
scrumper
Incomplete thinking. What about land-based fuel handling - creation, storage,
transport, delivery? What about waste processing? The attack surface isn't
just the ship.

~~~
wolfgke
Exactly what I meant.

------
danboarder
And that would be just 15 of the largest ships, with 100,000 other big
commercial ships out there burning an especially polluting type of diesel
fuel:

"The world shipping fleet consists of over 100,000 vessels larger than 100
gross tonnes ... Oceangoing ships running large slow-speed diesel (SSD)
engines generally burn low-quality residual fuels that tend to contain high
amounts of sulfur and heavy metals. Smaller vessels, such as tugboats, fishing
vessels and ferries operate medium-speed diesel (MSD) engines that use mostly
distillate fuels within nonroad equipment fuel quality standards [U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2004]. International commercial shipping
vessels operate across international waters with little or inconsistent
regulation of fuel quality or pollution emissions".*

* Particulate emissions from commercial shipping: Chemical, physical, and optical properties [http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/black-carbon/lac...](http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/black-carbon/lack-et-al-2009.pdf)

------
willvarfar
This is a 2013 summary of a 2009 summary of the actual article?

Actual article:
[http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-...](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-
pollution)

I think the original article interesting and current and worthy of being on HN
:)

------
zoren
Headline should've read: "World’s 15 Biggest Ships Create More SOx- and NOx-
emissions Than All The Cars In The World, COx-emissions a Whole Other Story"

~~~
leojg
Yeah but anyway those gases are far more powerful than CO2

~~~
zymhan
In terms of irritants, but not as greenhouse gases, which is what the title
implies.

------
leojg
The solution to this would be embracing wind power again:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Ship_1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Ship_1)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_ship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_ship)

------
chetangole
Credit should go to actual article :
[http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/02/report-pollution-
from-15-...](http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/02/report-pollution-from-15-of-
worlds-biggest-ships-equal-that-o/)

This is copied one.

------
Gravityloss
This is partly outdated.

Tight sulphur emission regulations happened in 2015. However they are limited
to more populated areas.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur_Emission_Control_Area](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur_Emission_Control_Area)

NOx limits are tightening. Didn't get a great link but this has something:
[http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPreventio...](http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Nitrogen-
oxides-%28NOx%29-%E2%80%93-Regulation-13.aspx)

------
dodders
The headline is (I suspect deliberately) misleading. The actual guardian
article is here [1] and is more nuanced, claiming that "One giant container
ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as
50m cars, study finds". That's hardly "all the cars in the world", given that
latest estimates put this figure at over 1 billion [2].

Ships produce more sulfur oxide pollutants than cars because they use
different fuels, and thus produce different pollutants.

A large container ship does produce more more carbon dioxide emission per mile
and per gallon of fuel than a car, but ships in general have the lowest
emission levels of any other method of cargo transport , producing fewer
emissions per ton of freight per mile than barges, trains or trucks.

[1]
[http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-...](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-
pollution)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle)

------
nradov
The shipping industry has been able to keep costs artificially low by treating
air pollution as an externality. Eventually that loophole will be closed
through a combination of emissions taxes and outright bans. I expect the long-
term solution to be a combination of: larger (more efficient) ships, lower
cruising speeds, biofuels, and auxiliary sail propulsion.

------
Derpdiherp
Honest question: Why don't they employ catalytic converters? Is the amount of
exhaust just too much for them to be able to practically build them, or is it
simply "We haven't been told we need one, so we're not going to bother."

~~~
throwaway2048
they are registered in places like panama that have no regulation on such
things

~~~
sumedh
Why cant the developed countries have regulations which stop the ship from
coming in its waters?

~~~
cardinalfang
There are some regulations - some ships switch from burning heavy bunker oil
to diesel when close to port.

~~~
bkor
The regulations have increased heavily in recent years. E.g. near the U.S. and
Europe. It's not just close to port anymore. See e.g.
[http://www.joc.com/maritime-news/shippers-brace-low-
sulfur-f...](http://www.joc.com/maritime-news/shippers-brace-low-sulfur-fuel-
surcharge-january_20140925.html) for details.

Small quote from the article:

    
    
      Maersk Line CEO Soren Skou said in a Copenhagen
      presentation yesterday that lower sulphur fuel was more
      expensive and would increase the carrier’s bunker cost by
      estimated $200 million a year.
    

That additional 200 MUSD/year is just for the stricter rules in Europe.

You can save a massive amount of money by "ignoring" these rules. Meaning:
unless it is checked, there is a huge risk of unfair competition between
companies which abide by the rules and companies which do not. Especially if a
company is in difficult times it needs to be checked carefully.

You'll notice that the bigger companies are ok with such rules, as long as it
applies to everyone and is checked thoroughly.

------
inthewoods
Given the lack of incentive or possible enforcement on these boats, one answer
would be to simply approach the owners and either offer to pay for a new boat
(assuming such a boat exists) or to retrofit the existing boat. If they are
really that dangerous to the environment, it would seem like a no brainer for
governments to band together to do this. The only question is if there are
environmentally friendly alternatives.

~~~
bkor
If you pay for a new vessel, the owner will resell the old one and it'll get
reused. What has happened in recent years is that (mainly) Europe and U.S. has
employed stricter regulations. If you enforce this strictly, then it'll become
more economical to do a retrofit. Note that lower SOx is quite difficult,
retrofits are mainly done to save on bunker costs.

~~~
inthewoods
You could buy the old vessel and scrap it, but I hear you.

------
tallanvor
This blurb links to an article that says the same thing but was published in
2009. No clue how old the original Guardian article was.

------
gozur88
I'll bet the fifteen biggest ships also haul more cargo than all the cars in
the world, too.

------
enibundo
_MEAT CONSUMPTION_ is the main reason and where everyone should be focusing on
first for reducing the negative impact we have on nature.

Meat consumption and livestock in general creates more pollution than ALL
transportation means in the world all together.

[http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/](http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/)

I suggest everyone watch this documentary. It changed the way I eat.

~~~
eru
Compare [http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/23/vegetarianism-for-
meat-...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/23/vegetarianism-for-meat-eaters/)

~~~
ant6n
The environmental impact of chicken is less than beef.

~~~
eru
The author comments on these thoughts later. The article is not fully formed
thought.

