excuse the math

1,145 is the number of 55 gallon drums of crude oil a cargo container ship can consume over the course of a single day.
417,925 over the course of an entire year.

Specifically, for a panamax class container ship.

The newest maximum capacity being 14,000 containers.

The MSC Irina Class has a capacity of 24,346.

Every last person in the US & EU could be driving hotrods, musclecars, brotrucks, they could drive 18 wheelers.

They could also be riding buses, trains, bicycles.

Neither scenario would have the same impact on global warming as whether or not these ships continue to operate, and on the crude oil they consume.

(Kindly start informing everyone that our cars and trucks and motorcycles aren't the problem)

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There's about 5600 container ships in the world. Assuming they're all operating every day at the maximum fuel consumption, that's 352 million gallons of fuel per day. That's about as much as if every American was burning 1 gallon per day. Most people burn more than that. I don't know how you're coming to the conclusion that everyone driving 18 wheelers would be a drop in the bucket compared to ships, when everyone driving cars is already comparable.

    Those ships move lots of stuff. Using a lot of fuel is unfortunately necessary to do that. It isn't necessary to get a single person to work and back.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      1 gallon of gasoline or diesel per day as opposed to crude oil.

      I hear everything about how "they're coming to take your car away" but never anything about putting a catalytic converter on the ass end of a boat.

      They move a lot of iphones, temu orders, they move a lot of consumer goods and electronics, made in a country that is increasing it's use of coal based power plants, they ship pears from argentina to be packaged in vietnam to be sold in california,
      and that's the other problem.

      In making things as cheap as possible, and to be replaced as soon as possible, we are becoming damned to climate change.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >they ship pears from argentina to be packaged in vietnam to be sold in california,
        That doesnt happen, moron.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes it does.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Awww a little redditor believes anything he sees on the internet.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Your numbers are wrong. See picrel. Operators balance speed vs revenue, are almost never steaming at full speed.

        >never anything about putting a catalytic converter on the ass end of a boat
        That's because you aren't paying attention. IMO has mandated Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (EGCS) a.k.a. "scrubbers" since 2020.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >They move a lot of iphones, temu orders, they move a lot of consumer goods and electronics, made in a country that is increasing it's use of coal based power plants, they ship pears from argentina to be packaged in vietnam to be sold in california,
        Sounds like the real solution is to reshore manufacturing as much as possible that reduces the need for cargo ships, and focus more on rail/trucks. As well as consumers focusing on longer lasting (and/or higher quality) products and away from temu trash. Finally manufactures incorporating recyclability and repairability into the products they design, build, and sell. But that sounds boring and requires too much effort. So lets just throw billions of tax dollars into giant bird blenders and ban existing gas cars instead because that's whats trendy.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Reminding people that a boat they'll never own isn't sexy like a citroen or jaguar, though, is free.

          Like I just said that shit.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It turns out that bunker fuel without any sort of catalytic converter or scrubber is much worse than gasoline, gallon for gallon.
      >Bunker fuel has so much sulfur, nitrogen, and other contaminants that, according to a 2009 study, a single large container ship using it produces as much asthma- and cancer-causing pollutants as 50 million cars.
      https://prospect.org/environment/2023-03-02-climate-time-bomb-atmosphere/#:~:text=Bunker%20fuel%20has%20so%20much,pollutants%20as%2050%20million%20cars.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yah, the mandate from IMO mostly concerns sulfur, and the 2020 standards are so tight that ships are installing sulfur scrubbers as it's cheaper than buying the sulfur-free fuels.
        The port of LA/LB at least require the use of shore power when in port, so at least that's something.

        You know what's more efficient than cargo ships transporting things 5,000 miles across the world? Cargo ships transporting things 500 miles across the country or down the Mississippi.

        Bring back canals.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >crude oil
        Marine diesel engines don't burn crude oil, they burn fuel oil.

        Sulfur emissions actively prevent global warming.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Marine diesel engines don't burn crude oil, they burn fuel oil.
          Heavy fuel oil is barely a step up from crude oil. It is the first and dirtiest byproduct of the refinement process.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is why the industry is moving to greener fuels.
    Just like autos it won't happen overnight anon. Your Amazon orders have to be moved somehow.
    Don't like it? Buy made in USA or stop ordering on Amazon.
    T. Mariner

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >t.mariner
      Ok what's being done by Maersk, other western lines? China is a lost cause until it ultimately collapses, but what's being looked into outside of nuclear reactors (which'll never happen)?

      >Buy made in USA or stop ordering on Amazon.
      that's ultimately what needs to happen. We need some kind of modified global economy where refining, manufacture is done as close to the point-of-sale as possible, and barring the most specific shit like lithium, nickel, etc.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Tug companies are finally fielding electric tug boats, Maersk is pouring billions into more efficient propulsion (more gas = less profit), yes China is a lost cause, this isn't a hopeless situation.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >We need some kind of modified global economy where refining, manufacture is done as close to the point-of-sale as possible, and barring the most specific shit like lithium, nickel, etc.
        People don't realize that this isn't how anything fricking works. "Just buy local" is moronic in the modern world because there's a lot of shit that you can't fricking have local.
        >Some locations don't have certain raw materials
        >Some locations cannot grow certain plants
        >Some locations don't have the labor and facilities necessary to create certain objects and in order to fix that you would need to...ship items over.
        >Even if you DO have the labor and facilities necessary to create certain objects, it will be more expensive to do so, which means more expensive to buy, which means an unsustainable economy and job loss in multiple sectors
        Companies don't just ship things from one place in the world to another because they think it would be funny. It's the cheapest way to make things and thus the only way to make it so that (You) can buy one without spending half a week's pay on it.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's not to make things cheaper.
          It's to maximize profits.
          Why do you think Bezos has like $800,000,000,000?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There are two ways to increase profits:
            >increase sales
            >decrease overhead.
            This obviously falls into option 2 and has a knock-on effect into option 1 because the cheaper things are the more of them you can sell. Do you want to explain for the class how aimlessly shipping things around makes people more money?

            >We have the labor to at least make our own iphones.
            You're not getting what the chain looks like. iPhones are going to more places than the US; they're going all over the world. It's actually extremely wasteful and INefficient to ship raw earth materials all over the world to chip factories rather than shipping a ton of materials, ONE TIME, to a single series of chip factories in a single geographic area that make them all there and THEN ship them elsewhere. Why? Because you can cram more chips on a barge than you can cram massive amounts of unprocessed materials. It is ALWAYS cheaper to ship a finished product en-masse than it is to ship raw materials en-masse because the materials will always require more volume than the finished product. That's why you will ALWAYS ship to specialized processing plants first and THEN ship the finished product afterwards. What you are proposing legitimately and provably makes the problem WORSE.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I want to still be able to drive this in 100 years time. And noone has ever looked at cellphone and even imagined they could use it that far into the future. Much less wanted to.

            Every last thing I'm saying here comes from this.

            >iPhones are going to more places than the US; they're going all over the world.

            I know that. And I don't want the US to be the world's next factory, either. And I know that few supply chains can be as optimal as salt lake pipeline of canadian steel ore going directly to detroit.

            Decentralization just has to happen, as much as it possibly can. The pressures that force centralization have to be reduced. Taiwan more or less has to stay the world's chip factory to a certain extent, but much of the rare earth, again, comes from the west coast of africa, in the congo. A second hub for manufacturing could at least reduce the current distance in going all the way around the horn of africa, across the indian ocean, and through the straights in southeast asia. Somewhere in the caribean or on the northeastern coast of south america could be a candidate.

            As things currently stand, the world's reliance on circuitboards is being met by an island right next to a country that wants to invade it.

            The biggest thing I'm focusing on isn't the economic cost here, but the ecological.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I want to still be able to drive this in 100 years time.
            The way that you do that is by coming up with some sort of carbon-neutral fuel, not by fricking up shipping and ruining costs and the economy for literally everybody. You'll be able to drive it up until the point when a simple $1,000 in parts failures becomes $10,000 in parts failures because you fricked up the supply chain.

            >A second hub for manufacturing could at least reduce the current distance in going all the way around the horn of africa, across the indian ocean, and through the straights in southeast asia.
            Firstly, this is already happening. Secondly, it's not as simple as "just dropping down a factory." You then need to SHIP THINGS TO THAT FACTORY in order for that factory to operate constantly. That factory is gonna need plastic products. That factory is gonna need metal products. That factory is gonna need rubber products. That factory is gonna need parts. That factory is gonna need supplies, refrigerants, cleaners, PPE, and on, and on, and on. And you're gonna have to ship those from someplace else, which means that you're gonna be doing the kind of shipping that you don't want to be doing ANYWAY in order to make this idea work. Literally the only way to make this not involve massive amounts of shipping to the point where the savings become negligible is to turn every major shipping port into a massive self-sufficient industrial park that destroys and consumes the land around it.

            >The biggest thing I'm focusing on isn't the economic cost here, but the ecological.
            What part of "it takes more space to ship raw materials as opposed to finished products" do you not understand here? Your proposal is WORSE ECOLOGICALLY.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Some locations don't have certain raw materials, cannot grow certain plants
          That's why I said modified, not completely revoked.

          A vast sum of the world's nickel is in russia, much of raw material for circuitboards come from west africa (congo), certain fish do not live outside of certain waters, etc.

          We have the labor to at least make our own iphones. We can still not only make our own cars, but cars from foreign firms within the lower 48. It's not that every last country can achieve this degree of self sufficiency, it's that too many, the US included, have opted against trying or maintaining self sufficiency because "the chinese do it cheaper".

          It wouldn't be as cheap, there would be sacrifices in doing this, but also gains.

          What I am saying is within as much reason as possible, we need to move away from consumerism as it's currently practiced... We have to move away from neoliberal economic theory.

          I fully support emissions. I hate battery shills I hate climate activists. Yall brainwashed as frick.

          Pro Oil

          I hate lithium and I hate the push for this stupid fricking wetdream of crushing all things old and beautiful and worth preserving just so something that already exists can be replaced by appliances on wheels that you can't even fix and have to replace every 4 years with another one. Because all these idiots that think new cars are greener never bother to find out that the most pollution anything ever produces is when it's in the process of being made.

          [...]
          If anything OP should be ragging on cruise ships which are ACTUALLY massively inefficient and pointless.

          https://i.imgur.com/yHvoSOr.jpeg

          While the numbers are wrong the point still stands that cargo ships pollute a lot but the world needs to haul things around thats just how it is. For your next post you should point at cruise ships instead. A couple of cruise ships in the Caribbean pollutes just as much as all the cars in North America combined and we dont need a cruise ship to enjoy a holiday in the Caribbean.

          That too, yes, Cruise liners are a part of it as well.

          It wasn't just shipping that sat at anchor during lockdown, but also cruise ships... A massive chunk of which ended up scrapped during that period.

          And the thing noone really recognizes about that period is that emissions actually went down. The atmosphere actually cooled down, even. And whenever anyone does recognize this, they still say "everyone stopped driving cars".

          Yah, the mandate from IMO mostly concerns sulfur, and the 2020 standards are so tight that ships are installing sulfur scrubbers as it's cheaper than buying the sulfur-free fuels.
          The port of LA/LB at least require the use of shore power when in port, so at least that's something.
          [...]
          Bring back canals.

          That is a start, at least. Much as I hate california, shore power when in port needs to be something everyone else copies.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There are two ways to increase profits:
            >increase sales
            >decrease overhead.
            This obviously falls into option 2 and has a knock-on effect into option 1 because the cheaper things are the more of them you can sell. Do you want to explain for the class how aimlessly shipping things around makes people more money?

            >We have the labor to at least make our own iphones.
            You're not getting what the chain looks like. iPhones are going to more places than the US; they're going all over the world. It's actually extremely wasteful and INefficient to ship raw earth materials all over the world to chip factories rather than shipping a ton of materials, ONE TIME, to a single series of chip factories in a single geographic area that make them all there and THEN ship them elsewhere. Why? Because you can cram more chips on a barge than you can cram massive amounts of unprocessed materials. It is ALWAYS cheaper to ship a finished product en-masse than it is to ship raw materials en-masse because the materials will always require more volume than the finished product. That's why you will ALWAYS ship to specialized processing plants first and THEN ship the finished product afterwards. What you are proposing legitimately and provably makes the problem WORSE.

            Forgot to tag for the second part.

            Also, rare* earth.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Frick off homosexual his is the car board

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Keep your hands off my ships, homosexual. The industry is constantly improving efficiencies, in part because doing so means more money.
    Also global warming is a scam.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why don't we make nuclear powered container ships?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >nuclear
      Nucular

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There was a nuclear powered cargo ship called the NS Savannah which was made in the 50s.
      Unfortunately it was pitifully small and more of a show piece yacht rather than a real commercial vessel.
      The biggest problem it faced was that no foreign port would allow the damn thing to dock, so all it could really do is mull about from US port to US port.
      Had a spotless safety record however.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Would be cool but a bunch of unibrow having 3rd worlders on a boat is not who you want running your reactor.

        Also commercial shipping companies skipping and deferring all maintnance and finding out a way to f it up would go over well.

        Other than those 2 problems it would do a shitton of good

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Primarily filipinos.

          And regardless of that, first it was east palestine, now it's been Baltimore port, apparantly it was almost new york city's port with a chinese freighter.

          Noone is going to, or should, trust a commercial fleet to run with reactors until such a shift that the general population can actually have faith a for-profit institution will not place profit over everything else.

          Like the merchant marine guy(s) have showed in their own posts... We're looking at a problem that's bigger than the shipping itself.

          It all goes back to neo-liberal economic theory.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's ultimately going to be necessary. If people refuse to stop thinking that every nuclear powered <X> is automatically a nuke then things are going to be maintained just the way they are because nuclear energy is really the only short-term option for reducing emissions. I'm more enthusiastic about hydro+wind+solar combinations than lots of people are but it's going to take a long time to fully spin that up when we could be using nuclear for this and other applications Right Now. There may be a place for sustainable biofuels but so far that's proven to be 90% vaporware and anything that's sneakily factoring in carbon capture as part of its zero-emissions calculus is absolute vaporware that will never hit their targets.

            Unironically the greatest carrier ship solution is going to be nuclear plus wind power. Literally RETVRN.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Shit like MV Dali. There is a way to do it, it would require more crew with less pressure and a shift away from maximizing profit, returns, but first the general population has to have decades of fears about nuclear power alleviated... It's too much of an ask right now. Too much has to happen first. Especially after Dali.

      Keep your hands off my ships, homosexual. The industry is constantly improving efficiencies, in part because doing so means more money.
      Also global warming is a scam.

      Cars are the biggest scapegoat for climate change. Redirecting the blame away from cars and onto ships would accomplish several things. Like saving automotive culture. Even if global warming is a scam, blaming it on ships owned by corporations would spare classic cars.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i'd hate to be the the guy that has to repaint those loading cranes

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I fully support emissions. I hate battery shills I hate climate activists. Yall brainwashed as frick.

    Pro Oil

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Cargo ships are the most efficient mode of transport yet OP is distracted by totals due to moronation. Container freight is necessary to modern civilization.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There's two assumptions going on...
      1) OP know nothing but the most surface of facts, yet imagines they know enough to have an opinion, and
      2) OP Imagines that no one is working the issue, good thing he caught it, lol

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There's two assumptions going on...
      1) OP know nothing but the most surface of facts, yet imagines they know enough to have an opinion, and
      2) OP Imagines that no one is working the issue, good thing he caught it, lol

      If anything OP should be ragging on cruise ships which are ACTUALLY massively inefficient and pointless.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You know what's more efficient than cargo ships transporting things 5,000 miles across the world? Cargo ships transporting things 500 miles across the country or down the Mississippi.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        See

        >We need some kind of modified global economy where refining, manufacture is done as close to the point-of-sale as possible, and barring the most specific shit like lithium, nickel, etc.
        People don't realize that this isn't how anything fricking works. "Just buy local" is moronic in the modern world because there's a lot of shit that you can't fricking have local.
        >Some locations don't have certain raw materials
        >Some locations cannot grow certain plants
        >Some locations don't have the labor and facilities necessary to create certain objects and in order to fix that you would need to...ship items over.
        >Even if you DO have the labor and facilities necessary to create certain objects, it will be more expensive to do so, which means more expensive to buy, which means an unsustainable economy and job loss in multiple sectors
        Companies don't just ship things from one place in the world to another because they think it would be funny. It's the cheapest way to make things and thus the only way to make it so that (You) can buy one without spending half a week's pay on it.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    While the numbers are wrong the point still stands that cargo ships pollute a lot but the world needs to haul things around thats just how it is. For your next post you should point at cruise ships instead. A couple of cruise ships in the Caribbean pollutes just as much as all the cars in North America combined and we dont need a cruise ship to enjoy a holiday in the Caribbean.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, something like 30 cargo ships emit the same amount of pollution as all cars in the world. We should end globalism

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >end ALL shipping so we can drive cars
      who wants to tell him where rubber comes from

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the US is a net exporter of petroleum, we can make our own tires

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Natural rubber is required to make tires that don't suck, anon.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Neato, didn’t know natural rubber was still used.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It is on quality tires. Now, if you use LingLong tires you probably will get garbage

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i'm sure there are people in this thread who understand the details better than i do, but yeah, be wary whenever any sort of pressure moves from corporations/institutions to you.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Who cares you fricking pinko
    How are you going to move stuff across oceans without shipping dumb frick
    We should burn people like you as fuel

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It can't be helped, but changed. Reduced. Worked around.

      Something has to happen in the time we're waiting for multinationals to give up on China's labor, because our reliance on it got us to this point in the first place.

      If the only answer is reduce the amount of goods and material needed to be shipped in the first place, then there it is.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >If the only answer is reduce the amount of goods and material needed to be shipped in the first place, then there it is.
        would be nice to not get useless trinkets every year at christmas parties etc.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    IT DID HAPPEN AND THEY ARE OUR BEST ALLES

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >uuhhhh actually, electric cars are WORSE for the environment
    >don't you know they have to be BUILT? Batteries don't just fall out of the sky, you know
    >muh lithium
    >muh cobalt
    >I have to tell you this because otherwise you wouldn't know

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Are you arguing that with increased globalism, we have a environmental problem?
    Why don't you cool it with the antisemitism, buddy

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >he never ordered custom-made Muay Thai shorts from Thailand
    Nah, I'd rather keep the cargo ships and send all commuter/SUV/truck homosexuals to their deaths.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    about 40000 gallons of oil is burned on the planet every second.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      every 60 seconds in africa, a minute passes

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    okay so transport those 24000 people across the ocean using 18 wheelers, trains, or bicycles

    not even a pointed comment. you really could do it, youd be the next elon musk. youd have generational wealth. you will be in history books

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's ok anon. Just stick a catalytic converter on those ships.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *