your link does not seem to say how much CO2 all the world's ships produce per year, and how much all the world's cars.
your link does not seem to say how much CO2 all the world's ships produce per year, and how much all the world's cars.
Sponsored Links
D
Doggit
No it doesn't, I read the article about 9 months ago, and lost it. I used that link to try an ilustrate how big these engines are. They're also 2 stroke, so I don't know if they have an CATs fitted.
they were talking on the telly the other day about the amount of pollution caused by these massive ocean liners that cruise the world
they use a massive amount of fuel (?) plus the pollution they cause when they are in dock (southampton)
they use a massive amount of fuel (?) plus the pollution they cause when they are in dock (southampton)
D
Deleted member 63160
Just googled and first site says the worlds 15 biggest ships create more pollution than all the worlds 760 million cars???
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 25 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 4,726
- Reaction score
- 64
- Country
Then why not provide the link?
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2005
- Messages
- 6,345
- Reaction score
- 268
- Country
"... One large ship alone can generate approx 5,200 tonnes of sulphur oxide pollution in a year, meaning that 15 of the largest ships now emit as much SOx as..." 
From April 23, 2009 Guardian journo :-
http://newatlas.com/shipping-pollution/11526/
He points to :-
https://www.slideshare.net/Calion/dkgroup-environment-remake-cha-v14
-0-
From April 23, 2009 Guardian journo :-
http://newatlas.com/shipping-pollution/11526/
He points to :-
https://www.slideshare.net/Calion/dkgroup-environment-remake-cha-v14
-0-
I bet the link doesn't say how much CO2 is generated by ships, and how much is generated by road traffic.
I bet it doesn't say how much carbon is generated by trucks moving a thousand tons of goods a thousand miles, and how much by a ship doing the same.
These points are essential to any conversation about climate change and carbon emissions.
It's even possible that the link was published by somebody wanting to loosen controls on road traffic pollution.
Will we ever know?
I bet it doesn't say how much carbon is generated by trucks moving a thousand tons of goods a thousand miles, and how much by a ship doing the same.
These points are essential to any conversation about climate change and carbon emissions.
It's even possible that the link was published by somebody wanting to loosen controls on road traffic pollution.
Will we ever know?
Yes.
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 42,693
- Reaction score
- 2,625
- Country
I suppose they fart a lot less than cows.
It isn't speculation if its based upon evidence. We have a theory. You could compare this with evolution, as it is also a theory, with an abundance of evidence (albiet a theory that has had many more years to be looked into). We have a whole heap of evidence supporting AGW, and the evidence against it has looked more and more flawed as a results. This is why people are saying "the debate is over". It sounds hyperbolic, but actually, the evidence is that slanted to AGW that there is less and less need to debate it.
It would take extraudinary evidence (but of course not impossible) for the opposite opinion to be shown to be right, and we haven't seen that.
As I said earlier, there are those even in the IPCC who do not believe in AGW. It isn't a closed shop.
We might hear much in the MSM about studies and healine grabbing evidence, but I have also looked into opposite views, spent many years on the fence looking at both sides, and those denying AGW have looked more and more wrong, as their arguments were shown to be flawed agin and again.
That's not to say the envirtonmental movement isn't without it's flaws as well (eg. they are anti-nuclear and anti-incineration), but AGW is supported by 97% of relevant scientists for a reason.
The debate is how do we prevent that, as that would be preferable, as it would reduce extinctions and mean less problems for people (like food production).
D
Doggit
Now if you go and read the posts on Electric car drivel, you'll see a lot of sensible debate of the boths sides; and from far more knowledgable people than me. I see the way that the climate change proponants continually need to fiddle their data, and I remain a little sceptical. Let's agree to differ.
How do you stop people wanting economic prosperity..........
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-41100541
??
An area the size of Denmark bulldozed.
OK the Brazilian courts have stopped it this time. But some day the bulldozers will likely roll in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-41100541
??
An area the size of Denmark bulldozed.
OK the Brazilian courts have stopped it this time. But some day the bulldozers will likely roll in.
Last edited:
D
Doggit
And people wonder why I consider big businnes's and politicians don't want to be honest about climate change. There's too many vested interests in keeping it within understandable parameters.
But doesn't the main thrust about man made climate change denial come from the vested interest groups? The oil barons, coal companies, mining companies etc?
The ones with the biggest stake to lose will be shouting the loudest.
What have the tree huggers got to lose?
The ones with the biggest stake to lose will be shouting the loudest.
What have the tree huggers got to lose?
Sponsored Links
