Forget about SUVs, if we’re really serious about reducing pollution, let’s focus on the superships:
As ships get bigger, the pollution is getting worse. The most staggering statistic of all is that just 16 of the world’s largest ships can produce as much lung-clogging sulphur pollution as all the world’s cars.
Because of their colossal engines, each as heavy as a small ship, these super-vessels use as much fuel as small power stations.
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.
Thanks to decisions taken in London by the body that polices world shipping, this pollution could kill as many as a million more people in the coming decade – even though a simple change in the rules could stop it.
[. . .]
Thanks to the IMO’s rules, the largest ships can each emit as much as 5,000 tons of sulphur in a year – the same as 50million typical cars, each emitting an average of 100 grams of sulphur a year.
With an estimated 800million cars driving around the planet, that means 16 super-ships can emit as much sulphur as the world fleet of cars.
Changing the emissions regulations on the shipping industry seems like a modest, commonsense step toward reducing air pollution. So why doesn’t it get more political attention? Why do hypothetical concerns about potential catastrophic problems always trump those that are causing massive deaths right now?
With all the focus on man-made global warming, its easy to overlook the fact that man-made pollution is already killing millions of people every year. As Bjorn Lomborg has noted:
The single most important environmental problem in the world today is indoor air pollution, caused by poor people cooking and heating their homes with dung and cardboard. The UN estimates that such pollutions causes 2.8 million deaths annually—about the same as HIV/AIDS. The solution, however is not environmental measures but economic changes that let these people get rich enough to afford kerosene.
Imagine the effect we could have on pollution if we spent as much time, energy, and money on solutions that make a difference for other people’s lives rather than those that merely make us feel good about ourselves.
November 28th, 2009 | 12:39 am
Are you really concerned about pollution from ships? I hope. I fear you are just jumping on this because you found it, you think it’s an area Democrats aren’t already active on, and you think you can embarrass a few Dems and make them appear as hypocrites.
I’m sure Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California (S. 1499 in the last Congress), and Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis (then Rep. Solis, D-California, H.R. 2548 in the 110th) will be happy to learn you wish to join them in calling for reducing emissions from ships at sea.
And I’m sure Friends of the Earth, EPA and President Obama will be happy to hear your congratulations for actions already taken this year, only a few months into the new administration.
Imagine the progress we could make if conservatives like you would start making political positions based on attempts to to reasonable things to control pollution, instead of taking stands against people who take the actions to do the reasonable things to control pollution because we don’t like the people, we think.
November 28th, 2009 | 11:39 pm
Ed Are you really concerned about pollution from ships? I hope.
I’m concerned about pollution from any source. But I’m especially concerned when 16 ships can produce more pollution than all the cars on earth.
and you think you can embarrass a few Dems and make them appear as hypocrites.
Why wouldn’t it be equally embarrassing that Republicans have done nothing about the issue? I certainly hope that pollution isn’t a issue that only Democrats are concerned about.
will be happy to learn you wish to join them in calling for reducing emissions from ships at sea.
I wish those bills had been pushed a bit more. If people were aware of the pollution being generated by these ships, I’m sure their would be popular support for their passage.
Imagine the progress we could make if conservatives like you would start making political positions based on attempts to to reasonable things to control pollution
Which conservatives opposed this measure?
November 30th, 2009 | 5:39 am
Boxer’s bill, S. 1499, was reported out of committee. It had six cosponsors, including one Republican, John Warner. Are you guys claiming Warner as a conservative this week? I can’t find any indication that any conservative said a good word about it.
Solis’s bill, H.R. 2548, had 23 cosponsors, no Republicans. About the most conservative cosponsor was Rep. Henry Waxman (how much do I exaggerate? maybe not at all).
Senate Report 110-413 shows the bill reported out on a voice vote — only Lamar Alexander asked to be recorded formally as favoring the bill. An amendment to gut the enforcement provision was proposed by Sen. Vitter, R-La., and failed on a mostly party-line vote, with Sen. Warner of Virginia being the sole Republican to vote with the Democrats.
Joe, can you find any conservative who approved of the bill, or the regulation?
December 28th, 2009 | 2:20 pm
[...] Carter, the superstar blogger of evangelical Christians, posted at First Things, pretending to be upset that Democrats and others who work to control and ameliorate global [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact