US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Lestersails — Oh dear. "Aspersions." No, he just complained that I’m too stupid to include posts and links. So I feel free to remind him when I take his advice.

When somebody makes a blanket statement like "get rid of the corporations/politicians/lawyers," then it might be nice if they qualified which ones they like and which should be evaporated, and why?

Don’t preach to me about eliminating subsides to oil companies/railroads/airlines/big banks and then turn around and demand subsidies for your pet project.

It’s politics. The benevolent government, pushing policies that had widespread support, created and subsidized airlines, massive building of single-family homes and urban sprawl, interstate highways to connect them, massive water projects to enable deserts in CA and AZ to produce water-hungry crops (cotton and almonds come to mind). Those are all examples of subsides creating problems. So why should I believe that doing it again, with a different set of beneficiaries, is going to solve the problems?

Of course Shell, BP, et al, have been pushing their own products. How is that morally or ethically different than Elon Musk pushing Tesla? Or the dozens of companies pushing EVs. The only difference is that you agree with one side of the argument.

And an argument the internal combustion engine is a relic that should be replaced where possible is far different from "defund the oil companies, get rid of fossil fuels, outlaw all plastics."

But nuanced arguments don’t fill rallies or generate clicks.

I do get tired of the morally-superior-warrior attitude of the climate change zealots. The science is settled, everybody who disagrees with something is a "denier" and can be dismissed as irrelevant. Or, when reminded that voters often don’t vote for green changes, being told that they’re just too ignorant to understand things. I’ll take the ignorant voters over the elitist snobs who think they’ve got all the answers.

The "denier" meme only illustrates that the man caused climate change is only a social and political movement. Bullying those who disagree has nothing to do with science. It is promoted by social and political pressure. If other issues in society were treated the same way, we would still have slavery, child labor, and various forms of discrimination. Anthropogenic climate change is a form of social and political repression.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Lestersails — Oh dear. "Aspersions." No, he just complained that I’m too stupid to include posts and links. So I feel free to remind him when I take his advice.

Not stupid. Lazy.

Don’t preach to me about eliminating subsides to oil companies/railroads/airlines/big banks and then turn around and demand subsidies for your pet project.

You don't subsidize behaviour that causes harm. That's stupid.

It’s politics. The benevolent government, pushing policies that had widespread support, created and subsidized airlines, massive building of single-family homes and urban sprawl, interstate highways to connect them, massive water projects to enable deserts in CA and AZ to produce water-hungry crops (cotton and almonds come to mind). Those are all examples of subsides creating problems. So why should I believe that doing it again, with a different set of beneficiaries, is going to solve the problems?

Well, again...you don't subsidize behaviour that causes harm. That's stupid.

Of course Shell, BP, et al, have been pushing their own products. How is that morally or ethically different than Elon Musk pushing Tesla? Or the dozens of companies pushing EVs. The only difference is that you agree with one side of the argument.

For the third time. You don't subsidize behaviour that causes harm. That's stupid.

And an argument the internal combustion engine is a relic that should be replaced where possible is far different from "defund the oil companies, get rid of fossil fuels, outlaw all plastics."

But nuanced arguments don’t fill rallies or generate clicks.

Your simplistic strawman arguments have all the nuance of a hand grenade in a chicken coop.

I do get tired of the morally-superior-warrior attitude of the climate change zealots. The science is settled, everybody who disagrees with something is a "denier" and can be dismissed as irrelevant. Or, when reminded that voters often don’t vote for green changes, being told that they’re just too ignorant to understand things. I’ll take the ignorant voters over the elitist snobs who think they’ve got all the answers.

Sad that you still insist on arguing against your cartoon image of "climate change zealots", instead of engaging with what was actually said.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Lestersails — Oh dear. "Aspersions." No, he just complained that I’m too stupid to include posts and links. So I feel free to remind him when I take his advice.

So, when you cite "LE" in a post - are you poking at me or Lake Effect?

Originally Posted by Bycrick

When somebody makes a blanket statement like "get rid of the corporations/politicians/lawyers," then it might be nice if they qualified which ones they like and which should be evaporated, and why?

This is why it is so important to read posts and not distort what people are saying or get your knickers in a twist because you think they said something they did not say.

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Don’t preach to me about eliminating subsides to oil companies/railroads/airlines/big banks and then turn around and demand subsidies for your pet project.

OK, thanks, that really confirms it. You aren't reading reading what I wrote. I asked for equal subsidies (and equal could be zero, BTW). You are opposed to that?

Originally Posted by Bycrick

It’s politics.

Well, D'oh, of course it's politics if we're talking subsidies. Since it is the government who is doing the subsidizing. But it would be naive to suggest it is partisan politics. The enormous subsidies for fossil fuels have been a bipartisan enterprise.

Originally Posted by Bycrick

The benevolent government, pushing policies that had widespread support, created and subsidized airlines, massive building of single-family homes and urban sprawl, interstate highways to connect them, massive water projects to enable deserts in CA and AZ to produce water-hungry crops (cotton and almonds come to mind). Those are all examples of subsides creating problems. So why should I believe that doing it again, with a different set of beneficiaries, is going to solve the problems?

Ok, fine, then let's just get rid of the fossil fuel subsidies and insure that they pay the full cost of their business, including something like carbon capture.

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Of course Shell, BP, et al, have been pushing their own products. How is that morally or ethically different than Elon Musk pushing Tesla? Or the dozens of companies pushing EVs. The only difference is that you agree with one side of the argument.

Pushing your product and lying about your product are two very different kettles of fish. Buying off politicians so they won't gore your sacred cow of fossil fuel subsidies is not ethical. I suppose if you want to go down the Ayn Rand rabbit hole you would endorse that. But it wasn't right for big tobacco and it isn't right for big oil and coal. You really want to take the position that corporations should lie?

Originally Posted by Bycrick

And an argument the internal combustion engine is a relic that should be replaced where possible is far different from "defund the oil companies, get rid of fossil fuels, outlaw all plastics."

Wow, now I am certain you don't read anything I write. This is beginning to make sense - it looks like opposing posts just generate some knee jerk response from you irrespective of the position one takes. What I advocated for is a market based solution that takes into account the full cost of a technology. I actually think we will be using fossil fuels for a LONG time. My goal is for us to use very little of them. We will be using them for air travel - there are very few feasible near term alternatives. But again, the users have to pay what it really costs. If Exxon (or whoever) can build carbon capture plants that really work and the airplane ticket pays to absorb the carbon, it is conceivable that that could lead to zero net carbon for air travel. That would be fine.

You fight all reasonable proposals of solutions by equating them to your cartoonish, extremist positions that no one on this forum is advocating. It is a pathetic, failed argument and you are losing it.

Originally Posted by Bycrick

But nuanced arguments don’t fill rallies or generate clicks.

Whoah - now there's an irony for us! You studiously avoid my nuanced arguments of market based solutions and throw caricatures back at me.

Originally Posted by Bycrick

I do get tired of the morally-superior-warrior attitude of the climate change zealots. The science is settled, everybody who disagrees with something is a "denier" and can be dismissed as irrelevant. Or, when reminded that voters often don’t vote for green changes, being told that they’re just too ignorant to understand things. I’ll take the ignorant voters over the elitist snobs who think they’ve got all the answers.

The deniers come out of the caves with guns ablaze - remorselessly blasting away. But as soon as their fire is returned... cue up Bing Crosby. They all turn into snowflakes.

[bcboomer]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Of course Shell, BP, et al, have been pushing their own products. How is that morally or ethically different than Elon Musk pushing Tesla? Or the dozens of companies pushing EVs. The only difference is that you agree with one side of the argument.

The difference is that, like the tobacco companies, they suppressed their own evidence of the pollution they are causing and the climate change they are adding to. Now they are pushing fracking and down playing the damage to the environment from it.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That may be true of "anthropomorphic climate change", because there is no such thing.

Anthropogenic climate change has been well researched and documented for the past 2 centuries.

Originally Posted by newhaul

Actually jack both terms are correct for what you and others are pushing because your politicians told you to.

anthropomorphic
[ˌanTHrəpəˈmôrfik]
ADJECTIVE
relating to or characterized by anthropomorphism.

anthropomorphism
[ˌanTHrəpəˈmôrfizəm]
NOUN
the attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a god, animal, or object.

anthropogenic
[ˌanTHrəpōˈjenik]
ADJECTIVE
(chiefly of pollution or environmental change) originating in human activity.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by lestersails

If Exxon (or whoever) can build carbon capture plants that really work and the airplane ticket pays to absorb the carbon, it is conceivable that that could lead to zero net carbon for air travel. That would be fine.

I have a few issues with this. First of all, 1% of the people are doing 95% of the flying. Also worth noting that 85% of people have never flown in their life, and 7% fly once or twice in their entire life time. The next issue is, even if you capture the carbon from jet travel, emitting co2 high in the atmosphere has a higher short-term effect, as well as the water vapor which affects weather and blocks solar radiation.

Now, if you capture the carbon and store it underground, an air ticket from New York to LA, would cost thousands. This is due to $1200 per ton cost of carbon capture and sequestration. Ok, fine, sure pay to play right? The issue now, is you end up with the carbon in a rock formation not the original form (oil) which can be used for production of synthetic materials (such a sails) that could also be recycled again and again, so although the carbon itself is sequestered, the resource is still consumed. So now I'm back to why should the 1% get to consume 95% of this resource? If they pay these prices, you can be sure it will be even more skewed toward a few rich people. Finally, air traffic control is paid for by everyone, the airports, runways etc. This $5000 ticket price does not even include the emissions to produce the aircraft (significant) nor the emissions to extract, transport, refine, and transport again the fuel as well as all the infrastructure and humans etc required to maintain all of that.

In a more ethical society where the richest people have say only 10 times the wealth of the average worker, air travel with jet engines is no longer viable at all. Some form of air travel using glider type planes that take advantage of thermals, weather patterns, updrafts and more should be the direction to move towards. Flying at 120mph is still significantly faster than other means of transport. Currently I believe people spend more time waiting in airports than they do in the air anyway. Is this true or false? I do not fly so I don't know first hand.

So, some kind of more fair system needs to be in place, limiting 2 flights a year, a 120mph speed limited by efficiency requirements and paying for the consumption of the resource not just the $1200 per ton co2 carbon tax, no subsidizing airports, and significant other fees to discourage resource depletion and cover the real cost. Most people just take trains instead which by the way, is a lot more comfortable and reasonable anyway.

[Montanan]

Rether disconcerting data on deforestation rates.

Doubling of annual forest carbon loss over the tropics during the early twenty-first century
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00854-3

Published by Nature: 28 February 2022

Abstract
Previous estimates of tropical forest carbon loss in the twenty-first century using satellite data typically focus on its magnitude, whereas regional loss trajectories and associated drivers are rarely reported. Here we used different high-resolution satellite datasets to show a doubling of gross tropical forest carbon loss worldwide from 0.97 ± 0.16 PgC yr−1 in 2001–2005 to 1.99 ± 0.13 PgC yr−1 in 2015–2019. This increase in carbon loss from forest conversion is higher than in bookkeeping models forced by land-use statistical data, which show no trend or a slight decline in land-use emissions in the early twenty-first century. Most (82%) of the forest carbon loss is at some stages associated with large-scale commodity or small-scale agriculture activities, particularly in Africa and Southeast Asia. We find that ~70% of former forest lands converted to agriculture in 2001–2019 remained so in 2020, confirming a dominant role of agriculture in long-term pan-tropical carbon reductions on formerly forested landscapes. The acceleration and high rate of forest carbon loss in the twenty-first century suggest that existing strategies to reduce forest loss are not successful; and this failure underscores the importance of monitoring deforestation trends following the new pledges made in Glasgow.

. . .

The net land carbon flux is the most uncertain component of the global carbon budget2,3. Deforestation in the tropics, currently the hotspot of global forest carbon loss6,7,8, directly releases carbon stored in vegetation and soil and indirectly decreases the carbon sink capacity of terrestrial ecosystems9,10,11. Large uncertainties exist in the spatiotemporal pattern of tropical forest loss and associated carbon stock changes in the twenty-first century12,13, such that the contribution of tropical forest ecosystems to the global carbon budget is contested12,13,14. Spatially explicit quantification of tropical forest carbon loss and its trajectory greatly helps reduce uncertainties and ascertain the contribution of tropical forest ecosystems to the global carbon budget over time.

In this article, we analyse gross forest carbon loss associated with forest removal over the tropics (between 23.5° N and 23.5° S but excluding northern Australia) during the twenty-first century. We quantify regional fluxes and trends, as well as examine the drivers of change and the fate of transitioning land uses following forest loss in an effort to gain insights on the permanence of forest conversion to other land-use types.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by lestersails

So, when you cite "LE" in a post - are you poking at me or Lake Effect?



This is why it is so important to read posts and not distort what people are saying or get your knickers in a twist because you think they said something they did not say.



OK, thanks, that really confirms it. You aren't reading reading what I wrote. I asked for equal subsidies (and equal could be zero, BTW). You are opposed to that?



Well, D'oh, of course it's politics if we're talking subsidies. Since it is the government who is doing the subsidizing. But it would be naive to suggest it is partisan politics. The enormous subsidies for fossil fuels have been a bipartisan enterprise.



Ok, fine, then let's just get rid of the fossil fuel subsidies and insure that they pay the full cost of their business, including something like carbon capture.




Pushing your product and lying about your product are two very different kettles of fish. Buying off politicians so they won't gore your sacred cow of fossil fuel subsidies is not ethical. I suppose if you want to go down the Ayn Rand rabbit hole you would endorse that. But it wasn't right for big tobacco and it isn't right for big oil and coal. You really want to take the position that corporations should lie?



Wow, now I am certain you don't read anything I write. This is beginning to make sense - it looks like opposing posts just generate some knee jerk response from you irrespective of the position one takes. What I advocated for is a market based solution that takes into account the full cost of a technology. I actually think we will be using fossil fuels for a LONG time. My goal is for us to use very little of them. We will be using them for air travel - there are very few feasible near term alternatives. But again, the users have to pay what it really costs. If Exxon (or whoever) can build carbon capture plants that really work and the airplane ticket pays to absorb the carbon, it is conceivable that that could lead to zero net carbon for air travel. That would be fine.

You fight all reasonable proposals of solutions by equating them to your cartoonish, extremist positions that no one on this forum is advocating. It is a pathetic, failed argument and you are losing it.



Whoah - now there's an irony for us! You studiously avoid my nuanced arguments of market based solutions and throw caricatures back at me.



The deniers come out of the caves with guns ablaze - remorselessly blasting away. But as soon as their fire is returned... cue up Bing Crosby. They all turn into snowflakes.

Another loaded "denier" statement meant to discredit the opposition without attention to merit. This is a classic ad hominem statement that the climate change believers use to avoid the discussion by attacking their opponent when they know that they cannot win with reason. Denier, flat earther, knuckle dragger, and troll, are the common unimaginative trite names that they throw. This is also an attempt to put their opposition on the defensive when they themselves are unable to defend their position.



"The arts of power and its minions are the same in all countries and in all ages. It marks its victim; denounces it; and excites the public odium and the public hatred, to conceal its own abuses and encroachments." - Henry Clay, US Senator 1834

[Montanan]

Market based measures for CO2 emission reduction in the shipping industry:

https://www.rigzone.com/news/wire/ma...65587-article/

The cargo shipping line Maersk which is the world's largest consumer of bunker fuel has called on the International Maritime Organization to deploy a global carbon pricing market-based mechanism by 2025. Maersk accounts for 21% of global shipping.

Snipets:

The world’s largest container shipping line has called for a $150-a-ton carbon tax on shipping fuel that would drive up the costs for an industry that delivers 80% of world trade. A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S says such a levy would help bridge the price gap between fossil fuels that vessels consume today and greener alternatives that are currently much more expensive. Fuel costs would effectively almost double if the measure were imposed today because of how carbon dioxide emissions are counted. While such a shift would be challenging for shipowners at large, Maersk’s scale would enable the company to weather such a hike in what constitutes the industry’s single largest expense. . . .

“It’s not trivial to move to green fuels from a cost perspective,” said Soren Skou, CEO of A.P. Moller Maersk. “We need to somehow level the playing field, and that’s the purpose of a market-based measure.”

Maersk is calling on the International Maritime Organization -- shipping’s global regulator -- to have a carbon dioxide tax for the industry ready by 2025, likely starting at about $50 a ton, then ramping up to at least $150 a ton in subsequent years. While seeking such a tax might seem counterintuitive, Maersk’s call is in part a response to changing business behaviors. Almost half of the company’s top 200 customers have set targets to eliminate carbon dioxide emissions. “This is a cost problem, but on the other hand it’s also a business opportunity,” Skou said. “We’re meeting customer demand by developing carbon neutral products.” The $150 carbon dioxide emission levy works out at about a $450-a-ton hike in the cost of very low-sulfur fuel oil -- a mainstream product for the industry today -- according to Maersk. VLSFO costs about $500 a ton to $525 a ton . . . Although the price tag is high, shipping’s economies of scale mean the cost of a pair of sneakers would only rise by a matter of cents, according to Skou. Ultimately, the extra cost would need to be passed on to customers.

Money raised from the tax would be used to subsidize clean fuels, and, to support developing countries, whose backing is important at the IMO level. Maersk said enforcement would involve reporting from ships’ flag states and IMO data collection, and must not be left as an afterthought, as it was with the 0.5% sulfur limit on marine fuel, known as IMO 2020.

If such a tax were implemented, Skou expects it would have a “huge impact on the transition to greener fuels.” It could also affect global oil consumption. Shipping consumes about 4.5 million barrels per day of oil-based marine fuel,

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Market based measures for CO2 emission reduction in the shipping industry:

https://www.rigzone.com/news/wire/ma...65587-article/

The cargo shipping line Maersk which is the world's largest consumer of bunker fuel has called on the International Maritime Organization to deploy a global carbon pricing market-based mechanism by 2025. Maersk accounts for 21% of global shipping.

Snipets:

The world’s largest container shipping line has called for a $150-a-ton carbon tax on shipping fuel that would drive up the costs for an industry that delivers 80% of world trade. A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S says such a levy would help bridge the price gap between fossil fuels that vessels consume today and greener alternatives that are currently much more expensive. Fuel costs would effectively almost double if the measure were imposed today because of how carbon dioxide emissions are counted. While such a shift would be challenging for shipowners at large, Maersk’s scale would enable the company to weather such a hike in what constitutes the industry’s single largest expense. . . .

“It’s not trivial to move to green fuels from a cost perspective,” said Soren Skou, CEO of A.P. Moller Maersk. “We need to somehow level the playing field, and that’s the purpose of a market-based measure.”

Maersk is calling on the International Maritime Organization -- shipping’s global regulator -- to have a carbon dioxide tax for the industry ready by 2025, likely starting at about $50 a ton, then ramping up to at least $150 a ton in subsequent years. While seeking such a tax might seem counterintuitive, Maersk’s call is in part a response to changing business behaviors. Almost half of the company’s top 200 customers have set targets to eliminate carbon dioxide emissions. “This is a cost problem, but on the other hand it’s also a business opportunity,” Skou said. “We’re meeting customer demand by developing carbon neutral products.” The $150 carbon dioxide emission levy works out at about a $450-a-ton hike in the cost of very low-sulfur fuel oil -- a mainstream product for the industry today -- according to Maersk. VLSFO costs about $500 a ton to $525 a ton . . . Although the price tag is high, shipping’s economies of scale mean the cost of a pair of sneakers would only rise by a matter of cents, according to Skou. Ultimately, the extra cost would need to be passed on to customers.

Money raised from the tax would be used to subsidize clean fuels, and, to support developing countries, whose backing is important at the IMO level. Maersk said enforcement would involve reporting from ships’ flag states and IMO data collection, and must not be left as an afterthought, as it was with the 0.5% sulfur limit on marine fuel, known as IMO 2020.

If such a tax were implemented, Skou expects it would have a “huge impact on the transition to greener fuels.” It could also affect global oil consumption. Shipping consumes about 4.5 million barrels per day of oil-based marine fuel,

All that will do is drive the cost of goods even higher. The time to decide eat or stay warm is fast approaching for hundreds of million people planet wide. Doesn't actually do anything beyond that.

Edit . It will make Maersk even larger by driving the small shipping companies out of business. Borderline monopoly if you really think about it.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Ok everyone what is the temperature in your abode when measured at your knees while standing? Now what is the temperature at the top of your head.
Now if you hadn't have actually measured it you would my have even noticed the average 0.5°F difference .
And that is man made climate control. Man has no control of the outside atmosphere .

That would be a well ventilated home.
IIRC [Not certain]: The maximum acceptable differential [floor to ceiling], in modern ventilation systems is ± 3°C [5.4°F].
However, in buildings with significant stratification, temperature differentials in excess of 1°C [1.8°F] per vertical foot, are not uncommon.
Some causes of warm air stratification include: warm air buoyancy, low supply air velocity, and air path short circuits.
The “buoyancy effect” describes the natural stratification of warm air near the ceiling, and cool air near the floor. Where warm air rises throughout a building, to its upper floor, we call that the "stack effect".

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

I have a few issues with this. First of all, 1% of the people are doing 95% of the flying. Also worth noting that 85% of people have never flown in their life, and 7% fly once or twice in their entire life time. The next issue is, even if you capture the carbon from jet travel, emitting co2 high in the atmosphere has a higher short-term effect, as well as the water vapor which affects weather and blocks solar radiation.

Now, if you capture the carbon and store it underground, an air ticket from New York to LA, would cost thousands. This is due to $1200 per ton cost of carbon capture and sequestration. Ok, fine, sure pay to play right? The issue now, is you end up with the carbon in a rock formation not the original form (oil) which can be used for production of synthetic materials (such a sails) that could also be recycled again and again, so although the carbon itself is sequestered, the resource is still consumed. So now I'm back to why should the 1% get to consume 95% of this resource? If they pay these prices, you can be sure it will be even more skewed toward a few rich people. Finally, air traffic control is paid for by everyone, the airports, runways etc. This $5000 ticket price does not even include the emissions to produce the aircraft (significant) nor the emissions to extract, transport, refine, and transport again the fuel as well as all the infrastructure and humans etc required to maintain all of that.

In a more ethical society where the richest people have say only 10 times the wealth of the average worker, air travel with jet engines is no longer viable at all. Some form of air travel using glider type planes that take advantage of thermals, weather patterns, updrafts and more should be the direction to move towards. Flying at 120mph is still significantly faster than other means of transport. Currently I believe people spend more time waiting in airports than they do in the air anyway. Is this true or false? I do not fly so I don't know first hand.

So, some kind of more fair system needs to be in place, limiting 2 flights a year, a 120mph speed limited by efficiency requirements and paying for the consumption of the resource not just the $1200 per ton co2 carbon tax, no subsidizing airports, and significant other fees to discourage resource depletion and cover the real cost. Most people just take trains instead which by the way, is a lot more comfortable and reasonable anyway.

It costs what it costs, bro. Either the user pays for it or the people that don't use it pay for it. It has to be paid for. I think it fair to say that we live in a world where, for most things, if you want something you have to pay for it. I do not think any system based on '2 flights a year' concept is gonna fly (pun intended).

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Market based measures for CO2 emission reduction in the shipping industry:

https://www.rigzone.com/news/wire/ma...65587-article/

The cargo shipping line Maersk which is the world's largest consumer of bunker fuel has called on the International Maritime Organization to deploy a global carbon pricing market-based mechanism by 2025. Maersk accounts for 21% of global shipping.

Snipets:

The world’s largest container shipping line has called for a $150-a-ton carbon tax on shipping fuel that would drive up the costs for an industry that delivers 80% of world trade. A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S says such a levy would help bridge the price gap between fossil fuels that vessels consume today and greener alternatives that are currently much more expensive. Fuel costs would effectively almost double if the measure were imposed today because of how carbon dioxide emissions are counted. While such a shift would be challenging for shipowners at large, Maersk’s scale would enable the company to weather such a hike in what constitutes the industry’s single largest expense. . . .

“It’s not trivial to move to green fuels from a cost perspective,” said Soren Skou, CEO of A.P. Moller Maersk. “We need to somehow level the playing field, and that’s the purpose of a market-based measure.”

Maersk is calling on the International Maritime Organization -- shipping’s global regulator -- to have a carbon dioxide tax for the industry ready by 2025, likely starting at about $50 a ton, then ramping up to at least $150 a ton in subsequent years. While seeking such a tax might seem counterintuitive, Maersk’s call is in part a response to changing business behaviors. Almost half of the company’s top 200 customers have set targets to eliminate carbon dioxide emissions. “This is a cost problem, but on the other hand it’s also a business opportunity,” Skou said. “We’re meeting customer demand by developing carbon neutral products.” The $150 carbon dioxide emission levy works out at about a $450-a-ton hike in the cost of very low-sulfur fuel oil -- a mainstream product for the industry today -- according to Maersk. VLSFO costs about $500 a ton to $525 a ton . . . Although the price tag is high, shipping’s economies of scale mean the cost of a pair of sneakers would only rise by a matter of cents, according to Skou. Ultimately, the extra cost would need to be passed on to customers.

Money raised from the tax would be used to subsidize clean fuels, and, to support developing countries, whose backing is important at the IMO level. Maersk said enforcement would involve reporting from ships’ flag states and IMO data collection, and must not be left as an afterthought, as it was with the 0.5% sulfur limit on marine fuel, known as IMO 2020.

If such a tax were implemented, Skou expects it would have a “huge impact on the transition to greener fuels.” It could also affect global oil consumption. Shipping consumes about 4.5 million barrels per day of oil-based marine fuel,

Another tax whose cost will be downloaded on consumers and add to inflation. Interesting that the owners of a powerful wealthy business are getting to influence governments, but consumers of products that they transport did not get a word in to the discussion. Such is the tyranny of climate change. Democracy is undermined. Fascism is strengthened. Just another example of the political origin of climate change. There is absolutely no science mentioned in the article.



Converting the world fleet of large vessels and their supporting infrastructure to non petroleum fuel seems like an impossible task. Even if nuclear powered civilian ships were to become practical, the prospect of retrofitting existing ships, or suddenly replacing them with nuclear vessels would be a can of worms.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Another loaded "denier" statement meant to discredit the opposition without attention to merit. This is a classic ad hominem statement that the climate change believers use to avoid the discussion by attacking their opponent when they know that they cannot win with reason. Denier, flat earther, knuckle dragger, and troll, are the common unimaginative trite names that they throw. This is also an attempt to put their opposition on the defensive when they themselves are unable to defend their position.

Well, in this respect you are consistent. A substantive post covering some major points - and you only respond as to how your feelings are hurt. If the shoe fits, wear it. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Thin skin indeed - can't imagine how you would react to a true ad hominem attack.

[Dave_S]

Forget what you've read, I'd like to hear 1st hand experiences from all our members.

Most of us are old enough to have memories of more than 50 years in the same location and we are from all around the world.

I must live in a "Blue Blob" because I remember spending many stinking hot summers where it was so hot we sat under a fan with a wet tea towel on our heads to keep cool. In the short term history (maybe 10-15 years) it hasn't been anywhere near as hot... Not even close and the water levels don't seem to have changed at all.

What is everyone else's experience ?