US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

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".

Ok so even more of a difference than I recalled. And people are whining about .25°C heck they really needed the modern electronic age just to measure out to a 100th of a degree .

See where it's all going here . It's all natural and without a fancy computer to say it exists 99.99% of people would not ever suspect let alone feel it.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

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.

Definitely not impossible, actually very doable with a great deal of progress already having been made. Nothing tyrannical about this. Doesn't require a lot of science, rather just implementing engineering. It is only impossible if you close your minds to the possibilities.

Maersk's transition plans can primarily be summarized as: Enhanced transport efficiency and transition to carbon neutral fuels.

https://www.maersk.com/news/articles...-carbon-future

To accelerate the transition to carbon-neutral shipping, Maersk has set a new and ambitious target in 2018 of having net-zero CO2 emissions from operations by 2050. “The only possible way to achieve the so much needed decarbonisation in our industry is by fully transforming to new carbon-neutral fuels and supply chains,” says Søren Toft, Chief Operating Officer of Maersk.

Carbon-neutral vessels from 2030

Due to the 20-25-year lifetime of a vessel, Maersk must have carbon neutral vessels commercially viable by 2030 to realise the 2050 target. Developing new fuels and vessel technologies as well as optimising networks will be major contribution areas.

“We will invest significant resources in innovation and fleet technology to improve the technical and financial viability of decarbonised solutions,” continues Toft. Over the past four years, Maersk has invested around USD 1bn and engaged more than 50 engineers each year in developing and deploying energy-efficient solutions. The focus is on finding solutions specific to ocean transport, as the industry calls for different solutions compared to transportation by vehicle, train or plane.

For several years, Maersk has taken a leading role on behalf of the industry to improve energy efficiency. As a result, the company has achieved a 41% relative reduction in CO2 emissions from its activities, compared to 2008.

The company has managed to decouple emissions from trade growth, and continues to focus on efficiency improvements. Maersk’s efficiency target, now aiming for a 60% reduction relative to mass / volume of cargo moved by 2030 from a 2008 baseline, has been aligned with the International Maritime Organization’s strategy for greenhouse gas reductions in shipping.

However, the climate change problem can only be solved by becoming carbon-neutral as efficiency will not be enough. With current technology proving insufficient, Maersk recognises the need for innovation and collaboration across the industry. “Going forward we cannot do this alone,” says Toft.

By setting the ambitious target of net-zero emissions by 2050, Maersk hopes to inspire researchers, technology developers, investors, cargo owners and legislators to come together in co-development and sponsorship of sustainable solutions that we are yet to see in the maritime industry.


Maersk Reveals Design Changes for Efficiency of New Dual-Fuel Boxships
PUBLISHED DEC 8, 2021 12:54 PM BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE
https://www.maritime-executive.com/a...-fuel-boxships

Maersk provided a first look at the new design concepts that it will be incorporating into its next-generation boxships. In addition to being outfitted with dual-fuel systems to operate on methanol, Maersk is incorporating a broad range of new designs which it says will enhance all aspects of operations.

Maersk Orders 12 Methanol-Powered Container Ships With Fuel-Saving Design
And wow, they are ugly.
By
Lloyd Alter
Published January 19, 2022

https://www.treehugger.com/maersk-or...design-5216240

Treehugger's Sami Grover noted last year that A.P. Moller-Maersk—usually just known as Maersk— had ordered eight large methanol-powered container ships from Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI). We followed up with the question of how green is Maersk's bio-methanol fuel? Now Maersk has followed up with more information on the ships themselves, which are a new design that uses 20% less fuel per shipping container. These are not silly 2050 pledges either—the first delivery is in 2024.

Most methanol made today is "brown" and made from fossil fuels, and burning it would release fossil carbon dioxide (CO2). As we wrote previously, Maersk is using bio-methanol made from plant waste, or e-methanol made from hydrogen and captured CO2. The company will need 450,000 tons per year to run all 12 ships, but the Methanol Institute says there are many projects on the boards and under construction, and predicts there will be a million tons per year available by 2025. If there isn't enough when the ships arrive, they are dual-fuel and will run on Very Low Sulfur Fuel Oil (VLSFO) until there is enough.

Green methanol will cost a lot more than fuel oil. Soren Skou of Maersk told CNBC Europe it might be three times as expensive, but "the inflationary impact will be very modest when it comes out to the consumer.” Divided over 8,000 pairs of sneakers in a container, "it’s 10 cents per pair of sneakers. So that’s why I think … for the consumer, it will be manageable.”

The higher cost of fuel is what drove the redesign of the ships. According to the Maersk press release: "This design allows a 20% improved energy efficiency per transported container, when comparing to the industry average for vessels in this size. Additionally, the entire series is expected to save around one million tons of annual CO2 emissions, offering our customers carbon-neutral transportation at scale on ocean trades." The ship carries 16,000 20-foot equivalent (TEU) containers, though most containers today are 40 feet long.


Contract Awarded for Large e-Methanol Facility to Fuel Maersk’s Ships

https://www.maritime-executive.com/a...maersk-s-ships

PUBLISHED MAR 2, 2022 8:29 PM BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE


Efforts are moving forward on building the world´s first large-scale commercial e-Methanol production facility to be located in southern Denmark. The timing of the project is being coordinated to the scheduled delivery of Maersk’s large dual-fuel methanol ready containerships with the production of the fuel scheduled to start in the second half of 2023. Last summer, A.P. Moller – Maersk announced it would partner with REintegrate, a subsidiary of the Danish renewable energy company European Energy, working closely on the development of the facility.
Danish developer and operator of green energy projects, European Energy, is developing the first large-scale commercial e-Methanol production facility with the hydrogen being provided by a 50 mega-watt electrolyzer plant that the company has now ordered from Siemens Energy. The plan is that the plant will be built in Kassø, located in southern Denmark, near the German border. Through the nearby 300 MW solar park at Kassø, also developed by European Energy, the project will have access to the low-cost renewable electricity needed to produce cost-effective e-Fuel. End-users of the e-Methanol will Maersk and the fuel retailer Circle K, among others.
“We are pleased to place this important order of what is believed to be the first large-scale commercial Power-to-X-project of its kind in the world,” said Knud Erik Andersen, CEO of European Energy. “This is a crucial moment in the green transition as we move forward with the decarbonization of hard-to-abate sectors such as the shipping industry, and we trust that Siemens Energy's outstanding know-how of electrolyzers will become a strong foundation to expand our business of delivering sustainable fuels to the world.”

European Energy projects that e-Methanol can become a critical piece in meeting the IMO’s goals for the decarbonization of the shipping industry. The company notes that global shipping consumes around 3,050 terawatt hours (TWh) of the worldwide final energy consumption. This is more than five times the total electricity consumption of Germany. As nearly all the current power is based on fossil fuels, mainly bunker oil, the shipping sector emits about 1,000 million tons of CO2 per year, about 13 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions from global transport.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Definitely not impossible, actually very doable with a great deal of progress already having been made. Nothing tyrannical about this. Doesn't require a lot of science, rather just implementing engineering. It is only impossible if you close your minds to the possibilities.

Maersk's transition plans can primarily be summarized as: Enhanced transport efficiency and transition to carbon neutral fuels.

https://www.maersk.com/news/articles...-carbon-future

To accelerate the transition to carbon-neutral shipping, Maersk has set a new and ambitious target in 2018 of having net-zero CO2 emissions from operations by 2050. “The only possible way to achieve the so much needed decarbonisation in our industry is by fully transforming to new carbon-neutral fuels and supply chains,” says Søren Toft, Chief Operating Officer of Maersk.

Carbon-neutral vessels from 2030

Due to the 20-25-year lifetime of a vessel, Maersk must have carbon neutral vessels commercially viable by 2030 to realise the 2050 target. Developing new fuels and vessel technologies as well as optimising networks will be major contribution areas.

“We will invest significant resources in innovation and fleet technology to improve the technical and financial viability of decarbonised solutions,” continues Toft. Over the past four years, Maersk has invested around USD 1bn and engaged more than 50 engineers each year in developing and deploying energy-efficient solutions. The focus is on finding solutions specific to ocean transport, as the industry calls for different solutions compared to transportation by vehicle, train or plane.

For several years, Maersk has taken a leading role on behalf of the industry to improve energy efficiency. As a result, the company has achieved a 41% relative reduction in CO2 emissions from its activities, compared to 2008.

The company has managed to decouple emissions from trade growth, and continues to focus on efficiency improvements. Maersk’s efficiency target, now aiming for a 60% reduction relative to mass / volume of cargo moved by 2030 from a 2008 baseline, has been aligned with the International Maritime Organization’s strategy for greenhouse gas reductions in shipping.

However, the climate change problem can only be solved by becoming carbon-neutral as efficiency will not be enough. With current technology proving insufficient, Maersk recognises the need for innovation and collaboration across the industry. “Going forward we cannot do this alone,” says Toft.

By setting the ambitious target of net-zero emissions by 2050, Maersk hopes to inspire researchers, technology developers, investors, cargo owners and legislators to come together in co-development and sponsorship of sustainable solutions that we are yet to see in the maritime industry.


Maersk Reveals Design Changes for Efficiency of New Dual-Fuel Boxships
PUBLISHED DEC 8, 2021 12:54 PM BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE
https://www.maritime-executive.com/a...-fuel-boxships

Maersk provided a first look at the new design concepts that it will be incorporating into its next-generation boxships. In addition to being outfitted with dual-fuel systems to operate on methanol, Maersk is incorporating a broad range of new designs which it says will enhance all aspects of operations.

Maersk Orders 12 Methanol-Powered Container Ships With Fuel-Saving Design
And wow, they are ugly.
By
Lloyd Alter
Published January 19, 2022

https://www.treehugger.com/maersk-or...design-5216240

Treehugger's Sami Grover noted last year that A.P. Moller-Maersk—usually just known as Maersk— had ordered eight large methanol-powered container ships from Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI). We followed up with the question of how green is Maersk's bio-methanol fuel? Now Maersk has followed up with more information on the ships themselves, which are a new design that uses 20% less fuel per shipping container. These are not silly 2050 pledges either—the first delivery is in 2024.

Most methanol made today is "brown" and made from fossil fuels, and burning it would release fossil carbon dioxide (CO2). As we wrote previously, Maersk is using bio-methanol made from plant waste, or e-methanol made from hydrogen and captured CO2. The company will need 450,000 tons per year to run all 12 ships, but the Methanol Institute says there are many projects on the boards and under construction, and predicts there will be a million tons per year available by 2025. If there isn't enough when the ships arrive, they are dual-fuel and will run on Very Low Sulfur Fuel Oil (VLSFO) until there is enough.

Green methanol will cost a lot more than fuel oil. Soren Skou of Maersk told CNBC Europe it might be three times as expensive, but "the inflationary impact will be very modest when it comes out to the consumer.” Divided over 8,000 pairs of sneakers in a container, "it’s 10 cents per pair of sneakers. So that’s why I think … for the consumer, it will be manageable.”

The higher cost of fuel is what drove the redesign of the ships. According to the Maersk press release: "This design allows a 20% improved energy efficiency per transported container, when comparing to the industry average for vessels in this size. Additionally, the entire series is expected to save around one million tons of annual CO2 emissions, offering our customers carbon-neutral transportation at scale on ocean trades." The ship carries 16,000 20-foot equivalent (TEU) containers, though most containers today are 40 feet long.


Contract Awarded for Large e-Methanol Facility to Fuel Maersk’s Ships

https://www.maritime-executive.com/a...maersk-s-ships

PUBLISHED MAR 2, 2022 8:29 PM BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE


Efforts are moving forward on building the world´s first large-scale commercial e-Methanol production facility to be located in southern Denmark. The timing of the project is being coordinated to the scheduled delivery of Maersk’s large dual-fuel methanol ready containerships with the production of the fuel scheduled to start in the second half of 2023. Last summer, A.P. Moller – Maersk announced it would partner with REintegrate, a subsidiary of the Danish renewable energy company European Energy, working closely on the development of the facility.
Danish developer and operator of green energy projects, European Energy, is developing the first large-scale commercial e-Methanol production facility with the hydrogen being provided by a 50 mega-watt electrolyzer plant that the company has now ordered from Siemens Energy. The plan is that the plant will be built in Kassø, located in southern Denmark, near the German border. Through the nearby 300 MW solar park at Kassø, also developed by European Energy, the project will have access to the low-cost renewable electricity needed to produce cost-effective e-Fuel. End-users of the e-Methanol will Maersk and the fuel retailer Circle K, among others.
“We are pleased to place this important order of what is believed to be the first large-scale commercial Power-to-X-project of its kind in the world,” said Knud Erik Andersen, CEO of European Energy. “This is a crucial moment in the green transition as we move forward with the decarbonization of hard-to-abate sectors such as the shipping industry, and we trust that Siemens Energy's outstanding know-how of electrolyzers will become a strong foundation to expand our business of delivering sustainable fuels to the world.”

European Energy projects that e-Methanol can become a critical piece in meeting the IMO’s goals for the decarbonization of the shipping industry. The company notes that global shipping consumes around 3,050 terawatt hours (TWh) of the worldwide final energy consumption. This is more than five times the total electricity consumption of Germany. As nearly all the current power is based on fossil fuels, mainly bunker oil, the shipping sector emits about 1,000 million tons of CO2 per year, about 13 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions from global transport.

Ok now what is the net gain for Maersk? No company that big does anything that won't benefit them and thereby shareholders financially.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by 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 ?

'Forget what you've read'? Why don't you just lead with, "First, lets all just ignore the evidence and talk about how we feel about this and our uninformed opinions."

[Bycrick]

Hmmmm. Maersk, the biggest shipping company in the world, is spending a lot of money to increase the costs of fuel for their competitors while Maersk gets in bed with the new fuel providers to make sure they’ve got a supply. In the process, it obsoletes their competitors smaller ships. Isn’t that the kind of things big nasty corporations do? Are they doing this out of the goodness of their heart? Or is all fair in love snd saving the world?

Look at what happened when COVID closed all the restaurants: the little guys got bankrupted while the big chains have survived just fine.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by newhaul

See where it's all going here . It's all natural and without a fancy computer to say it exists 99.99% of people would not ever suspect let alone feel it.

Says the guy, likely typing on a computer more powerful than all computers combined a few decades ago. With messages ricocheting around the world just under the speed of light through a cascade of yet more ultra fast, more powerful computers.
Yeah, it's just those 'fancy computers' that are the problem.

This thread is vying with the joke thread for laughs.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Ok now what is the net gain for Maersk? No company that big does anything that won't benefit them and thereby shareholders financially.

Hmmnm, seemingly a rather cynical response.

This approach and effort involves the entire global shipping sector, far beyond Maersk.

This is merely progress that has been in the works for many, many years; nothing new or controversial here. Surely, anyone in the shipping industry would find this as old news. There are no longer arguments, there are actions. The industry has progressed quite well.

Very simple primary motivations:

First:

The major customers are demanding CO2 reduction from all attributes of their business from raw materials to manufacturing, to services, to power supplied, to transport, to distribution, to retail.

Seeking neutrality as to scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions.

Second:

The International Maritime Organization IMO has set industry targets for CO2 reduction, so the shipping companies are just following the industry regulations.

https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/H...rom-ships.aspx

What does the initial IMO GHG strategy say?

The initial GHG strategy envisages, in particular, a reduction in carbon intensity of international shipping (to reduce CO2 emissions per transport work, as an average across international shipping, by at least 40% by 2030, pursuing efforts towards 70% by 2050, compared to 2008); and that total annual GHG emissions from international shipping should be reduced by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008.

The strategy includes a specific reference to “a pathway of CO2 emissions reduction consistent with the Paris Agreement temperature goals”.

The initial strategy represents a framework for Member States, setting out the future vision for international shipping, the levels of ambition to reduce GHG emissions and guiding principles; and includes candidate short-, mid- and long-term further measures with possible timelines and their impacts on States. The strategy also identifies barriers and supportive measures including capacity building, technical cooperation and research and development (R&D).

The strategy envisages that a revised strategy will be adopted in 2023. Feeding in to the process towards the adoption of the revised Strategy in 2023 will be the data collection system on fuel oil consumption of ships over 5,000 gross tons, which began on 1 January 2019.

What is the vision and what are the levels of ambition in the strategy?
The initial strategy includes the following:

Vision

IMO remains committed to reducing GHG emissions from international shipping and, as a matter of urgency, aims to phase them out as soon as possible in this century.

Levels of ambition

The Initial Strategy identifies levels of ambition for the international shipping sector noting that technological innovation and the global introduction of alternative fuels and/or energy sources for international shipping will be integral to achieve the overall ambition. Reviews should take into account updated emission estimates, emissions reduction options for international shipping, and the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC ). Levels of ambition directing the Initial Strategy are as follows:

carbon intensity of the ship to decline through implementation of further phases of the energy efficiency design index (EEDI) for new ships
to review with the aim to strengthen the energy efficiency design requirements for ships with the percentage improvement for each phase to be determined for each ship type, as appropriate;

carbon intensity of international shipping to decline
to reduce CO2 emissions per transport work, as an average across international shipping, by at least 40% by 2030, pursuing efforts towards 70% by 2050, compared to 2008; and

.GHG emissions from international shipping to peak and decline
to peak GHG emissions from international shipping as soon as possible and to reduce the total annual GHG emissions by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008 whilst pursuing efforts towards phasing them out as called for in the Vision as a point on a pathway of CO2 emissions reduction consistent with the Paris Agreement temperature goals.

Note: The Paris Agreement on climate change was agreed in 2015 by Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and entered into force in 2016. The Paris Agreement central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The Paris Agreement does not include international shipping, but IMO, as the regulatory body for the industry, is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping.
Which energy efficiency requirements has IMO already adopted?
IMO is the only organization to have adopted energy-efficiency measures that are legally binding across an entire global industry, applying to all countries.

IMO has established a series of baselines for the amount of fuel each type of ship burns for a certain cargo capacity. Ships built in the future will have to beat that baseline by a set amount, which will get progressively tougher over time. By 2025, all new ships will be a massive 30% more energy efficient than those built in 2014. The "phase 3" requirements have already been reviewed and will be strengthened - this comes under the candidate measures in the IMO initial strategy on reduction of GHG emissions from ships.

The MEPC 74th session in May 2019 approved, for adoption at the next session, amendments to MARPOL Annex VI to significantly strengthen the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) "phase 3" requirements.

The draft amendments bring forward the entry into effect date of phase 3 to 2022, from 2025, for several ship types, including gas carriers, general cargo ships and LNG carriers. This means that new ships built from that date must be significantly more energy efficient than the baseline.

For container ships, the EEDI reduction rate is enhanced, significantly for larger ship sizes, as follows:
For a containership of 200,000 DWT and above, the EEDI reduction rate is set at 50% from 2022
For a containership of 120,000 DWT and above but less than 200,000 DWT, 45% from 2022
For a containership of 80,000 DWT and above but less than 120,000 DWT, 40% from 2022
For a containership of 40,000 DWT and above but less than 80,000 DWT, 35% from 2022
For a containership of 15,000 DWT and above but less than 40,000 DWT, 30% from 2022
The MEPC also agreed terms of reference for a correspondence group to look into the introduction of a possible "phase 4" of EEDI requirements.

Under the energy-efficiency regulations, existing ships now have to have an energy efficiency management plan in place, looking at things like improved voyage planning, cleaning the underwater parts of the ship and the propeller more often, introducing technical measures such as waste heat recovery systems, or even fitting a new propeller.

The energy-efficiency requirements were adopted as amendments to MARPOL Annex VI in 2011 and they entered into force on 1 January 2013. The regulations make mandatory the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) mandatory for new ships, and the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) is made a requirement for all ships.

In 2016, IMO adopted mandatory requirements for ships of 5,000 gross tonnage and above will have to collect consumption data for each type of fuel oil they use, as well as other, additional, specified data including proxies for transport work. These ships account for approximately 85% of CO2 emissions from international shipping. The data collected will provide a firm basis on which future decisions on additional measures, over and above those already adopted by IMO, can be made.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Ok now what is the net gain for Maersk? No company that big does anything that won't benefit them and thereby shareholders financially.

Looks like an scheme by Maesk to monopolize the shipping industry. They get to control the technology and production to meet new standards which they get to recommend to government. All others either do not get access, or have to pay the price that they dictate. The ten cent per pair of sneakers cost is only a soft sell statement. Consider the cost of transporting large items like cars and large machinery, or raw materials such as iron and steel. This is an inflationary scheme.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by lestersails

'Forget what you've read'? Why don't you just lead with, "First, lets all just ignore the evidence and talk about how we feel about this and our uninformed opinions."

If you were truly unbiased you would be aware that you have read arguments for and against MMGW & GW for many years. It always results in no one's opinion being changed and a huge amount of pointless quoting of 2nd, 3rd, 4th - 134th regurgitated and edited versions of someone's agenda. It is only personal bias that make one side more compelling than another.

I thought it would be refreshing to hear 1st hand accounts. Everyone I talk to says the same.... that it was hotter when we were kids but most have lived around where I live... Not much of a test sample. People on this forum live all around the world. A good test sample.... Yes?

So forget what you have read, forget all your options and anger for your fellow sailors and tell us if you live in the same area,

Was it hotter when you were kids ?

[Bycrick]

LE —
"You don't subsidize behaviour that causes harm. That's stupid"
Of course they did. The government willing subsidized all of those things that I mentioned, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Now, we’re left with the results. But the next time we give them trillions, they’ll spend it right.

What gives you and your Twitter friends the sole right to decide what’s "harmful?" Much less decide what everyone else is going to do about it. That’s a political process.

"Your simplistic strawman arguments have all the nuance of a hand grenade in a chicken coop." They’re joy MY strawman arguments. They’ve all been posted on this forum by the true believers.

For all the propaganda about the success of the greenies, look at Montanan’s post. With all of the publicity and arm-waving deforestation has increased. You guys are doing a great job.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

LE —
"You don't subsidize behaviour that causes harm. That's stupid"
Of course they did. The government willing subsidized all of those things that I mentioned, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Now, we’re left with the results. But the next time we give them trillions, they’ll spend it right.

What gives you and your Twitter friends the sole right to decide what’s "harmful?" Much less decide what everyone else is going to do about it. That’s a political process.

"Your simplistic strawman arguments have all the nuance of a hand grenade in a chicken coop." They’re joy MY strawman arguments. They’ve all been posted on this forum by the true believers.

For all the propaganda about the success of the greenies, look at Montanan’s post. With all of the publicity and arm-waving deforestation has increased. You guys are doing a great job.

Yes, deforestation has increased in this century and the issue has been noted and commitments to inhibit such have been made in during COP26. The "greenies" have noted the vast deforestation and definitely have not claimed successes in reducing deforestation, but not for having not tried.

If there had not been analysis and discussion the commitments likely would not have been made.

How about becoming one of the guys doing a good job? Constructive actions would be welcome, perhaps equal to the effort involved in the rants.

COP26 Deforestation Pledge: A Promising Solution With an Uncertain Future
November 10, 2021

https://cnr.ncsu.edu/news/2021/11/co...ertain-future/

More than 100 countries at the 26th annual United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow recently pledged to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030. But environmental organizations have criticized the pledge, noting that similar initiatives in the past failed to reduce deforestation rates.

Justin Baker, an associate professor of forest resource economics at NC State, said the sheer scope of the pledge, which covers some 85% of the world’s forests, signals a “substantial and serious commitment” to ending deforestation.

“These are voluntary mechanisms being agreed to at these meetings,” said Baker, who specializes in climate change mitigation and adaptation policy. “The fact that you have major emitters of greenhouse gases from deforestation, such as Brazil, at the table participating in this agreement is a good sign of productivity.”

. . .

Global commitments have previously struggled or failed to stop deforestation. For example, the 2014 New York Declaration on Forests, which set a target of no deforestation by 2030, failed to meet its interim goal of a 50% reduction by 2020, with tropical deforestation alone increasing by 13% between 2019 and 2020.

The COP26 pledge, however, could prove more effective than previous efforts thanks to its financial commitments, according to Baker. As part of the pledge, a dozen countries have committed $12 billion through 2025 to address wildfires, restore land and help Indigenous communities. The private sector has also committed $7.2 billion, which will be used to support deforestation-free agriculture and nature-based mitigation strategies.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Hmmnm, seemingly a rather cynical response.

This approach and effort involves the entire global shipping sector, far beyond Maersk.

This is merely progress that has been in the works for many, many years; nothing new or controversial here. Surely, anyone in the shipping industry would find this as old news. There are no longer arguments, there are actions. The industry has progressed quite well.

Very simple primary motivations:

First:

The major customers are demanding CO2 reduction from all attributes of their business from raw materials to manufacturing, to services, to power supplied, to transport, to distribution, to retail.

Seeking neutrality as to scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions.

Second:

The International Maritime Organization IMO has set industry targets for CO2 reduction, so the shipping companies are just following the industry regulations.

https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/H...rom-ships.aspx

What does the initial IMO GHG strategy say?

The initial GHG strategy envisages, in particular, a reduction in carbon intensity of international shipping (to reduce CO2 emissions per transport work, as an average across international shipping, by at least 40% by 2030, pursuing efforts towards 70% by 2050, compared to 2008); and that total annual GHG emissions from international shipping should be reduced by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008.

The strategy includes a specific reference to “a pathway of CO2 emissions reduction consistent with the Paris Agreement temperature goals”.

The initial strategy represents a framework for Member States, setting out the future vision for international shipping, the levels of ambition to reduce GHG emissions and guiding principles; and includes candidate short-, mid- and long-term further measures with possible timelines and their impacts on States. The strategy also identifies barriers and supportive measures including capacity building, technical cooperation and research and development (R&D).

The strategy envisages that a revised strategy will be adopted in 2023. Feeding in to the process towards the adoption of the revised Strategy in 2023 will be the data collection system on fuel oil consumption of ships over 5,000 gross tons, which began on 1 January 2019.

What is the vision and what are the levels of ambition in the strategy?
The initial strategy includes the following:

Vision

IMO remains committed to reducing GHG emissions from international shipping and, as a matter of urgency, aims to phase them out as soon as possible in this century.

Levels of ambition

The Initial Strategy identifies levels of ambition for the international shipping sector noting that technological innovation and the global introduction of alternative fuels and/or energy sources for international shipping will be integral to achieve the overall ambition. Reviews should take into account updated emission estimates, emissions reduction options for international shipping, and the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC ). Levels of ambition directing the Initial Strategy are as follows:

carbon intensity of the ship to decline through implementation of further phases of the energy efficiency design index (EEDI) for new ships
to review with the aim to strengthen the energy efficiency design requirements for ships with the percentage improvement for each phase to be determined for each ship type, as appropriate;

carbon intensity of international shipping to decline
to reduce CO2 emissions per transport work, as an average across international shipping, by at least 40% by 2030, pursuing efforts towards 70% by 2050, compared to 2008; and

.GHG emissions from international shipping to peak and decline
to peak GHG emissions from international shipping as soon as possible and to reduce the total annual GHG emissions by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008 whilst pursuing efforts towards phasing them out as called for in the Vision as a point on a pathway of CO2 emissions reduction consistent with the Paris Agreement temperature goals.

Note: The Paris Agreement on climate change was agreed in 2015 by Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and entered into force in 2016. The Paris Agreement central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The Paris Agreement does not include international shipping, but IMO, as the regulatory body for the industry, is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping.
Which energy efficiency requirements has IMO already adopted?
IMO is the only organization to have adopted energy-efficiency measures that are legally binding across an entire global industry, applying to all countries.

IMO has established a series of baselines for the amount of fuel each type of ship burns for a certain cargo capacity. Ships built in the future will have to beat that baseline by a set amount, which will get progressively tougher over time. By 2025, all new ships will be a massive 30% more energy efficient than those built in 2014. The "phase 3" requirements have already been reviewed and will be strengthened - this comes under the candidate measures in the IMO initial strategy on reduction of GHG emissions from ships.

The MEPC 74th session in May 2019 approved, for adoption at the next session, amendments to MARPOL Annex VI to significantly strengthen the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) "phase 3" requirements.

The draft amendments bring forward the entry into effect date of phase 3 to 2022, from 2025, for several ship types, including gas carriers, general cargo ships and LNG carriers. This means that new ships built from that date must be significantly more energy efficient than the baseline.

For container ships, the EEDI reduction rate is enhanced, significantly for larger ship sizes, as follows:
For a containership of 200,000 DWT and above, the EEDI reduction rate is set at 50% from 2022
For a containership of 120,000 DWT and above but less than 200,000 DWT, 45% from 2022
For a containership of 80,000 DWT and above but less than 120,000 DWT, 40% from 2022
For a containership of 40,000 DWT and above but less than 80,000 DWT, 35% from 2022
For a containership of 15,000 DWT and above but less than 40,000 DWT, 30% from 2022
The MEPC also agreed terms of reference for a correspondence group to look into the introduction of a possible "phase 4" of EEDI requirements.

Under the energy-efficiency regulations, existing ships now have to have an energy efficiency management plan in place, looking at things like improved voyage planning, cleaning the underwater parts of the ship and the propeller more often, introducing technical measures such as waste heat recovery systems, or even fitting a new propeller.

The energy-efficiency requirements were adopted as amendments to MARPOL Annex VI in 2011 and they entered into force on 1 January 2013. The regulations make mandatory the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) mandatory for new ships, and the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) is made a requirement for all ships.

In 2016, IMO adopted mandatory requirements for ships of 5,000 gross tonnage and above will have to collect consumption data for each type of fuel oil they use, as well as other, additional, specified data including proxies for transport work. These ships account for approximately 85% of CO2 emissions from international shipping. The data collected will provide a firm basis on which future decisions on additional measures, over and above those already adopted by IMO, can be made.

As if shipping companies and vessel crew are not already burdened with costs, maintenance, paper work, etc. Will shipping companies and ship officers face penalties if vessels to not meet the standards? Ship officers and crew are already burdened with many safety standards, water pollution standards, waste management plans, etc. etc. Of course all this is in addition to the ongoing normal work of operating and maintaining the vessel.



The Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan will be another stumbling block. People who sit in offices dreaming up this stuff have no idea what it is to deal with these things aboard. Shipping companies have reduced crewing over years, yet they load remaining crew with even more work. Maintenance gets neglected due to reduced crews, more aboard vessel management/paper work tasks, and the need for the vessel to keep schedule. Port calls often are too short to complete maintenance tasks that are impossible at sea. During refits, the work list gets pared down to for short term cost cutting and to reduce time that the ship is off hire.


Sanity has been cast aside to accommodate needless demands. Independent decision making freedom of officers and crew is being lost. All this in an effort to solve a problem that does not exist. Climate change is a fabricated a political scheme. Of course this will increase shipping costs that will add to inflation world wide.

[Ericson38]

Our gas price just rose 30 cents a gallon in 2 days. Now 5.85 a gallon.

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the...-empowered?s=r

EU decides better to purchase the rest from Russia.

Our administration today stated that we are going to continue Russian petro imports. This means that we have to pay them, so there are still financial transactions with their banks.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

LE —
"You don't subsidize behaviour that causes harm. That's stupid"
Of course they did. The government willing subsidized all of those things that I mentioned, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Now, we’re left with the results.

"When you finally figure out that you're subsidizing something that causes harm, you should stop." How's that?

What gives you and your Twitter friends the sole right to decide what’s "harmful?"

Not on Twitter, and no I have not claimed the 'sole right to decide what’s "harmful?"'

"Your simplistic strawman arguments have all the nuance of a hand grenade in a chicken coop." They’re joy MY strawman arguments. They’ve all been posted on this forum by the true believers.

See your bale of straw posted above.

For all the propaganda about the success of the greenies, look at Montanan’s post. With all of the publicity and arm-waving deforestation has increased. You guys are doing a great job.

Despite people pointing out its harm, deforestation continues. Besides the actual deforesters of course, I'm more inclined to blame the people who say nothing, or who rail on anyone pointing out the problems as "zealots". If you're not part of the solution...

So, way to screw things up. Good job.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Looks like an scheme by Maesk to monopolize the shipping industry. They get to control the technology and production to meet new standards which they get to recommend to government. All others either do not get access, or have to pay the price that they dictate. The ten cent per pair of sneakers cost is only a soft sell statement. Consider the cost of transporting large items like cars and large machinery, or raw materials such as iron and steel. This is an inflationary scheme.

How an oenologist might describe this: The nose has notes of fear of change and progress with a definite paranoia on the tongue and a faint finish of an anarchist.
Thankfully such people are a tiny minority, else we'd all still be in caves, hitting critters over the head with rocks.

There is actually a serious question to ask about the Maersk proposal. Is it a Nirvana scam? Have they proposed a too-bold, too far off, goal to take the heat off of themselves now? Corporations do not actually have much of any accountability for what they say they will be doing 25 years hence.