Ships' CO2 'twice that of planes'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7052037.stm

Ships' CO2 'twice that of planes'
By Matt McGrath
Environment reporter, BBC News

Tanker in Singapore
Some 90,000 ships ply the world's oceans
Global emissions of carbon dioxide from shipping are twice the level
of aviation, one of the maritime industry's key bodies has said.

A report prepared by Intertanko, which represents the majority of the
world's tanker operators, says emissions have risen sharply in the
past six years.

Previous International Maritime Organisation estimates suggested
levels were comparable with those of planes.

Some 90,000 ships from tankers to small freighters ply the world's
oceans.

Clampdown considered

Intertanko says its figures are the most realistic estimation of the
current levels of CO2 from ships.

It says that growth in global trade coupled with ships burning more
fuel to deliver freight faster has contributed significantly to the
increase.

Dragos Routa, the technical director of Intertanko, told the BBC the
figures were a work in progress but the levels of emissions had risen
sharply.

While there are few accurate measures and even fewer restrictions on
the amounts of carbon dioxide that ships can emit at present,
governments in many parts of the world are considering a clampdown as
part of their efforts to tackle global warming.

"Souf Efriken" wrote in message
ps.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7052037.stm
Intertanko says its figures are the most realistic estimation of the
current levels of CO2 from ships.

While there are few accurate measures and even fewer restrictions on
the amounts of carbon dioxide that ships can emit at present,
governments in many parts of the world are considering a clampdown as
part of their efforts to tackle global warming.


Wow!! I'll go live in a cave!!

Uncle Peter wrote:
"Souf Efriken" wrote in message
ps.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7052037.stm

Intertanko says its figures are the most realistic estimation of the
current levels of CO2 from ships.


While there are few accurate measures and even fewer restrictions on
the amounts of carbon dioxide that ships can emit at present,
governments in many parts of the world are considering a clampdown as
part of their efforts to tackle global warming.


Wow!! I'll go live in a cave!!

Make sure that you have a reliable connection to
the local power grid while you are living in the
cave. If you resort to a small generator you will
multiply you environmental impact several times.
Consider using Bio-gas.
At some point we need to balance the environmental
impact against the quality of life impact. The key
word is balance.
Cheers,
John in LALALand (On the Left Coast)

On 20 Oct, 00:10, Doesn't Frequently Mop
wrote:
Make credence recognised that on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:14:52 GMT, J
Carnaghie has scripted:





Uncle Peter wrote:
"Souf Efriken" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7052037.stm

Intertanko says its figures are the most realistic estimation of the
current levels of CO2 from ships.

While there are few accurate measures and even fewer restrictions on
the amounts of carbon dioxide that ships can emit at present,
governments in many parts of the world are considering a clampdown as
part of their efforts to tackle global warming.

Wow!! I'll go live in a cave!!

Make sure that you have a reliable connection to
the local power grid while you are living in the
cave. If you resort to a small generator you will
multiply you environmental impact several times.
Consider using Bio-gas.
At some point we need to balance the environmental
impact against the quality of life impact. The key
word is balance.

...which won't be achieved while we continue to breed and expand,
which we are continuing to do.

Bio-gas? You'd have to be stoned to believe in that crap.
--
---
DFM -http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

or own a cow and a length of rubber tubing.....

"Doesn't Frequently Mop" wrote in
message ...
Make credence recognised that on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:14:52 GMT, J
Carnaghie has scripted:



Uncle Peter wrote:
"Souf Efriken" wrote in message
ps.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7052037.stm

Intertanko says its figures are the most realistic estimation of the
current levels of CO2 from ships.


While there are few accurate measures and even fewer restrictions on
the amounts of carbon dioxide that ships can emit at present,
governments in many parts of the world are considering a clampdown as
part of their efforts to tackle global warming.


Wow!! I'll go live in a cave!!

Make sure that you have a reliable connection to
the local power grid while you are living in the
cave. If you resort to a small generator you will
multiply you environmental impact several times.
Consider using Bio-gas.
At some point we need to balance the environmental
impact against the quality of life impact. The key
word is balance.

...which won't be achieved while we continue to breed and expand,
which we are continuing to do.

Bio-gas? You'd have to be stoned to believe in that crap.


You have claimed in the past that you often are (or were), so do you?
--

JohnT

Make credence recognised that on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:14:52 GMT, J
Carnaghie has scripted:



Uncle Peter wrote:
"Souf Efriken" wrote in message
ps.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7052037.stm

Intertanko says its figures are the most realistic estimation of the
current levels of CO2 from ships.


While there are few accurate measures and even fewer restrictions on
the amounts of carbon dioxide that ships can emit at present,
governments in many parts of the world are considering a clampdown as
part of their efforts to tackle global warming.


Wow!! I'll go live in a cave!!

Make sure that you have a reliable connection to
the local power grid while you are living in the
cave. If you resort to a small generator you will
multiply you environmental impact several times.
Consider using Bio-gas.
At some point we need to balance the environmental
impact against the quality of life impact. The key
word is balance.

....which won't be achieved while we continue to breed and expand,
which we are continuing to do.

Bio-gas? You'd have to be stoned to believe in that crap.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Thus spake J Carnaghie :



Uncle Peter wrote:
"Souf Efriken" wrote in message
ps.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7052037.stm

Intertanko says its figures are the most realistic estimation of the
current levels of CO2 from ships.


While there are few accurate measures and even fewer restrictions on
the amounts of carbon dioxide that ships can emit at present,
governments in many parts of the world are considering a clampdown as
part of their efforts to tackle global warming.


Wow!! I'll go live in a cave!!

Make sure that you have a reliable connection to
the local power grid while you are living in the
cave. If you resort to a small generator you will
multiply you environmental impact several times.
Consider using Bio-gas.

John, my dogs produce plenty of bio-gas. Especially when they get
some of the slightly past prime (or more than slightly) pears.

At some point we need to balance the environmental
impact against the quality of life impact. The key
word is balance.

People talk about using solar cells to produce electricity. Do they
have any idea of how much water is used to produce semiconductors?

Cheers,
John in LALALand (On the Left Coast)
--
dillon

Flower Whiskers, RIP
What a great leader

Souf Efriken writes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7052037.stm

Ships' CO2 'twice that of planes'

Why do people worry so much about ships and planes, and yet ignore trucks and
cars?

J Carnaghie writes:

At some point we need to balance the environmental
impact against the quality of life impact. The key
word is balance.

The key word is population control. All of our environmental problems are the
result of population growth.

If you have a small population, the environment will survive no matter what
you do. And conversely, if you have a large population, nothing you might do
will help. The only solution is to limit population growth.

Mxsmanic wrote:

The key word is population control. All of our environmental problems are the
result of population growth.

If you have a small population, the environment will survive no matter what
you do. And conversely, if you have a large population, nothing you might do
will help. The only solution is to limit population growth.

And your proposal to implement "the only solution" on a global scale
is just what, exactly?
--
dgs