Comments on: Thoughts on that article about 16 ships and their pollution

By: Twitted by jtweed

Twitted by jtweed — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:42:57 +0000

[...] This post was Twitted by jtweed [...]

By: michaelkusuplos

michaelkusuplos — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:49:18 +0000

Take a grain of truth and then start to spln. This what the artlicle is all about.

We must remember that the general public has absolutely no idea at all as to how the products that they use daily get to the shelf.

By: Dr George

Dr George — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:12:06 +0000

Interesting article…only goes to prove that our fuel/emissions device is worth while and should at least be investigated to test to show we can reduce fuel consumption to 25% on diesel and emissions reduction to 96% as we have already achieved.

By: michaelkusuplos

michaelkusuplos — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:49:18 +0000

Take a grain of truth and then start to spln. This what the artlicle is all about.

We must remember that the general public has absolutely no idea at all as to how the products that they use daily get to the shelf.

By: Dr George

Dr George — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:12:06 +0000

By: uberVU - social comments

uberVU - social comments — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:19:24 +0000

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by jtweed: Did you read the Daily Mail article about ships and pollution? Here are some thoughts: http://bit.ly/70PUOF...

By: Ryan Skinner

Ryan Skinner — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:13:39 +0000

Agreed. Even if they use a face-less and name-less avatar, I like that they're getting into it. It's what one would hope for, and perhaps expect. And maybe one day down the road shipping will be the industry everyone points at and says: “They used to be dirtier than you'd believe, and now they set the standard for clean and responsible operations”. It's perhaps a better goal than the zero emissions mantra…

By: jtweed

jtweed — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:08:24 +0000

Indeed! He was able to strike a nerve with people on this topic because the industry is something of an easy target… I think that it is fantastic that organisations like Intertanko are engaging in this debate now though on an open and public basis. Debate like this will surely improve the quality of information out there, which should have a positive impact on the impression that people have of the industry.

By: Ryan Skinner

Ryan Skinner — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:59:42 +0000

Yeah, I see your point. But you know I'm in PR; thereby, facts are just playthings. The important thing is the impression people have. And, wrong or right, I think Fred Pearce struck a nerve with people.

By: INTERTANKO

INTERTANKO — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:49:10 +0000

The IMO is already well ahead with the next stage – the adoption of an Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for new ships, and the adoption of Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) for existing ships. You're dead right that it is not easy to get things agreed by all participating countries at IMO, but it's done a lot quicker than it used to be. As for being challenging, we have spent much time and effort championing the use of distillate fuels instead of heavy fueloil – helping to produce the IMO measures above.

By: Ryan Skinner

Ryan Skinner — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:21:40 +0000

That's something, true. But I imagine it will take a fair bit more than an article and 138 comments to get to the next major improvement to MARPOL. And if the industry's minders dared to challenge its own members more, maybe it wouldn't require so much shouting in the press….

By: INTERTANKO

INTERTANKO — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:45:55 +0000

Actually, the IMO did indeed manage to reach agreement more than a year ago on measures to significantly reduce SOx and NOx and particulate matter emissions from ships. The IMO’s Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC 58) in October 2008 adopted a package of amendments to MARPOL Annex VI on air emissions, to seek a long-term and positive reduction of air emissions from ships – measures, which address regional and global concerns on sulphur oxide (SOx) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, from both new and existing ships, in an integrated manner. For Emission Control Areas, the sulphur content will be 1.50% prior to 1 March 2010, 1.00% on and after 1 March 2010,
0.10% on and after 1 January 2015. This will effectively mean using cleaner distillate fuels.

By: Tweets that mention ShippingPodcasts.com » General Tankers » Thoughts on that article about 16 ships and their pollution -- Topsy.com

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:45:17 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by james tweed, Gerard Aldridge. Gerard Aldridge said: RT @jtweed: Did you read the Daily Mail article about ships and pollution? Here are some thoughts: http://bit.ly/70PUOF [...]

By: jtweed

jtweed — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:13:03 +0000

You're right about the out of sight comment: the shipping industry plays a vital role, but essentially does a pretty poor job of telling people how and/or why, and whilst there is lots of work going on (certainly in London) to move towards a 'collective voice', in the meantime, I think that those of us who follow the industry also need to point out when things are being said that are just simply inaccurate.
So, yes, scream away, but let's make sure that the facts are there as well!

By: Ryan Skinner

Ryan Skinner — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:47:14 +0000

Alas, it was a heck of a headline, and perhaps a bit sensationalist at times. You nuance some of the figures well. In the end, however, I am of the opinion that shipping has dragged its heels on emissions, and why not? Shippers aren't willing to pay for the planet. They just want to get it there. And shipping has been able to stick to dirty bunker fuels because it's out of sight.

It's a problem of the commons. It takes collective, regulatory action to change. And because shipping, again, is out of the public eye, and because IMO is riven by 169 competing agendas, it takes a tremendous force to bring about change. I think we see this force in headlines like “16 ships = all the world's cars”. I mean, nobody's happy that shipping can still use those nasty fuels, except the consumer. And nobody can counteract the power of the consumer except regulatory authority. So, I say scream away at IMO.