There's another article/post on this topic on Tildes here. I'd like to call out this comment in particular, because I think the linked podcast articulates really well why the current system leads...
There's another article/post on this topic on Tildes here.
I'd like to call out this comment in particular, because I think the linked podcast articulates really well why the current system leads to bizarre or unfair outcomes.
Reading the article it looks like the US is first trying to negotiate the treaty to change the countries it includes. I don't think that in itself is a bad idea. Trump obviously sees this as a way...
Reading the article it looks like the US is first trying to negotiate the treaty to change the countries it includes. I don't think that in itself is a bad idea. Trump obviously sees this as a way to hurt China and in some ways I can understand his reasoning, this treaty was originally established back when China wasn't even close to the economic superpower that it is today, and it's easy to argue that they no longer need this treaty.
That said I think the treaty is a good one, there are still developing nations and it's been long understood that free/easy transfer of knowledge and materials is a big factor in helping countries develop and I hope that the US doesn't just blindly pull out of it.
On the other (other?) hand, what exactly is the downside to making it cheap to ship things around the countryworld? I know the article mentions all the counterfeit goods coming in from China but I wonder just how bad that actually is for the average consumer.
Note that this treaty is mostly about international shipping, rather than domestic. Further, shipping transport of goods via ships (which can include parcels, thanks @SuperHans) accounts for 4-5%...
On the other (other?) hand, what exactly is the downside to making it cheap to ship things around the country?
Note that this treaty is mostly about international shipping, rather than domestic.
Just to point out, the shipping emissions you are referencing are tide to "shipping" as in the movement of ships, not parcels. And while ships can be used to move parcels around, those emissions...
Just to point out, the shipping emissions you are referencing are tide to "shipping" as in the movement of ships, not parcels. And while ships can be used to move parcels around, those emissions rates cover all ships whether carrying parcels, passengers, cars, LNG, oil, grain, computers, coffee, industrial chemicals, and basically anything else you can imagine. Parcels are also often flown, which brings up aviation pollution, a whole topic on its own. I don't want to downplay the point you are making about marine emissions, I spent a good chunk of my adult life on ships so I understand their impact, however I think it's important to not overstate the emissions that can be tied to parcel services by giving the numbers for emissions from all ships.
It's hard to find stats specifically on parcels :p. I suppose you could break out the percentage of flights / shipping / trucking etc. dedicated strictly to parcels and multiple that by the...
It's hard to find stats specifically on parcels :p. I suppose you could break out the percentage of flights / shipping / trucking etc. dedicated strictly to parcels and multiple that by the overall 28% of emissions from 'Transportation' in the US (or 20%+ worldwide)
I missed the part specifically imposing rates on parcels < 2kg, which definitely changes the equation a bit. One question I have (which hopefully you'll have some insight on), would be how often these parcels from (say) China are flown v.s., transported via ship? For instance the Atlantic article on the same topic highlights so called 'ePacket's as one of the primary (stated) motivations for this change, wouldn't the majority of these items (essentially, cheap knock-off or otherwise 'stuff' from China) be transported via cargo-ship (my reasoning being: putting something on a ship and having it show up two weeks later is probably a cheaper transportation route than flying it)
Unfortunately I don't have a ton of insight on the air vs. sea parcel percentages, perhaps someone with a background in logistics or supply chain stuff can share some numbers. It has always been...
Unfortunately I don't have a ton of insight on the air vs. sea parcel percentages, perhaps someone with a background in logistics or supply chain stuff can share some numbers. It has always been my understanding that most commercial flights, domestic and international, will carry mail. I can attest to your reasoning though about sea being cheaper. The general saying in the maritime industry is that its the most efficient form of transportation in terms of lbs moved to emissions and money spent. Especially with these new container ships with 18,000+ TEU capacity, you can move a huge amount of goods in one go. That's not to say that its clean by any means, but I do think that it's an important point that often gets lost when talking about ship emissions. If you want to follow ship emissions from the maritime point of view, Gcaptain.com is a good source, they are actually relatively regulation friendly and have been covering the issue pretty well, lately focusing on the new sulfur standards set by the IMO (UN agency that regulates shipping) that are coming in in 2020.
Sorry, I meant around the world. Good point about the emissions though. Although I do kind of think that's a whole other argument/discussion to be having.
Sorry, I meant around the world.
Good point about the emissions though. Although I do kind of think that's a whole other argument/discussion to be having.
There's another article/post on this topic on Tildes here.
I'd like to call out this comment in particular, because I think the linked podcast articulates really well why the current system leads to bizarre or unfair outcomes.
Reading the article it looks like the US is first trying to negotiate the treaty to change the countries it includes. I don't think that in itself is a bad idea. Trump obviously sees this as a way to hurt China and in some ways I can understand his reasoning, this treaty was originally established back when China wasn't even close to the economic superpower that it is today, and it's easy to argue that they no longer need this treaty.
That said I think the treaty is a good one, there are still developing nations and it's been long understood that free/easy transfer of knowledge and materials is a big factor in helping countries develop and I hope that the US doesn't just blindly pull out of it.
On the other (other?) hand, what exactly is the downside to making it cheap to ship things around the
countryworld? I know the article mentions all the counterfeit goods coming in from China but I wonder just how bad that actually is for the average consumer.Note that this treaty is mostly about international shipping, rather than domestic.
Further,
shippingtransport of goods via ships (which can include parcels, thanks @SuperHans) accounts for 4-5% of global CO2 (equivalent) emissions, not to mention other nasty emissions from diesel engines (e.g., in heavy trucks & large ships), in addition fuel consumption and emissions in shipping are increasing, despite efforts to improve efficiency.Just to point out, the shipping emissions you are referencing are tide to "shipping" as in the movement of ships, not parcels. And while ships can be used to move parcels around, those emissions rates cover all ships whether carrying parcels, passengers, cars, LNG, oil, grain, computers, coffee, industrial chemicals, and basically anything else you can imagine. Parcels are also often flown, which brings up aviation pollution, a whole topic on its own. I don't want to downplay the point you are making about marine emissions, I spent a good chunk of my adult life on ships so I understand their impact, however I think it's important to not overstate the emissions that can be tied to parcel services by giving the numbers for emissions from all ships.
It's hard to find stats specifically on parcels :p. I suppose you could break out the percentage of flights / shipping / trucking etc. dedicated strictly to parcels and multiple that by the overall 28% of emissions from 'Transportation' in the US (or 20%+ worldwide)
I missed the part specifically imposing rates on parcels < 2kg, which definitely changes the equation a bit. One question I have (which hopefully you'll have some insight on), would be how often these parcels from (say) China are flown v.s., transported via ship? For instance the Atlantic article on the same topic highlights so called 'ePacket's as one of the primary (stated) motivations for this change, wouldn't the majority of these items (essentially, cheap knock-off or otherwise 'stuff' from China) be transported via cargo-ship (my reasoning being: putting something on a ship and having it show up two weeks later is probably a cheaper transportation route than flying it)
Unfortunately I don't have a ton of insight on the air vs. sea parcel percentages, perhaps someone with a background in logistics or supply chain stuff can share some numbers. It has always been my understanding that most commercial flights, domestic and international, will carry mail. I can attest to your reasoning though about sea being cheaper. The general saying in the maritime industry is that its the most efficient form of transportation in terms of lbs moved to emissions and money spent. Especially with these new container ships with 18,000+ TEU capacity, you can move a huge amount of goods in one go. That's not to say that its clean by any means, but I do think that it's an important point that often gets lost when talking about ship emissions. If you want to follow ship emissions from the maritime point of view, Gcaptain.com is a good source, they are actually relatively regulation friendly and have been covering the issue pretty well, lately focusing on the new sulfur standards set by the IMO (UN agency that regulates shipping) that are coming in in 2020.
Sorry, I meant around the world.
Good point about the emissions though. Although I do kind of think that's a whole other argument/discussion to be having.