It's good that overseas freight transportation is lowering emissions! Taking a step back, it's also important to note that incentivizing any form of transport (whether through cost or public...
It's good that overseas freight transportation is lowering emissions!
Taking a step back, it's also important to note that incentivizing any form of transport (whether through cost or public perception) doesn't necessarily have the end-effect of reducing emissions. Rather, it can just as easily increase emissions if the cost of shipping consumer products correspondingly decreases and/or demand for said consumer products (with all associated externalities, including emission-intensive production and transportation) increases. This isn't exclusive to any mode, but it comes to mind for industries that are fond of "greenwashing" their business model, like international freight. Carbon emissions will only be "saved" if they are not replaced by more shipping.
There isn't really such thing as "zero-emissions" consumerism (though it's a great marketing slogan). Carbon offsets are similarly a nice concept but unfortunately tend to... not work. While the shift away from literal bottom-of-the-barrel heavy sulfur fuel oil is objectively good in and of itself, the ultimate solution to pollution and environmental destruction is "don't produce goods that we don't need." And that is a far harder ask than a technological advancement: it requires a cultural paradigm shift.
Acquiring a large number of physical objects is so deeply embedded into Western culture and wealthy lifestyles generally that it will probably take worldwide resource shortages and resultant cost increases of critical goods to kickstart a level of "Hold on a second, we can't just mindlessly manufacture and consume material goods for pleasure" sufficient to fundamentally change resource use patterns. And I mean more than the supply shocks of the pandemic, but utterly "running out of copper" or similar. It's not that I think people are incapable of (vaguely) grasping our impact on the environment, but true sustainability requires legal mandates to be effective on a population of 8 billion, and people have to at least sort of buy into those mandates for them to be implemented. We just aren't there yet.
Anyway, this is good, and should be celebrated. But low-emission or zero-emission vehicles are just Step 1. Step 2 is low-emission ways of life.
In the Danish news on this it was noted that the current production of bio ethanol is not enough to fuel the ship.
One step at a time I guess.
It's good that overseas freight transportation is lowering emissions!
Taking a step back, it's also important to note that incentivizing any form of transport (whether through cost or public perception) doesn't necessarily have the end-effect of reducing emissions. Rather, it can just as easily increase emissions if the cost of shipping consumer products correspondingly decreases and/or demand for said consumer products (with all associated externalities, including emission-intensive production and transportation) increases. This isn't exclusive to any mode, but it comes to mind for industries that are fond of "greenwashing" their business model, like international freight. Carbon emissions will only be "saved" if they are not replaced by more shipping.
There isn't really such thing as "zero-emissions" consumerism (though it's a great marketing slogan). Carbon offsets are similarly a nice concept but unfortunately tend to... not work. While the shift away from literal bottom-of-the-barrel heavy sulfur fuel oil is objectively good in and of itself, the ultimate solution to pollution and environmental destruction is "don't produce goods that we don't need." And that is a far harder ask than a technological advancement: it requires a cultural paradigm shift.
Acquiring a large number of physical objects is so deeply embedded into Western culture and wealthy lifestyles generally that it will probably take worldwide resource shortages and resultant cost increases of critical goods to kickstart a level of "Hold on a second, we can't just mindlessly manufacture and consume material goods for pleasure" sufficient to fundamentally change resource use patterns. And I mean more than the supply shocks of the pandemic, but utterly "running out of copper" or similar. It's not that I think people are incapable of (vaguely) grasping our impact on the environment, but true sustainability requires legal mandates to be effective on a population of 8 billion, and people have to at least sort of buy into those mandates for them to be implemented. We just aren't there yet.
Anyway, this is good, and should be celebrated. But low-emission or zero-emission vehicles are just Step 1. Step 2 is low-emission ways of life.