BLUEMOMENT

Heard the coastguard go all officious (while I was listening in the shelter of the shed) about the ship on fire - and I can't find Shard's original post, dammit.
There is an ongoing blog here - http://forargyll.com/2010/07/serious-fi ... glensanda/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The thing that caught my eye, however, was -
" An insight into bunker fuel’s capacity to pollute is that there are 16 superlarge container ships in the world, all running on bunker fuel, the heaviest and cheapest and most polluting fuel possible – and still legal to use. Together these 16 ships pollute the atmosphere more than all the cars in the world." (in paragraph = 4th july 14.30)
If that is credible, why do the MMGW supporters tax gearboxes that are capable of driving four wheels instead of just two?
Sixteen targets - biggest bang for bucks worldwide -go for them chaps.

I don't doubt that MMGW is probably a fact.

What folks with an axe to grind quite often gloss over is perspective.

These ships running on bunker fuel, is it polluting if they just burn it to move or if they spill it?

These 16 superlarge container ships using this bunker fuel, don't most ships use bunker fuel, not just these 16?

When you work out CO2/mile/tonne payload, I suspect these 16 ships produce way less than anything else on earth, if stuff needs moving you may as well do it with the least cost/CO2 possible. So big can be beautiful.

It's a good idea to keep nasty chemicals or oils contained though, it may take a while for the little bugs to eat all the nasties and for the environment to recover.

sahona wrote:Heard the coastguard go all officious (while I was listening in the shelter of the shed) about the ship on fire - and I can't find Shard's original post, dammit.

Here it is.

Ash