Speed limits for Ships! can have 'massive' benefits

This is getting ridicules. First we have the NYTs telling readers that its time for a global reduction in population and in Europe as well. And we have more crazy climate change propaganda that ships must have speed limits.

So according to the BBC citing an idiotic useless fake liberal report. By adding speed limit there would be a 20% reduction would cut greenhouse gases but also curb pollutants that damage human health such as black carbon and nitrogen oxides. But on the reality the bad idea for even suggesting for speed limits on ships that Cargo Ships that have items and products that would be send to their destitution their arrival to the destitution would be alot longer.


Climate change: Speed limits for ships can have 'massive' benefits

A 20% reduction would cut greenhouse gases but also curb pollutants that damage human health such as black carbon and nitrogen oxides. This speed limit would cut underwater noise by 66% and reduce the chances of whale collisions by 78%.

The study also says that a 20% cut in speed would reduce noise pollution by two thirds - while the same speed limitation would reduce the chances of a ship colliding with a whale by 78%. "It's a massive win, win, win, win," said John Maggs from Seas at Risk. "We've got a win from a climate point of view, we've got a win from a human health point of view, we've got a win for marine nature, we've got a potential safety gain, and up to a certain point we are saving the shipping industry money.

Its clear to me that that there is no such thing as Climate Warming or Climate Change as they in the MSM always keep renaming it and are relying on idiotic solutions that would probably hurt the transport industry a lot more.

I wouldn't call Climate Change but a cycle of the earth.

a reply to: ChefFox

It isn’t ‘climate change’ as much as it is a wealth redistribution scam.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: ChefFox

It isn’t ‘climate change’ as much as it is a wealth redistribution scam.

A simple truth mostly ignored.

a reply to: ChefFox

Not sure what you mean by destitution?

but how would ships slowing down ruin your day in anyway what so ever, I not sure if there is a benefit either, but I am pretty certain multi million ££$$ companies dont give a snip about anything but profits.

a reply to: ChefFox

my issues with this farce

first - yes - lower steaming speeds will reduce fuel use and noise // polution

BUT shipping companies are not on some adreneiline fueled high - storming about the oceans " for fun " - hiher sppeds = bigger engines [ more costly ] and bigger fuel tanks // higher fuel bills - that both reduce profits // leg and cargo capacity

shipping - moves at the speed it needs to - its not a race

the only sector with a " speed reush " = short leg ferries

next - just what are they propising to " reduce " ?

as vessels currently " set thier own speed " - does everyone cut thier current speed by 20%

think about this - dependant on sector - marine traffic is anything from 10kt to 30kt [ there are slower and faster - but the vast bulk falls in this range ]

what exactly gets reduced by 20%

currently the only speed limits [ outside harbours and anchorages ] = certain VTS zones - where movements are managed - to reduce collision risk and maintain the optimum transit rates

lastly

reduce the chances of whale collisions by 78%.

whoo hoo - save tweh wales right ?

err wrong - read the quote carefully- its quite dishonest

reducing the CHANCE of whale collisions - by 78% - will NOT reduce the NUMBER of whale collisions to < one quater of previous levels

BTW - how many whale collisions are there // year - cannot find the data

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: ChefFox

...
reducing the CHANCE of whale collisions - by 78% - will NOT reduce the NUMBER of whale collisions to < one quater of previous levels

BTW - how many whale collisions are there // year - cannot find the data

(Reduced quote just for the portion being addressed)

Yes, this is super misleading. So if the chance of a whale collision is 0.000001%, they're saying it would reduce it to 0.00000022%.

Sounds to me like possibly averting a whale collision every #? of years.

Areas of California are outlawing natural gas in homes because of global warming. All you can have is electric that cost several times more per BTU and will soon be controlled by the state. HUMMMM

The noise pollution part is utterly rediculous. Ships in any harbor or port area already have speed limits until they get out there beyond the restricted area, then in open water where nobody can hear them anyways. The speed limit is like 5mph or so, just barely chugging. After they are in open water put the throttle down. Leave it to some asinine tree hugger politician to try and mimic AOC? Sounds like it.

originally posted by: mikell
Areas of California are outlawing natural gas in homes because of global warming. All you can have is electric that cost several times more per BTU and will soon be controlled by the state. HUMMMM

With mandated blackouts of power lines to prevent forest fires, but were going total electric?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

althought - i is in general scathing of much of this " idea "

the noise reduction is aimed at minimising the noises from prop and motors on the marine eco-system

if you have dived - and had a boat come over you at speed - the prop noise - iver when " safe " 15m below the keel of the offending vessel - was deathening - disconcertin and scary

and we have very poor hearing - both in frequency range and volume detetion

This could be more effective against China than any trade tariff. Tell them their ships can only go 2.5 knots across the oceans.

How about we look at the entire globalization effort, which requires we send these ships across oceans rather than producing the stuff at home. Take this energy use out of the equation and we have lower energy prices and much less pollution. Globalization is the biggest cause of our climate change problem.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

As far as I'm aware there's no good data.

It was a while ago I looked into it but there didn't seem to be any requirement to report collisions internationally or even nationally here in the UK.

When it comes to collisions it is mostly smaller vessels that report since there's very little chance a large vessel would even detect a collision.

We do know it happens due to post mortems and examinations, usually in our around hotspots... The don't always get the chance to beach and sometimes by the time they do they're barely recognisable as whales.

Seems the international community is working towards better understanding and safety in this regard but there's nothing set in stone.

International whaling commission

When it comes to shipping their can be huge issues with delays and costs. It was always to my understanding that time is a lot more important than fuel.

SO like speed limits on highways it does reduce fuel consumption hence reduces emissions.

For example:

An Arleigh Burke Class can has a range of about 4400 nm at cruise speed or 20 knots. If they go above 28 knots all 4 LM2500 are running hence more fuel consumption and more emissions plus less range. Its no different than a car.

The number of vessels at sea is staggering. So if people can wait a few more days, alot of emissions could be reduced. Obviously items like food, livestock etc are way more time sensitive than say a shipment of cars so that also would play into things.

Look at all those ships (tracking link below)
www.marinetraffic.com...:-12.0/centery:25.0/zoom:4

The shipping companies have done the arithmetic. A 20% reduction in speed means 20% reduction in trips per unit time -- minus loading and unloading times. For Container ships, LASH ships, and RORO's, on long journeys, those times are relatively short. These shipping methods were developed because ships don't make money in port, they make money shipping things.
How to offset? Charge 20% more for shipping.

That will work toward increasing internal production [but will also reduce scrap steel from one way containers.]

a reply to: pteridine

Who has the authority to enforce a speed limit in international waters? And enforce penalties and fines. Will this be the first step to a NWO police force? Yeah

originally posted by: pteridine
The shipping companies have done the arithmetic. A 20% reduction in speed means 20% reduction in trips per unit time.
...

Charge 20% more for shipping.

A runner going 100mph vs a runner going 20% slower (80 mph). Race is 100 miles.

First racer finishes in 1 hour.
Second takes 1.25 hours (25% longer).
[ 100 miles / (80 miles/hour) = 1.25 hours ].

....

Charging 20% [25%?] more for shipping.
Costs in labor and gas:
Origin docks and distribution (no changes)
Destination docks and distribution (no changes)
Shipping (25% longer so 25% increased pay, [would lower gas usage?])

So it wouldn't raise the overall cost by the same amount.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: pteridine

Who has the authority to enforce a speed limit in international waters? And enforce penalties and fines. Will this be the first step to a NWO police force? Yeah

GPS tracking makes determination of average speed easy. Country of departure and country of destination share in the collection of fines. This can be imposed as docking fees. The shipping companies have to balance between income from shipping, fuel savings, and fines.

a reply to: FredT

Fast shipping is a big issue for a lot of companies, I haven't looked into it for a couple of years but I do remember huge loss of bonuses and revenue for shipping companies dealing with delays.

I also distinctly remember the likes of Amazon losing billions on shipping since they insist on being world leaders in fast customer service.

Things like this can't really change without massive international cooperation, and then it usually takes years.

Personally I think the suggestions in regards to shipping are very reasonable and dare I say it common sense?

I agree it would be longer for products to come to us