Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It will help. The more expensive you make bunker fuel/diesel/coal (and you make the companies producing them pay for storage of the mountains of sulfur for example) the more operators will look to other technologies or try to squeeze more productivity from the more expensive fuel. It will also put upward price pressure on lpg and natural gas where they can replace them. Look how li ion moved from exotic and expensive to disposable vapes in decade and a half. Free market is extremely capable of delivering solutions when someone puts the right problems.
Yeah, but those are all classic decarbonization measures, right? Yes, those work. But the premise was to use a pollution argument instead.
Unless you want to simply rename "decarbonization" into "reducing pollution" (and people will resist that, a gas turbine just doesn't produce enough black smoke or yellow water), this won't work. It's too easy to reduce visible pollution while keeping carbon emissions exactly the same.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm normally supportive of the stance that capitalism+innovation converges to most efficient outcomes, but that is true only for local contexts. Bunker fuel is just burnt in international waters and the world collectively shrugs and says 'fuck the fish'. Economics is one thing but absolution of responsibility does exist. The only reason there isnt a floating migrant fleet of slave-labour factories is that efficient capital planning beats out deregulation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link