EU bureaucratic nonsense

[Fotojoe]

EU plots use green law to price shipping out of reach: Ti
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The European Commission (EC) is plotting to suppress shipping demand
through environmental regulation so it will be priced beyond reach of
ordinary consumers, says the UK's Transport Intelligence (Ti) agency.

The EC has stated "transport emissions will be subject to binding
targets" to "suppress demand", said Ti chief John Manners Bell in a
commentary on this week's UN Copenhagen climate change conference.

Source: SchedNet

What a nonsense !
These unprofessional EU bureaucrats seem to have know knowledge at all
about the percentage, better say permillage, of "private" shipping requirements.
The odd container removal goods of migrants should now be unaffordable
for them - should they leave their household goods behind ?

[polsteam]

obviously, not the only one, this nonsense that you mentioned...

haven't you noticed already before, that EU gives more harm and loss to anyone except bureaucrats ?...

wake up!

[Fotojoe]

surely not the first and only EU nonsense, but the most dangerous to shipping, shipowning and to hundreds of thousands of workplaces.
it is hopefully just a wet dream of one of the environmental politicians
and hopefully never comes true

[Anton Heuff]

I haven't seen the details of this news issue, but I'm convinced that transporting goods from continent to continent is dirt cheap. Too cheap, actually. When you see a bottle of wine from Chile or the Argentine at your local shop, your likely reaction will be: the French can't give you this quality at this price! What's not on the price tag however is the environmental cost. What would you do if you had to pay this 40 dollars? Most likely you won't see this dangerous stuff in the shops anymore, because no importer in his right mind would buy it. Would be fine, and I think this is what the EU has in mind! "Environmental cost" is not a green hysteria. It is a calculation of the unseen cost of damaging the environment. It's calculated on the basis what should be invested on land to compensate for the green house gases which are emitted at sea when a container ship plows full speed across the Atlantic to deliver your precious bottle of wine in time. And that's 40 dollars. By the way, did you ever realize that a container vessel carries an enormous load of ballast water to prevent her from capsizing? This waste of energy is part of the unseen 40 dollar price tag. I'm living below sea level, and do hope that a way can be found to penalize such unwise imports to markets which should be able to rely on domestic or European products.

Regards,

Anton

[IACSman]

But why stop with the bottle of wine? Here in Europe we catch fish in the North sea, Norwegian sea and the Atlantic, put the raw fish ON A PLANE TO CHINA for processing, and PUT IT ON A PLANE back to Europe, now they fish sticks, and sold as fresh goods! Yizzes, we people are sooooo smart, when we really want to destroy this little planet we live on...
By the way, transporting by ships is far better than any other means of transport for the enviroment, if we talk of tons of goods pr. travelled distance.
EU has a project, if my memory serves me right, to take more freight of the trucks/roads, and put them on the seaways instead.
Anyway, we consume to many goods, and this is quite evident during the christmas season we are now entering. How many container vessels are coming to US and Europe from China with plastic gifts now.....?

[Fotojoe]

One way to stop it my friend: ASK FOR LOCAL PRODUCTS
stop buying apples from China - they're also growing in your neighbour's garden.
stop buying clothing from far east, drive a European made car, don't fly to sunny beaches for vacations, don't use electrical household appliances, etc etc

it would be so easy to do something ! - instead of abusing this shipspotters forum for environmental political discussions

[Anton Heuff]

Fotojoe wrote:
it would be so easy to do something ! - instead of abusing this shipspotters forum for your environmental political fanatism

You are flattering me. I certainly made a point, I think.But you started this thread on a political note.Or was it apolitical? Dangerous.

All the best, Anton

[polsteam]

let's limit CO2 emissions - let's kill ourselves and the problem environmentalists cry about so loud is solved... (when dead we do not manufacture machines producing CO2 and, most of all, we do not produce CO2 by breathing)...


let them go FIRST reducing CO2 emissions, I will follow AFTERWARDS.



do you know, that VIP's gathered on an unreasonable conference in Copenhagen caused LOADS greater emissions comparing with staying at home ?...
not only they usually flew by planes to the Copenhagen environmental summit...
there were not enough car limousines available in Denmark to carry VIP's from / to / between Copenhagen airport, hotels, venue of the conference and many limousines were brought to Copenhagen from Germany, Sweden, etc. especially for environmental summit...
guess if these limousines were producing CO2 and other bad substances during their trip from Germany or Sweden to Copenhagen or they were not ?...




the fact is that ships are the LEAST polluting per kg of goods transported...

strict and very harsh CO2 reduction regulations should be started NOT from shipping, but from other means of transport (which lag FAR behind shipping in "being green") first...

[Robert Smith]

Are you  sure that ships are the LEAST polluting per kg of goods transported ?

Ships are still running on high sulphur fuel oil (HSFO). This is the most polluting type of fuel possible and largely responsible for SO2 emissions causing acid rain as well as CO2 emissions. Nowadays all other transport means are running on cleaner fuels with lower emissions. So if the bureaucrats wish to  forbid the use of  HSFO in shipping, they are more than welcome.....!

Brgds,
Robert.

[IACSman]

Yes, quite sure. In the area where you live(the Netherlands) there should be no cargo vessels with HSFO, as that area(together with the north sea) is a SECA area, which means they must run on LSFO. This of course has created "headache" for many owners, as they actually have to document that they have LSFO onboard, when they change over to this kind of fuel and so on.
But you are right, if the IMO could pick up some speed and implement legislation with a speed faster than a turtle, it could be a brighter future.. :-)

[Anton Heuff]

IACSman wrote:
... if the IMO could pick up some speed and implement legislation with a speed faster than a turtle, it could be a brighter future..

Here's IMO-boss Mitropoulos, saying he's ready...

Mitropoulos Says IMO is Ready to Act

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 | IMO Secretary-General Efthimios E. Mitropoulos has reminded delegates at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (COP 15) of the importance of regulating the shipping industry through a competent, international body that can establish the appropriate global standards.

Read the whole story here http://marinelink.com/en-US/News/Article/332745.aspx

Regards, Anton

[IACSman]

He is no doubt ready! Then all that remains is to get the majority of the Flag Administration's to sign and adopt the resolution's that may come, so that it will be valid for the whole world. And that part will take looooong time! :-)