• philm@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They emit a lot, but they transport … a very lot. Trucks are higher emitters per comodity.

    Still both should be powered by something else like hydrogen (more interesting for ships I guess) or batteries…

    And cruise ships should be IMHO taxed so high (the tax should probably directly go to countermeasures), such that only very rich people are able to (not that I grant them the fun, but they should finance this climate disaster in every possible way…)

    • Nairb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I looked into carbon offsets of shipping containers from China to the US as part of my job. I was shocked at how little was emitted per container - Probably cost around $40 of offsets for one 45 footer.

      Like you said, the bigger issue is the trucks needed for last mile / between distribution centers.

    • staindundies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Based on what a reasonable carbon price should be, I don’t think you would need to tax them to oblivion. They would just need to pay their fair share.

      This website suggests that it is about 0.4 tonne of CO2 per passenger per day. Canada’s current carbon tax is $65 per tonne. So a 7 day cruise would be $182 per passenger in carbon pricing. This is just ballpark and yes you can argue that carbon prices should be higher.

        • philm@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          For whom though? I think if your product is going to be very expensive because of that you,ll try to find ways (less carbon emissive) to make it cheaper, and for others, who have low emissions already, they get an advantage. Also rich people generally emit much more carbon than poor people.

          I’m a little bit tired of the argument, that everything gets expensive, like the money just goes to nirvana, it’s a tax and a tax should steer industries (mostly) to do the right thing (in this case emit less CO2). The money can go directly to people e.g. in the form of a universal basic income.

          • hglman@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            For the ability to produce enough food. It’s not the tax that’s the issue it’s that the climate will make industrial food production unviable. We will rapidly exit the conditions that underpin the viability of the modern economy. The only work of value will be making food and related tools in a volatile climatic environment. The bill will not be payable in money, is my point. That is, a tax will be woefully inadequate.

            • philm@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Certainly, it will be really “interesting” how to produce food for ~10 billion people in this uncertain future. But if we finally learn to accept that e.g. cattle isn’t the way forward, I think it may be possible with plant-based food. Although something like vertical farming etc. is definitely not viable today, it may be in the future. And at least currently it’s totally possible to sustainably produce enough (plant-based) food. I think we’ll learn to adapt, that much I trust in agricultural-technological advancement etc. But it will be “meaty” for most people and conflicts will arise (as they already are, see e.g. the conflict in Sudan that is indirectly related to climate change already, similarly as Syria previously (there were quite a few droughts the years before))

              • hglman@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The odds that the adaption is rapid and doesn’t cause extreme changes in the daily conditions of everyone are vanishing.

                • philm@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Absolutely, and it’s astonishing, that still so few people see how “deep in shit” we already are, and I really hope that very soon ( < 5 years or so) a lot more people through whatever means will start to see that. But I think it’s not a good idea to go into the doomsday mood, I don’t think that helps either (individually, say depression etc. inability for action). But yeah it’s depressing how little this topic is still relevant in politics etc. and how little the scientific community is/was heard, that is telling us that we need to change like > 70 years ago (and a very soft transition would’ve been possible since than, not so much now unfortunately, whether we do it, or nature does it…).

                  • hglman@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I guess it’s less doom and more, you can just use an ev, and magically, it’s all ok. It will take significant social and economic changes that will radically alter how people in the first world live.