So it's about the same dimensions, and carries fractionally more, but at the cost of not being able to fit through either the Suez Canal of the Strait of Malacca? That doesn't seem hugely intelligent to me.

Due to its mammoth dirty power plant run on bunker fuel (which is where all the sulfur extracted from diesel fuel production goes) it and the 14 other largest container ships will together generate more sulfur dioxide and carbon than the entire global fleet of private vehicles. Progress? I don't think so!

@Brendan Dunphy
It is progress as in being less bad than it used to be ie. those big ships pollute less per TEU than the older/smaller ones.

So it's: less-bad-because-it-coulda-been-worse... This kind of thinking is not sustainable.
It will never have to fit through any canal because it will probably serve the west coast of N. America anyway, bringing us our much coveted goods at the cheapest possible price, so our lives can be enriched by material wealth, that we can never have enough of.

@ Brendan -- Thanks for mentioning the bunker fuel; it is the worst of the worst. The US and Europe have been outsourcing their CO2 emissions by having their consumer junk being produced in China, so their emissions are in fact ours. We share one single atmosphere.

Brendan - Unless you personally purchase 100% locally manufactured goods, calling the CSCL Globe a polluter is at best, hypocritical.
The article stated it consumed 20% less fuel per TEU than a ship half its size. That's what I would call progress.
If you are so passionate about pollution, stop whining, purchase your goods from the craftsman and farmer down the road, give up your car, and turn off the heat and lights in your house.

I wish people would top blaming America when the greedy capitalists in their own country exploit the WORLD market place by producing and selling cheap made junk which they make by exploiting the own countrymen and fellow citizens and doing it by using massive amounts of dirty fuels and dumping their left over garbage In the worlds waterways and airstreams. . Hey "moreover" you and rest the third world citizens need to grow up and step up and decide if your going to do the right thing or continue to exploit people and the planet for the short term gain of a very few elitist super rich .001 percenters. .

The height is 30.5 meters, the distance from keel to deck. Draft is the distance from water line to keel. There is not a container port in the world that can handle a ship with 100 foot draft.

It also cant fit in any US port to my knowledge with a 100ft. draft. New Orleans would be close but it is not always that deep in the channel especially lower end. Houston can't handle it despite being able to handle large tankers. Galveston, Texas City, Port Arthur, Mobile and Pensacola out even though they can take Aircraft carriers. I cant say for sure any of the West Coast ports could handled it but I doubt it since it only listed Asia-Euro trade. Even the new enlarged Panama Canal could not handle it when finished.

Hey, Bill. Great tactics. Very astute political manipulation.
So, let's see. Attack the person, not the message. Pillory them for not being perfect, even if what they are saying is actually true.
The other amusing bit in you comment, is that you speak as though a 20% reduction will matter. Funny. In point of fact, not a one old duo will be retired because of this launch, so it will simply contribute to an already horrendous problem.
I notice that you did not address any of the real salient points in any of the posts. Well done! You have a shining future in advertising.