TogetherinParis April 24, 2009 02:03 AM Ships emissions can be strictly regulated in harbors and coastal waters by any nation. If the US would limit such ship emissions in our ports and harbors by fining operators for violations (easily taken by Ramen spectroscopy or other non-intrusive means) then ships could carry clean fuel to use near our shores and dirty fuel to spew filthy emissions way out to sea. It would not be a perfect solution, but it might save the largest number of people from sickness and death in our ports. Sam Ballin January 26, 2010 03:21 PM Just a thought... if ten smaller ships were used instead wouldn\'t that be more pollution, more waste and more fuel used? Darrell Tierney February 3, 2011 05:26 PM It\'s unregulated emissions arent it\'s most serious faults- the most serious, is that this ship loads full in China of all matter of their goods and sails to USA- then returns empty- what does tell you about the future of our world? John in Brisbane March 21, 2011 01:24 PM Interesting article, particularly the last 2 paragraphs. I don\'t have a problem with Nuclear power, just the human factor, which includes the design, operation and profit/safety dynamic. Given what\'s happened in Japan this month, there will be a move away from the consideration of nuclear power, for better or worse. Maybe things like Thorium reactors have a future? I\'d be happy to see it if certain design and safety standards can be achieved, including automatic sealing and entombing of reactors in the case of catastrophes. Muraculous July 4, 2011 01:38 PM Finally the real culprits are show for what they truly are - ocean and air fouling money generators for a few wealthy families and corporations. Failure to remedy this issue makes the WTO and WHO shallow and powerless contraptions that only approximate effective trade and health entities. The seas are not lawless expanses of wilderness to be exploited by a few at the great cost of many. Mattimus December 23, 2011 12:18 AM Indeed. The article draws many comparisons between the amount of sulphur oxides produced by these massive container ships and those of cars across the globe. However I would be interested to know the levels of CO2 and greenhouse gases that would contribute to climate change. What proportion of global climate change could be attributed to these massive containers in comparison to the 760 million cars on the planet (at the time of writing)? Another point to raise, if shipping accounts for 90% of transportation of goods around the world and phasing in cleaner fuel which would double the price of low grade fuel currently in use - imagine the impact on transportation costs and the knock on effect on global food prices and goods. To my good friend Darrell Tierney, pherhaps this would help in some fashion to rebalance amercias terms of trade with china and reduce its trade deficit. Mattimus x0x Tysto January 4, 2012 03:07 PM This is completely astounding to me. I\'ve just become a huge fan of maritime nuclear energy. BZD January 12, 2012 06:19 AM A few things. 1. Maersk actually does a lot of things to make their ships more green. Partly of course to save on fuel costs but also to pollute less and their fleet of ships is a very modern one. Those massive ships with their massive engines are super efficient with more than fifty percent of the energy used going to move the ship which compared to fx. car engines is way more efficient (in a car something like 80% of the energy consumed is wasted). 2. What TogetherinParis mentions with regards to burning cleaner fuels near city ports is being done by Maersk (and likely also by some of the other big names in shipping). 3. Maersk has bigger ships on order with something like 20%. 4. Nuclear propulsion may have it\'s good sides but there is a whole range of issues. Safety, waste, price and uran is also not just something you dig up there is environment issues with that process as well. Also the safety thing is not just about possible accidents but imagine how big a terror target such a ship would be. The military nuclear vessels sort of come with their own terror protection but civilian vessels would need protection by armed guards maybe even escort vessels! Clarification: I\'m not affiliated with Maersk I just happen to live a stone throw away from their HQ and I have also been on board the Emma Maersk when she was introduced (it\'s a huge ship that makes even large buildings seem small). Geert Kruiter January 30, 2012 07:48 AM This article was published in 2009. How does it come that we never see this on our front page news? I wasn\'t aware of it until I just noticed this old article. It seems as if nobody cares. Why do we bother about buying cleaner or green cars if these giant polluters simply make it appear as not relevant whatever we do to improve our environment. SpaceChief February 8, 2012 12:34 PM Thanks for the article - I have long wondered just how much fuel was burnt keeping our jobs in Asia while devastating the environment. I knew it was a lot as I served aboard the USS Ranger, a diesel fueled super carrier. At hard steam we blew through 230,000 gallons a day in the 1970\'s.