Ships fitted with ‘cheat devices’ to divert poisonous pollution into sea

Post by dsfyu404ed » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 12:55 PM UTC

esyir wrote: post #39

dogma1138 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In shipping the cost is transferred easily down the line; capital investment in new vessels and new technologies is pretty slim because of that. Also the time spent in dry dock might as well cost you more than what you’ll gain through the service time of the vessel since many of these vessels change hands frequently sometimes even several times a year. Also because how risk is managed in the shipping industry none of…

Hm, really stupid naive question here. What happens if violating ships were basically seized

Post by azinman2 » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 1:03 PM UTC

sanxiyn wrote: post #28

If you want to read the other side's argument, here it is, from International Bunker Industry Association: https://ibia.net/facts-and-fears-in-the-open-loop-scrubber-d... The main point is that there is regulation for washwater based on science. The article describes "warm, acidic, contaminated washwater containing carcinogens including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals", but regulation in fact…

Post by jakelazaroff » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 1:11 PM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #44

spdegabrielle wrote: post #3

> the sulphur emitted by the ships is simply re-routed from the exhaust and expelled into the water around the ships, which not only greatly increases the volume of pollutants being pumped into the sea, but also increases carbon dioxide emissions. This should be a crime

>This should be a crime I suspect that a desire to cater to people with "something drastic must be done" attitudes is how we wound up with half baked rules with seemingly obvious loopholes in the first place. As another commenters pointed out, there are standards for discharge water and these systems presumably meet them. If you think those standards are wrong then take them up with them. The ship owners are acting i…

Post by cannonedhamster » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 1:18 PM UTC

cies wrote: post #31

newguy1234 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably hard to do in international waters but the bigger countries could always just say that any vessel doing this is blacklisted from docking in their ports. Every ship operator would just retrofit their vessels if that were to occur.

Exactly. I was gonna say that by some international port blacklist we can easily punish them, and of force them to make a huuuuuge donation to a clean-up fund in order to have the ban lifted.

Post by delfinom » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 1:22 PM UTC

newguy1234 wrote: post #6

spdegabrielle wrote: post #3

> the sulphur emitted by the ships is simply re-routed from the exhaust and expelled into the water around the ships, which not only greatly increases the volume of pollutants being pumped into the sea, but also increases carbon dioxide emissions. This should be a crime

Probably hard to do in international waters but the bigger countries could always just say that any vessel doing this is blacklisted from docking in their ports. Every ship operator would just retrofit their vessels if that were to occur.