Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I didn't want to fly – so I took a cargo ship from Germany to Canada

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 22 posts

Re: I didn't want to fly – so I took a cargo ship from Germany to Canada

#11

Post by jaclaz »

scandinavegan wrote: post #6
gambiting wrote: post #5

I mean....yes. Yes, your carbon footprint is smaller by travelling slower. But you need to be in an extremely priviledged position to be able to afford travelling this way, both financially and time-wise. Cross-atlantic is obviously quite extreme, but even within Europe a train is not really a viable alternative for a lot of people, when I go to visit my family the choice is either a ~£100 Ryanair ticket for a 2 hour…

I agree with your main point! I want to state that upfront so that you don't think I'm arguing about the current situation, apart from addressing specifics. You will have to add some time to flying scenario. You have to arrive early to the airport to go through security (2 hours?), you have to wait for your luggage after landing (30 minutes?), and since airports are usually located outside of the city center you have…

Only as a reference:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19562152

The whole thread may be of interest to you, it is about Sweden wanting to re-surrect night trains:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19557848

Re: I didn't want to fly – so I took a cargo ship from Germany to Canada

#12

Post by DoingIsLearning »

Symbiote wrote: post #4
flounder3 wrote: post #2

There is no mention of the type of fuel the cargo ship burned while outside of port (bunker fuel, anyone?). The three citations at the end of the article simply reference generic sites, not specific information.

Possibly something awful, but irrelevant for the passenger on the scale of moving a 100,000 tonne ship, so we should consider that issue separately.

Couldn't we make the same argument for an airliner:

X cubic meters of CO2 divided by 200 odd passagers in an airliner.

Vs.

Y cubic meters of NOx/SO2/CO2 divided by that person and however purchased the freight goods in the container.

We could argue that the cargo ship would sail irrespective of that passenger, but we could equally make the same reasoning for people buying last minute seats that would otherwise fly empty.

Without doing the maths this risks making very fortunate people feel good about themselves and distracts from corporation practices that are orders of magnitude more harmful.

Again I do not have the numbers but what is the carbon impact of halting all german flights versus decomissioning all german coal plants?

Re: I didn't want to fly – so I took a cargo ship from Germany to Canada

#14

Post by asdfadsfgfdda »

The carbon calculations seems questionable. The author should include all energy used on board the ship, which is entirely from fossil fuels. The energy required to desalinate seawater for drinking/washing was probably greater than a flight.

Also, an additional, unnecessary person on the ship is slightly increasing the risk of diverting the ship because of a medical emergency. Imagine how much carbon would be burned if this massive ship had to turn around to drop off a sick passenger.

Re: I didn't want to fly – so I took a cargo ship from Germany to Canada

#15

Post by dwild »

gambiting wrote: post #5

I mean....yes. Yes, your carbon footprint is smaller by travelling slower. But you need to be in an extremely priviledged position to be able to afford travelling this way, both financially and time-wise. Cross-atlantic is obviously quite extreme, but even within Europe a train is not really a viable alternative for a lot of people, when I go to visit my family the choice is either a ~£100 Ryanair ticket for a 2 hour…

He paid 2 146$ to go from Hamburg to Vancouver in 3 weeks. It would be 1 000$ more if he want his train ride from Toronto to Vancouver to have a bed to sleep during the 4 days it would takes. For 600$ he could do the same in 15 hours and then spend 1 500$ in carbon offset (2 500$ if we consider the bed).

Is it me or his solution is so much worse in every aspect? With mine it's quick, "comfortable" and carbon negative.

Re: I didn't want to fly – so I took a cargo ship from Germany to Canada

#16

Post by dwild »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #12
Symbiote wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly something awful, but irrelevant for the passenger on the scale of moving a 100,000 tonne ship, so we should consider that issue separately.

Couldn't we make the same argument for an airliner: X cubic meters of CO2 divided by 200 odd passagers in an airliner. Vs. Y cubic meters of NOx/SO2/CO2 divided by that person and however purchased the freight goods in the container. We could argue that the cargo ship would sail irrespective of that passenger, but we could equally make the same reasoning for people buying last minute seats that would otherwise fly em…

> We could argue that the cargo ship would sail irrespective of that passenger, but we could equally make the same reasoning for people buying last minute seats that would otherwise fly empty.

Sure but the cargo ship business isn't moving passenger. If they always fill all the passengers rooms, they won't decide to bring more ships into the equation. Whether there's 0 passenger or 15, the ship will still go through that same amount of fuel.

Someone else did gave some good example of energy usage that a passenger will cause, like the water he will consume will need to be desalinated, or if he get sick and that require diverting a ship.

Re: I didn't want to fly – so I took a cargo ship from Germany to Canada

#17

Post by t0mas88 »

dwild wrote: post #15
gambiting wrote: post #5

I mean....yes. Yes, your carbon footprint is smaller by travelling slower. But you need to be in an extremely priviledged position to be able to afford travelling this way, both financially and time-wise. Cross-atlantic is obviously quite extreme, but even within Europe a train is not really a viable alternative for a lot of people, when I go to visit my family the choice is either a ~£100 Ryanair ticket for a 2 hour…

He paid 2 146$ to go from Hamburg to Vancouver in 3 weeks. It would be 1 000$ more if he want his train ride from Toronto to Vancouver to have a bed to sleep during the 4 days it would takes. For 600$ he could do the same in 15 hours and then spend 1 500$ in carbon offset (2 500$ if we consider the bed). Is it me or his solution is so much worse in every aspect? With mine it's quick, "comfortable" and carbon negative…

This is a point most media conveniently forget. Recently there was one that explained a train from Amsterdam to Barcelona costs € 350, takes 2 days and generates 45kg CO2. A plane costs € 100 (or less), takes 2 hours, and generates 200kg CO2.

The option they forgot was a CO2 compensated flight, it costs € 110 (still 240 less than the train), takes only 2 hours and results in net 0kg CO2.

Re: I didn't want to fly – so I took a cargo ship from Germany to Canada

#18

Post by selectstatement »

t0mas88 wrote: post #17
dwild wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He paid 2 146$ to go from Hamburg to Vancouver in 3 weeks. It would be 1 000$ more if he want his train ride from Toronto to Vancouver to have a bed to sleep during the 4 days it would takes. For 600$ he could do the same in 15 hours and then spend 1 500$ in carbon offset (2 500$ if we consider the bed). Is it me or his solution is so much worse in every aspect? With mine it's quick, "comfortable" and carbon negative…

This is a point most media conveniently forget. Recently there was one that explained a train from Amsterdam to Barcelona costs € 350, takes 2 days and generates 45kg CO2. A plane costs € 100 (or less), takes 2 hours, and generates 200kg CO2. The option they forgot was a CO2 compensated flight, it costs € 110 (still 240 less than the train), takes only 2 hours and results in net 0kg CO2.

How do you compensate for the CO2 released? Do you contribute to some kind of CO2 removal project? Not being sarcastic or anything I just genuinely don't know how to compensate for CO2.

Re: I didn't want to fly – so I took a cargo ship from Germany to Canada

#19

Post by dwild »

selectstatement wrote: post #18
t0mas88 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a point most media conveniently forget. Recently there was one that explained a train from Amsterdam to Barcelona costs € 350, takes 2 days and generates 45kg CO2. A plane costs € 100 (or less), takes 2 hours, and generates 200kg CO2. The option they forgot was a CO2 compensated flight, it costs € 110 (still 240 less than the train), takes only 2 hours and results in net 0kg CO2.

How do you compensate for the CO2 released? Do you contribute to some kind of CO2 removal project? Not being sarcastic or anything I just genuinely don't know how to compensate for CO2.

When I pay to compensate my CO2 emission, it goes into tree planting project.

Re: I didn't want to fly – so I took a cargo ship from Germany to Canada

#20

Post by Tepix »

gambiting wrote: post #5

I mean....yes. Yes, your carbon footprint is smaller by travelling slower. But you need to be in an extremely priviledged position to be able to afford travelling this way, both financially and time-wise. Cross-atlantic is obviously quite extreme, but even within Europe a train is not really a viable alternative for a lot of people, when I go to visit my family the choice is either a ~£100 Ryanair ticket for a 2 hour…

If we had a CO2 tax, flying would be more expensive (which it should be, obviously).
Post reply on HN