The true cost of shipping basically everything
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 тра 2024
- Shipping produces about 3% of global emissions, just behind aviation and more than all US coal plants. But while these sectors get regularly denounced, shipping has escaped scrutiny. How did they do it?
We're destroying our environment at an alarming rate. But it doesn't need to be this way. Our new channel Planet A explores the shift towards an eco-friendly world - and challenges our ideas about what dealing with climate change means. We look at the big and the small: What we can do and how the system needs to change. Every Friday we'll take a truly global look at how to get us out of this mess.
#PlanetA #CarbonEmissions #Shipping
Read More (Links):
Ninety Percent of Everything By Rose George
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety_...
Tasked to Fight Climate Change, a Secretive U.N. Agency Does the Opposite
www.nytimes.com/2021/06/03/wo...
Growing climate impact
www.transportenvironment.org/...
Special thanks to Rose George for her inspiring reporting on the shipping industry in the book "Ninety Percent of Everything"
Reporter: Christian Caurla
Cutter: Christian Caurla
Supervising editor: Kiyo Dörrer and Joanna Gottschalk
0:00 Intro
1:10 Shipping's emissions
3:06 An invisible industry
5:03 Working conditions
5:48 Flag of convenience
7:14 Lobbying
8:40 Conclusion
DISCLAIMER: Journalists, like all humans, make mistakes too. In the video, we speak about Bangladesh and the animated arrow points to West India. We would like to apologise to our Bangladeshi and Indian followers for this mistake.
What do you know about this "invisible" shipping industry?
This invisible shipping is producing visible effects on climate which are miserable .
Can you do a video on calculating the true cost from number of interactions to make that T shirt from design, raw materials, shipment, tax etc
We will make a note of it,@@sandyj342! Thank you for your comment and support of our content :)
@Tomas Garza It is most definitely not madness. There's a reason 90% of trade is conducted via marine transportation, and that is because it's the cheapest & best way to ship goods on the planet. That's not to say that improvements can't be made, but abrupt changes to the industry absolutely will affect your daily life, and with all due respect, I don't think you understand that fact.
That's what we're trying to do,@Tomas Garza :)
Thanks for watching!
The IMO enforced ruling in 2020 that enforces the use of fuel with a sulfur content lower than 0.5%. Ships designed to burn the dirtier fuel must be retrofitted with scrubbers that remove the sulfur content from their emissions. So the industry is progressing, but people should temper their expectations for the speed it does so. Ships are massive in size, in time, in investment, and you can't just swap out a fleet for a new one that checks all of the environmental boxes overnight.
Thanks for this. We are aware of the "IMO 2020" and you're right, this is a significant reduction from the previous limit of 3.5%.
Does this ruling do anything in international waters?
It should but as mentioned by Rose George mentions 04:00 min into the video, there's a term that is quite popularly associated with the industry and that's called 'sea blindness'. As with all laws, the enforcement of these laws are crucial to its implementation.
@@DWPlanetA though low Sulphur bunker oil supply is still quite limited. We had trouble looking for the supply when we had to take in bunker. But agree the progress is there
@@C.I... Short answer short, 'Yes'. The suppliers to the bunker suppliers will stop producing any HSFO (High Sulphur Fuel Oil) additional costs will eventually end up with the consumer.
⚠️ DISCLAIMER ⚠️
Journalists, like all humans, make mistakes too. In the video, we speak about Bangladesh and the animated arrow points to West India. We would like to apologise to our Bangladeshi and Indian followers for this mistake.
It's a minor error don't worry mate.
Love from Bangladesh 🇧🇩
Don't worry again wonderful and relevant presentation by DW and it's team.
I am an indian fan's of DW❣️
Love from India. 🇮🇳
No problem
No problem... 💗
All the discussions in here must be about shipping's contribution in greenhouse emissions and pollution. Correctly pointing out bangladesh as bangladesh is not a solution for the problem this video talking about.
I'm from Bangladesh really I like this channel, it's educative and informative, great job Germany
We appreciate the support! Don't forget to hit that subscribe button to watch a new, educative and informative video every Friday :)
@@DWPlanetA Roger that
Wateching from Newfoundland, Canada. I agree, consistently great news coverage, nice work DW.
@@billrodden4120 hmm you're right,mate
@@beastbabyboss1005 thanks for all of the support!
I suspect that shipping isn’t just out of sight out of mind, but any spike at all in price on shipping would disrupt the quality of life that there is no fall back plan for, and that alone makes policy makers chicken out form doing anything- including the much smaller long term cost of converting to cleaner ships.
definitely, the reason that we have such widely available and affordable products from across the globe is due to the lack of regulation on shipping. More regulation on shipping means we consumers will be forced to deal with price hikes for simple products. Unfortunately, we will have to bear the cost for corporations' rampant emissions since the industrial revolution
@@SpeiderProductions - I wouldn’t object to people repairing and reusing their cloths and shoes for starters to buffer the cost. But I’m not a gardener so I’m not so confident on that…..
“Quality of life” has embraced unchecked consumerism with the cost passed on to the environment. I’d rather quality of life that assures a livable planet above all else.
@@watch50er I think one thing to consider is how would this affect countries in widely different situations. Here in brazil hunger and extreme poverty have been consistently creeping back up. I'm not sure a major blow to both exports and the price of commodity imports could be easily absorbed by our poor being thriftier - ironically given the context, they're already burning disposed wood because they can't afford cooking gas, for example.
(to fair, part of the problem are in fact policies and landowners preferring the external market, but I see no reason to be confident that a blow to that would make them grow a conscience. Either way, my point is that this is an issue that affects many widely different realities)
Being a seafarer myself, this is painfully true.
I mean - how can we solve Climate Change if we can’t even be honest and include everything we do on this planet?
It will never be solved or at least properly addressed in that case.
This is a consumer problem. Quite simply, we all buy too much on non essential, short term products
Yes and no. Nothing about climate change ever works/exists in isolation, don't you think?
That's a really odd response from a planet concious channel...
Consumer demand affects every part of the cycle The demand for raw resources, transportation, waste, pollution, health (eg microplastics ending up in our bodies).
That's not true.
Buying much and cheap doesn't have anything to do with the shipping being subsidized multiple times
Second, this is partially victim blaming (it's not like people purposefully buy bad stuff and thus too much and are being tricked to buy more all the time due to marketing)
@@climatechangedoesntbargain9140 "tricked to buy more all the time due to marketing" ....... try to think before you buy. It is not someone else's responsibility to make sure you don't spend your money foolishly. If you buy one shirt for $2 and wear it once and complain you were tricked by marketing, vs someone else who spends $20 on a shirt and wears it for the next ten years, well, that is on you.
Modern shipping enables raw materials, energy, food and goods to be transported all over the world. It is essentially the backbone of our global economy. From a perspective of global trade, shipping has provided consumers low cost foods, clothing and consumables. It also provides jobs to many people in developing countries. Just criticizing the emission aspect of shipping does not build a balanced picture. If we decide not to do international shipping, the social and economic consequences would need to be considered.
@@cobaltno51 I simply mean everything has benefits and drawbacks. A balanced assessment considers both sides.
This is an excellent video. It answered all the question I have in my life about shipping. The noise issue is quite serious because ship just buried it muffling noise in the water. Human could not hear it at the expense of Voiceless animals!
Another awesome doc covering these often under reported but important aspects of international commerce & its systemic issues..
Thank you so much for all your work and effort. So many insights on global climate change and ecology, I've never thought of so many things before I watched your videos. Def eye-opening. With love from Russia.
Don't forget to hit subscribe! We have another one coming out next week Friday :)
See you then ✌🏽
@@DWPlanetA Jokes on you, I've already subscribed! hehe
Minor error: at 0:21 the line went from China to Pakistan instead of Bangladesh. Love your videos though 😍 ❤
Thank you for pointing this out, Ibrahim! ☺️
We are sorry for the mistake.
@@DWPlanetA dont worry about it mate, the editing is pure quality just as usual 👏 👏
@Mihir Kumar my bad mate
It went to Gujarat
Honestly if what you want happened then the prices will go up and the buying power will be go down.
And?
@@joelchan9119 why is it the worst solution?
@@climatechangedoesntbargain9140 and ... poor people and countries will suffer.
How interesting! The information was really important to know, tysm
Shipping WAS si cheap. By today (mid November 2021) is very expensive, especially marine freight
Thank you.Appreciated.
Gautam adaani is a business corporate in shipping and logistics..
It's an invisible industry, he gained 50 billion during lockdown
Great wrk guys thank you
I think the best way to green up the shipping industry is to get Russia and my country of Canada to use the Russian nuclear powered ice breaker to maintain the northwest passage so that those massive ships can take an even shorter route between East Asia and Europe/ Eastern North America. The Panama Canal and Suez Canals helped to bypass continents and substantially shorten shipping routes and the north west passage can help even more. Certainly if rivers could be widened to allow bigger ships through farther to reduce train, truck and plane shipping, that would help to reduce emissions! Reducing emissions on the most efficient form of travel seems like the opposite of low hanging fruit though. Ships are efficient already. Trains can improve over trucks and pipelines can improve over trucks and trains too. Also reducing consumption is always key as well. Buying locally also helps..
awesome topic ty
I like how DW uses upbeat music with these videos to make an otherwise horrific watch a bit palatable
My parents own a shipping company and yeah it’s pretty bad for the environment, those ships release some of the dirtiest fuel oil. The cost of one container is like 15k since the price dropped not exactly sure. Last year it was only 2k
I enjoyed this video
Hi can your parents hire me please
@@somebonehead uh probably not
When the teams meeting ringtone went on I thought someone was calling me lol
Thanks DW for actively speaking up about the environmental crisis.
Amazing how, after explaining all this, change in the international division of work is not even mentioned.
You know online school was bad for you when you hear that Microsoft Teams noise and nearly have a heart attack from the flashbacks lol
Very informative
Where was any discussion or calculation of a cost /benefit analysis. As an example, what would the cost of "X" product be with the various energy savings/alternatives proposed?
Loved the Smoke on the Water riff!
As an individual, I am already vegan for the animals and also environment. What else can I do as an individual to have the least impact on the shipping issue? Just buy local?
Lowest cost option for environmental improvements is, reduce the amount of goods and materials shipped and shorten the distance that the shipment of the minimal amount is undertaken. The 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) held in Glasgow between 31 October 2021 & 13 November 2021 established requirements and targets for mitigation of the production of GHG and with regard to shipping steps to reduce atmospheric pollution to acceptable levels could include: -
1) Abolish the cruising fraction of marine transport;
2) Abolish recreational boating;
3) Reduce 'freight mile' distances;
4) Reduce freight carrying capacity;
4) Improve fuel quality;
5) De'fossil'ise the fuel chain;
6) Localise production to consumption;
7) Reduce the global population of consumers.
The use of any of the options above may not be the future of marine transportation but moving less material and moving what is transported over shorter distances, as in the past, should be. Together with localised production and minimised consumption a global population that has individuals’ voluntarily self limiting reproduction to two children per parent (both male and female), might save the planet. Shipping currently has a 'high volume, low added value' business model and it needs to return to the 'low volume, high value added' model it followed in the past.
I think it’s good that we are getting awareness on this but as you mentioned, shipping by trucks and planes contribute way more to CO2 pollution. So cargo shipping should be the least priority. We should focus on the issues of 1 day or 1 week shipping instead
We should focus on local production
@@TomNook. Local production isn't necessarily a good thing. It is cheaper and better for the environment to import food during winter than it is to invest in a climate-controlled indoor farm that can produce food year-round, for example.
@@TomNook. Yes you are right. I think we rely too much on poor countries to make our products. Sadly it'll probably stay this way because companies like cheap labor and large profit margin
@@rephaelreyes8552 Exploitation of poorer countries is its own problem. If the world were to stop exploiting poor people tomorrow, 90% of shipping would still be conducted via marine transportation. Read my other comment for an example as to how.
Did you also hear that this is only true for pollution per distance, while there are a big amount of distance covered by shipping?
0:21 the place that your pointing is not Bangladesh
That's probably the Indian state Gujarat
You should not make this type of mistakes
We do apologise. Please read our disclaimer at the top of this comment thread for more details.
@@DWPlanetA I forgive you
Im absolutely amazed at this misinformation. NOT one mention of MARPOL???
The Industry is trying its best to reduce emissions and improve efficiency. Marpol heavily regulates emissions, fuel, waste treatment and overall effects on the marine enviroment. And this is also enforced very strict by port state controlls! And yes, also for Panama or Liberian vessels. Shipping still is- by far-the most co2 efficient/friendly way to transport goods. 92% of all our goods come from shipping and still it emits less CO2 than aviation?
Shipping is trying its best to switch to alternatives like LNG, renewable energy sources like H2. Also, new exhaust treatment systems are implemented in almost all newbuildt vessels.
Heavy fuel oil is -by the way- a by product of making diesel, gas and kerosine out of crude oil. Ship engines are the most efficient engines humanity has every created.
yea most of the emmisions created by transportation seems to be from cars and road freight.
shipping is prettymuch at the bottom of the list. only think less polluting than shipping would be trains.
Nice presentation guys, ships always fascinated me, but sad to see how they are polluting the environment. Though I am glad to buy T-shirts for € 4.99, now your video makes me think. However, I couldn't help thinking that Bangladesh is not in Gujarath in India. ha ha.
2:21 i can see my house in this XD Lmao!! That's Funchal, Madeira Island. Top Right is the stadium for one of our football teams, the Nacional FC.
I have so many Filipino sea workers all around the globe 👌
Great satirical timing with "Smoke On The Water."
But do the other forms of transport pollute less? Why no comparison between the CO2 emissions of ships/trains/trucks/planes?
Good point, Roy! We will consider this when creating future videos :)
On a 'freight tonne miles' basis marine freight is orders of magnitude less environmentally damaging, the problem is that there is just so much material moving around the globe. The 'Planet B' fix is moving less & moving that minimal amount shorter distances.
It's ironic that shipping is so cheap because it is so efficient. Ships produce far less co2 per tonne-mile than planes, trains, and especially trucks. That efficiency, ironically, is what leads to it being used so much for silly, counterintuitive practices like those described here.
I did not know that.
Unconditional right to stop our own life whenever we want, for all adults
I've been thinking of this for a long time. How can something from another country be so cheap!
The term you are looking for is 'economies of scale'.
This chanel is Underrated .
We hope you've subscribed ;)
If they do this tax it might be the cherry that makes ppl snap with inflation rising at least here in the states
One of the jems that UA-cam Holding is @DW
Super interesting video.
I wanted to order a powerbank from china, and read it needs very special treatment to be shipped to this country, and I've been reading into this for Days.
I am from Bangladesh and I looove this channel. But at 0:22 everyone makes mistakes anyway sooo it's all okay.
Easy to solve this just use a hub warehouse system and let the hub send it overseas. Amazon in some sense is already solving this partially
So as someone living in the 3rd biggest port citiy in Europe (Hamburg) sea blindness doesnt affect me. Ships are pretty clearly visible and every day several big ocean liners reach our harbour. There is an active discussion about pollution in the city, which should point us towards the impact these ships have on a global scale. Sadly there is no real solution to it, except for restricting the use of ships as giant warehouses and unnecessary trips around the world. We wont be able to completely eliminate emitions through shipping as alternative modes of powering ships like windenergy or solar power are just no viable options for moving hundredthousand tons of steel through the water. Although when we look at how ships are currently used, maybe sails could be usefull again...
Lowest cost option for environmental improvements is, reduce the amount of goods and materials shipped and shorten the distance that the shipment of the minimal amount is undertaken. The 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) held in Glasgow between 31 October 2021 & 13 November 2021 established requirements and targets for mitigation of the production of GHG and with regard to shipping steps to reduce atmospheric pollution to acceptable levels could include: -
1) Abolish the cruising fraction of marine transport;
2) Abolish recreational boating;
3) Reduce 'freight mile' distances;
4) Reduce freight carrying capacity;
4) Improve fuel quality;
5) De'fossil'ise the fuel chain;
6) Localise production to consumption;
7) Reduce the global population of consumers.
The use of any of the options above may not be the future of marine transportation but moving less material and moving what is transported over shorter distances, as in the past, should be. Together with localised production and minimised consumption a global population that has individuals’ voluntarily self limiting reproduction to two children per parent (both male and female), might save the planet. Shipping currently has a 'high volume, low added value' business model and it needs to return to the 'low volume, high value added' model it followed in the past.
It costs more to ship then to buy.
BUY LOCALLY PLEASE.
Looking at the IMO emissions targets (2020, 2030 & 2050) I disagree with the view of this video - the shipping industry has come under so much pressure - having to change fuels leading to higher numbers of mechanical issues, however unlike most industries which have seen this level of regulation their is so little support to develop the new technology and the time for new technology to meet the 2030 target (which requires 40% less Co2 to be emitted) is running out
There is enforcement in the form of Port State Control
Great video @DW Planet A and great graphics! So if I understood well, the only solutions to fix the shipping problems are regulations and cleaner technologies? Even if there are cleaner energy in the future, multiples studies shows there are Rebound effect (or take-back effect) linked to new efficient technologies. So we say that nuclear's motors for shipping boat are spread all over, then the cost will go down and by this effect, the number of shipment will increase more than before. What if we degrowth the economy and make only products we need and by that we decrease the number of shipment all over the world. Unlimited growth is uncompatible with the limit of the ecosystems.
Lowest cost option for environmental improvements is, reduce the amount of goods and materials shipped and shorten the distance that the shipment of the minimal amount is undertaken. The 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) held in Glasgow between 31 October 2021 & 13 November 2021 established requirements and targets for mitigation of the production of GHG and with regard to shipping steps to reduce atmospheric pollution to acceptable levels could include: -
1) Abolish the cruising fraction of marine transport;
2) Abolish recreational boating;
3) Reduce 'freight mile' distances;
4) Reduce freight carrying capacity;
4) Improve fuel quality;
5) De'fossil'ise the fuel chain;
6) Localise production to consumption;
7) Reduce the global population of consumers.
The use of any of the options above may not be the future of marine transportation but moving less material and moving what is transported over shorter distances, as in the past, should be. Together with localised production and minimised consumption a global population that has individuals’ voluntarily self limiting reproduction to two children per parent (both male and female), might save the planet. Shipping currently has a 'high volume, low added value' business model and it needs to return to the 'low volume, high value added' model it followed in the past.
@@BernardLS Thank you for your elaborate answer. Im aggreeing with you about those points except the one about reducing the global population of consumers. As we can see with statistics, the vast majority of the major polluters are from occidental countries. Just reduce the number of people globally to support the high cost way of life of occidentals is not the solution. A more sustaineable way of life globally by reducing the production, share more and decide by ourself would permit to have children depending of our close environment.
@@Crabfik To have children, or not, is the most sensitive subject in any discussion. I grew up in the UK in the 1950s & 1960s and a common social mantra with regard to children was ’two will do’. That constant refrain conditioned my thinking as much as being one of the two children my parents had. A similar refrain is, I believe, currently said in Hindi as ‘hum do, hamaare do’ (‘we two, our two’). My wife and I have three children, one was an unexpected bonus, so perhaps I am not the best advocate; though my brother and his wife had only two and to get the story back on track my three children have, so far, only provided me with three grandchildren. Having fewer children on a local and personal basis does allow more of one’s earning capacity to be devoted to each of them and thus may enhance their life prospects.
The difference in consumption between is, as you say, stark and the amount of resources consumed by that small fraction of the global population in the occident (sometimes called the West or Global North) is disproportionate. The following was put to me in an earlier discussion, ‘if CO2 emissions in the West is 100 per person, in India it's just 6. Restricting it and reducing it from current level leaves no room to grow, think of all the things you need to change to reduce your emissions by 94%. Concrete alone would put the West above that mark. So it's literally impossible. We can greatly reduce what could become future emissions but dropping it is impossible and unfair.’ My response was ‘if the Global South is at a GHG emission level of '6' then perhaps it would be a useful tactic to establish that '6' as a benchmark alongside a fecundity rate of two per couple. Everything over '6' would, from here on out, be chargeable as a tax and then the retrospective cleanup cost for all historical emissions above that level should be more easily enforceable on the Global North; but the Global South would need to be aware that they are heading into recoverable costs it they choose to repeat the errors the Global North had made in the past.’
Voice of narrator is really cool
Thank you so much!
I'm from Lubbock Texas yea boi
0:22 that is not Bangladesh on the map (or even close to it). That is India.
Lower your consumption if you wanna mitigate this problem.
They should allocate that exemption money on going green.....
My shirts come from my own city though. All my clothes do, the textile industry is pretty strong here.
Most people I Belgium don't buy bottled water, that's an extra 100 a month, that's ridiculous
Is there even any difference if the majority memnbers are businessmen or politicians? They're practically the same at this point, one is just more noisy than the other
DW, this was also one of the best [i think all the videos ] artwork of this great insightful channel.The content and thorough research of the team is just mind-blowing . Editors(2) of this video must be given 21 gun salute, like they have edited it so nicely that i m falling short of words to praise them. When i use points of DW documentary in debates and my presentations , everyone thinks that i m some kind of expert hehe. I wish i could work with you all :)
We will definitely be passing on this wonderful message to our team of researchers & journalists. Thank you so much! This is a happy Friday indeed!
Thanks you soooo much
As someone who has pursued a career in marine transportation, I can tell you that there is a lot of information that had to be omitted in order to fit a 10-minute video. If this video inspired you, I strongly encourage you to do your own research on this topic.
@@somebonehead That is exactly our purpose for this channel. It's always important to make informed, well-researched decisions on a topic. We hope that our videos can somehow spark a conversation on how to do that.
Interesting and quite a dilemma, since almost every country uses ships, and there's no denying that climate change is real and urgent but without them 90% of the commodities we use and eat would cost far more.
Thank you for uncovering ships, you have given me something to sort out.
Lowest cost option for environmental improvements is, reduce the amount of goods and materials shipped and shorten the distance that the shipment of the minimal amount is undertaken. The 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) held in Glasgow between 31 October 2021 & 13 November 2021 established requirements and targets for mitigation of the production of GHG and with regard to shipping steps to reduce atmospheric pollution to acceptable levels could include: -
1) Abolish the cruising fraction of marine transport;
2) Abolish recreational boating;
3) Reduce 'freight mile' distances;
4) Reduce freight carrying capacity;
4) Improve fuel quality;
5) De'fossil'ise the fuel chain;
6) Localise production to consumption;
7) Reduce the global population of consumers.
The use of any of the options above may not be the future of marine transportation but moving less material and moving what is transported over shorter distances, as in the past, should be. Together with localised production and minimised consumption a global population that has individuals’ voluntarily self limiting reproduction to two children per parent (both male and female), might save the planet. Shipping currently has a 'high volume, low added value' business model and it needs to return to the 'low volume, high value added' model it followed in the past.
@@BernardLS I read what you wrote and thank you.
1,2 and 3 are pointless, since the water only has its laws enforced, is it 12 miles and 100 miles from the coast, also imprisonment doesn't help, especially since prisons are overcrowded, me personally I would just ignore fines and small boats and yachts don't use the same fuel as cargo ships or cruise liners.
4a, 4b and 5 I have actually been thinking of way to reduce or nullify the pollution. I'll tell you since hopefully you're in the field of nautical voyage and helping is helping the world which helps me, solar wind sails.
Right now unheard of, but with the right incentives very possible, all a person has to do is make or put the solar panals on fabric. Then I remembered the night, so instead of smoke stacks have wind turbines.
6. Is a fair point and again I've been thinking of this for a very long time, 2 negatives though, I hear no country is self sufficient, even the hermit kingdom of NK trades with Russia, China and few African countries and if a country does become self sufficient it could make itself like NK without worry or need from other countries.
7. Is a terrible idea! The human race is already dying off, with 2/3s of the globe falling below the replacement rate of 2.1 child births, yet you or they think we should decrease more? Its definitely not the population and even if it is, there's another way to deal with it, like the old saying goes "there's more than one way to skin a cat"
I know that shipping causes major environmental damage, and I also I know people turn a blind eye because the billions of people have got to eat and wear clothes, but there's more than one way.
Again, thank you for highlighting the possible solutions. I do think tackling the problem head on, so if it's fuel thats causing pollution deal with the fuel, is far more productive and less damaging than thinking because its fuel let's deal with the population. The two don't match up.
@@nochill9475 Lol, the human race is not dying off. Population growth is tapering, as it's supposed to. This is a common trend in developed countries.
Poorer countries are still chugging out people but this is balanced by significantly less consumption per person.
@@anxiousearth680 a common trend? When has this happened to the population before? People such as yourself have no idea! Why do you think retirement ages are getting older? The USA has made abortion illegal? Because people aren't having children, at least the USA are looking ahead and rectifying the situation now, because a nationwide menopause is like cancer, you can deal with it quite easily at stage 1 but at stage 4/5 all you can do is wait to die. Look at Japan and SK? They will have hardly anyone left by 2050, and if you're old enough I'm sure you remember the year 2000 like it was yesterday.
You pointed out Banlgadesh on the map where Gujarat (Western India) is at 0:22. Great video though.
Oops. We did 😳
The graphic was made before the text was finalized - please forgive this mistake and please keep watching! 🙏
This is the best channel ever. Congratulations DW!
*The World Research Institute (WRI) noted that more than half of the production of carbon emissions cause global climate change comes from China, USA, EU, India, Russia, Japan, South Korea, Canada. 😭*
We all talk about this is bad for the planet thing.. but everything on this planet that we take for granted have someone or something paying for us on the background.. subsidize goods are wanted everywhere.. foods, fuel, clothes, houses, etc...
try eliminating subsidize goods, see where your career stand afterwards..
And see where it'll stand if we continue destruction like that
@@climatechangedoesntbargain9140 True, but try starting your campaign with those.. cutting subsidize and higher price on everything.. see if you can stand on the podium, let alone the white house..
talking about dream are nice but reality doesn't work that way.. same as green tech is good just, don't build it near my neighbourhood kinda style..
@@imp3r1alx Floods aren't cheap. Droughts aren't cheap. Typhoons aren't cheap.
We are looking at the long term benefits here. Any change is expensive, as cost is just a representation of the resources and effort we expend to do so.
But change we must, to avoid an even bigger permenant cost.
@@anxiousearth680 I understand and i agree with you.. i do also support the green movement..
i just want to point out that the problem is not only by the leaders, like politician and ministry.. but mainly also by the voters.. that is the people..
like my previous comment, if you want to be a leader with the idea of going green by cutting subsidize on oil or any sector for that matter.. your chance of being chosen is kinda low.. (low is a being positive here)
00:22 Bangladesh is represented incorrectly on screen
We are really glad that you've pointed out this error to us. We truly appreciate it and are sorry for making this mistake.
The pollution issue is only a problem if you have excluded nuclear from the list of options. Nuclear powered ships are already well demonstrated and can run for decades without refueling, they can carry more because the reactors save a lot of space and since they are zero carbon they can travel twice as fast without polluting so you need far fewer of them. They are the simple and obvious choice backed by many companies, including industry giants like Samsung.
Just think; would you have full confidence in the management of a nuclear reactor under the control of an anonymous entity only traceable, perhaps, via a letter box in a FOC (flag of convenience) nation state? If you are, could you sell that confidence to Japan, the state that hosted the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear detonations as well as more recently the Fukushima ‘event’? Then try that same, or a similar, sales strategy on Ukraine, the nation state that as a part of the USSR (CCCP) hosted the Chernobyl ‘event’. Modern iterations of nuclear energy, thorium fuel, molten salt reactors, small modular reactors or fusion reactors, will carry the legacy of past problems. It is the global trepidation of anything with 'nuclear' in the name and the economics of nuclear having transitioned from 'energy to cheap to charge for' too 'the costs of remediation are incalculable' that will prevent the adoption of nuclear energy as a means of creating energy at sea. Modern reaction systems may have overcome the safety problems but the general public, having been misled in the past, will be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. The incident of the ‘Ever Given’ blocking the Suez Canal, March 2021, may also have a little to add to this debate. The cooling water on ships tends to get taken in from near the bottom so when running aground the inlets are in a prime spot to get plugged up restricting, if not stopping, the flow of coolant. One thing that the TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents all had in common was that the supply of coolant, or rather lack thereof, was a fundamental cause. Similarly and only months later, May 2021, had the ‘X Press Pearl’ been nuclear powered then a major port for a populous nation in the global South would have possible been the site of a significant exclusion zone due to a non power plant related incident. If the ‘X Press Pearl’ had on board a fired up but ‘safe’ molten salt reactor and found herself having to run down the possible 12.5 megaWatts of energy in the power cycle would a stable cool down have been possible?
@@BernardLS Nuclear shipping will clearly not be treated like normal fossil based shipping, it has an exceptional safety record and your theories about intakes being blocked are just scaremongering. We need to decarbonise shipping rapidly and nuclear is the clear choice for this.
The nuclear solution is not cheap, and as mentioned, even carefully treated, the risks are not a non issue…
@@cobaltno51 I would dispute whether nuclear is more expensive, especially in the long run. Fuel costs for fossil powered ships is huge, and to save fuel they travel very slowly. A nuclear ship has no such restrictions, they can go at twice the speed so you need half as many.
Samsung is one of many companies looking at nuclear to save money and cut CO2 in shipping for this very reason.
As for safety, we already have the US Navy that has run many such reactors for decades with a perfect safety record. We can handle this sort of thing, nuclear fuel is shipped around the world all the time with no problem.
Also helps of we could curb our consumerism appetite and find ways to make affordable things locally - is that called decentralization?
Lowest cost option for environmental improvements is, reduce the amount of goods and materials shipped and shorten the distance that the shipment of the minimal amount is undertaken. The 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) held in Glasgow between 31 October 2021 & 13 November 2021 established requirements and targets for mitigation of the production of GHG and with regard to shipping steps to reduce atmospheric pollution to acceptable levels could include: -
1) Abolish the cruising fraction of marine transport;
2) Abolish recreational boating;
3) Reduce 'freight mile' distances;
4) Reduce freight carrying capacity;
4) Improve fuel quality;
5) De'fossil'ise the fuel chain;
6) Localise production to consumption;
7) Reduce the global population of consumers.
The use of any of the options above may not be the future of marine transportation but moving less material and moving what is transported over shorter distances, as in the past, should be. Together with localised production and minimised consumption a global population that has individuals’ voluntarily self limiting reproduction to two children per parent (both male and female), might save the planet. Shipping currently has a 'high volume, low added value' business model and it needs to return to the 'low volume, high value added' model it followed in the past.
I am from Bangladesh and I really like this series, just would like to point out that Bangladesh is to the east of India not west where it was shown at 0:21s
Are bhai ami already point out korsilam r unara already apologise kore ekta comment o korsen. Comment dekhe to comment korben noyeto bar bar bolle dekhte kharap dekhaye.
@@mozartips
Thank you for your reply
If they have done it many thanks to them, should have mentioned it in the video description that there was a mistake
Otherwise many more like me will make the same comment
No one in their right mind has the time to read through all the comments under a video before writing something
@@abdulbasitibnemomen6114 I agree if there were millions of comments, but over here it's not even 200 comments plus everyone knows that those comments have many likes float up so that comment is already just below the pinned comment. I know they should've have written in the description or pinned it, but I don't think they care about that very much, so we can't do anything about it.
@@mozartips @Abdul Basit Ibne Momen I made the mistake and we all care about this a lot. I am sorry about it. We wrote that in the video description and pinned a comment.
Sounds like the video is being narrated by Clause from American Dad! Describing "Ocean Madness " a term coined by Professor Farnsworth in Futurama! Though truly madness in these circumstances 🤯
So the Shipping Guild is at it again... the navigators need their spice!
So I assume it’s a no-go for a type of nuclear engine like they use for the USA & French navy (well I think the very large aircraft carriers at least and there are obvs a few other countries too)? Too expensive and dangerous to implement?
Just think; would you have full confidence in the management of a nuclear reactor under the control of an anonymous entity only traceable, perhaps, via a letter box in a FOC (flag of convenience) nation state? If you are, could you sell that confidence to Japan, the state that hosted the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear detonations as well as more recently the Fukushima ‘event’? Then try that same, or a similar, sales strategy on Ukraine, the nation state that as a part of the USSR (CCCP) hosted the Chernobyl ‘event’. Modern iterations of nuclear energy, thorium fuel, molten salt reactors, small modular reactors or fusion reactors, will carry the legacy of past problems. It is the global trepidation of anything with 'nuclear' in the name and the economics of nuclear having transitioned from 'energy to cheap to charge for' too 'the costs of remediation are incalculable' that will prevent the adoption of nuclear energy as a means of creating energy at sea. Modern reaction systems may have overcome the safety problems but the general public, having been misled in the past, will be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. The incident of the ‘Ever Given’ blocking the Suez Canal, March 2021, may also have a little to add to this debate. The cooling water on ships tends to get taken in from near the bottom so when running aground the inlets are in a prime spot to get plugged up restricting, if not stopping, the flow of coolant. One thing that the TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents all had in common was that the supply of coolant, or rather lack thereof, was a fundamental cause. Similarly and only months later, May 2021, had the ‘X Press Pearl’ been nuclear powered then a major port for a populous nation in the global South would have possible been the site of a significant exclusion zone due to a non power plant related incident. If the ‘X Press Pearl’ had on board a fired up but ‘safe’ molten salt reactor and found herself having to run down the possible 12.5 megaWatts of energy in the power cycle would a stable cool down have been possible?
There's no technical reason why that shouldn't be. People are just afraid I guess.
How would you decarbonize it? PV panels, wind? Don't think so
Hi there, if you look 9 min into the video our expert Faig Abbassov, who leads the shipping program at Transport and Environment, offers a few green alternatives. We hope you enjoyed watching the video :)
Question: Is our GEZ used to directly targetting foreign contries?
Instead of making life harder for everyone by fining, regulating shipping industry (how you going to do that) which is going to hurt businesses and consumers eventually.
Why dont we give them cleaner energy solution to run their gigantic ships on?
Improved fuel quality is the 'low hanging fruit' to reduce environmental harm but will only go so far. The 'Planet B' fix is moving less & moving that minimal amount shorter distances.
DW forgot where Bangladesh is on globe 😅😅 at 0:22. The place you show is actually Gujarat state in India. But yeah it is also a hub of textiles in India.
We have to protect our unique planet
0:20 And Bangladesh is basically the state of GUJARAT in India. Indian subcontinent may have similarities. But such an appropriation or misplacement or misidentifying is frugal. Bangladesh is to the east of India inbetween the state of west bengal and few north eastern states.
00:22 you got the wrong country 😅
We may demande that taxes were payed by boats, planes or trucks proportionate to the amount of their pollution. But at the end, they are all payed by customers. However, if it could lead people to buy only necessary products, it'll be a blessing in disguise. But the issue is less the means of transport than our frenzy of consumption.
I have shopped with Shein but after watching this video will not shop there again
Such an informative video. The emissions issue is a serious problem.
Green liquid ammonia will probably replace bunker fuel someday
Thomas Midgley Jr. (born 18 May 1889 died 2 Nov 1944) was an American (USA) chemist who, as well as developing the technique of putting the tetraethyl lead (TEL) additive in petrol, created chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), yes those ozone depleting CFCs, so that the use of Ammonia (NH3) as a refrigerant could be discontinued. Substitution of NH3 (Ammonia) for Hydrocarbon (CxHx+2) will change one atmospheric pollutant CO2, or CO if poor combustion conditions occur, for another NO, NO2 or NO3 (depends on how good your oxidation reaction is).
NH3 could be the most dangerous and least ‘clean’ clean energy source; ammonia it is both caustic and hazardous in its concentrated form. In the United States of America, it is classified as an extremely hazardous substance, and is subject to strict reporting requirements by facilities which produce, store, or use it in significant quantities; have a CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) with more details. WADR ammonia is easily dirtier than hydrogen. A means of creating NH3 (Ammonia) on an industrial scale that is more resource efficient than the Haber-Bosch process would also be required. Wärtsilä are configuring some of their engine stock to burn NH3 in a diesel cycle so they may overcome the NOx problem. However, having personally been around a few NH3 tankers and failed a couple that were changing trade to LPG from ammonia they can be painful to be around; even in low concentrations and NH3 is very persistent. Ammonia in the right place, as a fertilizer is good, as a combustion fuel with exhaust gases it is very bad so let’s just leave that for a while (somewhere very far away that is cool, dark and quiet).
5:43 there goes the monetization for this video 🤣
This channel is so severely underrated, let's talk about influencer girls with 10 millions subs
We'll get there 💪
Great video! I think deglobalization could have been mentioned though.
And now you just realized that you *SEE* and *BELIEVE* what they want you too.
DW is indeed one of the best channels of UA-cam ❣️
Don't forget to subscribe ;)
We release a video every Friday.
Yeah already subscribed to dw planet n dw hindi 🌷, grateful for videos on such REAL topics
Rail is the most fuel efficient way to transport goods, rail can also be 100% electric. If they ever built a bridge from Asia to the US(which has been proposed) over 90% of freight could be by rail.
Rail dosen't even come close to the efficiency of ships. You simply cannot carry the amount of cargo by rail as you can with a container ship.
Building a high-capacity railroad will also consume a lot of resources and create a lot of emissions.
@@SweBeach2023 As opposed to building roads where vehicles are much less efficient?
When did Bangladesh move to Gujarat?
So the take away isnt that globalisation is the problem and we should be shipping less and producing locally...
But that we dont regulate amd tax the shipping enough?
Wow, that is an amazing take in it. Or an amazon take on it.
Taxing the movement of goods would encourage localisation of production, sadly if cost is the only lever to reduce the impact taxation (or the imposition of 'charges') is the only way to regulate the flow of trade.
Whelp, now I know why some people are proposing nuclear-powered ships, though that won't help the rampant consumerism problem.
I think that maybe less amount of ads any kind could lessen the consumption... Ads are everywhere and in huge amounts :/ How much resources can "eat" advertising...? That's another problem...
@@arcaseidax Be the change you want to see in the world. Buy less T-shirts. Avoid disposable products. Practice ethical consumption.
0:21 get your facts right. That's not where Bangladesh located. I didn't expect that from DW, what a shame.
Thank you for pointing this out. This is our mistake and we are sorry. 😢
@@DWPlanetA No worries, please remember this for next time, it wasn't a big deal but sometimes people feel insulted when someone names his/her country and point to somewhere else. Anyway thanks a lot for recognizing the mistake and rectifying it, I highly appreciate that.
Shipping, not so cheap now.
3:16 I thought it was my microsoft team's sound, wkwk
you're not the only one ;)
I disagree with a lot of things in this video. It is nevertheless an interesting point of view. From my experience shipping is always seen as the bad guy even though it accounts for less than 20% of pollution. Land based sources of pollution is the real killer. This video makes it seem as though shipping is not heavily regulated. Shipping is heavily regulated. It is also constantly working to achieved sustainability. One can mention the 2020 sulphur cap on emissions set by the IMO. As one can imagine, shipping is difficult in the sense that it is a global industry. So similar to the fact that the COP conferences sparks little change (COP26) due to getting individual nations to work together to solve a global issue, shipping has to overcome many of the same issues. Lastly, shipping is a derived industry. There is a lot more that shipping could do to lower its impact on the environment just like every other human activity and industry.
Your points are not incongruent with the video. Your last statement "There is a lot more that shipping can do to lower its impact on the environment" is what this whole video is about. And the video did say that marine transportation was comparatively less destructive than other modes of shipping. But that doesn't mean that marine transportation can't improve anyway.
What’s your motive for defending shipping like this? (Especially when you get to the same conclusion anyway: there’s lots more they could do to lower their impact)
@@jonathanpalmquist4894 I guess what I didnt emphasis much on is the difficulty I'm the harmonised approach. We use sustainable development without recognising what it really means. We tend to only associate it with environmental longevity. However, sustainable development also speaks to economic and social factors. And solution needs to be economically feasible for it to be sustainable. That's the real issue here. The IMO and other regional MOUs have been working hard to improve. Yes ther are some loopholes like the flag of convenience, however as is with these things, they weren't meant to be. Also, there has been a crack down on these flags with respect to compliance with international standards. There is a lot to be done with regard to feasible technologies that aid in greening the shipping industry. There are systems in place facilitating research and initiatives in this regard. In the mean time shipping has been focused on energy efficiency, proper waste management, and decreasing emissions especially with respect to carbon, NoX and SoX.
Ships are being designed to run on non conventional fuel
Which type of non-conventional fuels do you mean, Anil?
@@DWPlanetA ships in future will be running on hydrogen, solar, wind already trials are going on. In some countries ships are running on LNG once green hydrogen is available ships will convert to hydrogen.