It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Emma Mærsk and similar ships have been criticised for their burning of bunker fuel, which has a high sulphur content. Fuel sulphur content is 2.5 to 4.5 percent which is over 2,000 times more than allowed in current automotive fuel. This fuel oil is not burnt in internationally-agreed Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs); there fuel with a maximum of 1.0%  sulphur is permitted; the limit is to be reduced to 0.1% in 2015. Reduced sulphur in the fuel affects the lubrificatory properties, which could lead to lower reliability, and higher costs for maintenance and repair, over and above purchasing the more-expensive low-sulphur fuel.
Says James Corbett, professor of marine policy at the University of Delaware: "Ship pollution affects the health of communities in coastal and inland regions around the world, yet pollution from ships remains one of the least regulated parts of our global transportation system." It sounds serious, but how bad could it be? Staggeringly, if a report by the UK's Guardian newspaper is to be believed. According to their story, just one of the world's largest container ships can emit about as much pollution as 50 million cars. Further, the 15 largest ships in the world emit as much nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide as the world's 760 million cars. The problem isn't necessarily with the ships' 109,000-horsepower engines that endlessly spin away 24 hours a day, 280 days a year. In fact, these powerplants are some of the most fuel efficient units in the world. The real issue lies with the heavy fuel oil the ships run on and the almost complete lack of regulations applied to the giant exhaust stacks of these container ships. The good news is that pressure is building from various governments around the world, including the United States, which just recently introduced legislation to keep these ships at least 230 miles away from U.S. coastlines. Similar measures are likely to follow in other countries like the United Kingdom.
Originally posted by Helig
reply to post by Plugin
Nothing is done "against this" because these ships a vital part of how goods are moved around the globe, without trans-continental shipping many places would not even be able to access certain foods because they simply cannot be grown locally in any large quantity due to conditions. Furthermore those ships bring big-ticket items vital to industries across the world, in short we need these kinds of ships to get things done.
Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by Spike Spiegle
Explanation: Nuke powered subs enter and birth at US harbours ... it should not be an issue!