McDowell posted:

True, but one should consider the utility (tons of product/distance transported) compared to the emissions. In that regard I'd consider cars more wasteful than cargo ships.

Earth posted:

Oh Sagan, I love reading your books.

I also love the spectrum of people in this world.

GD_American posted:

An Army M-60 tank at top; one of thousands of old concrete culverts in the middle, and an old F-106 jet at bottom. All of these are artificial reefs in the Gulf of Mexico. In the last few decades, we've dumped everything from an old aircraft carrier (the USS Oriskany) to T-72 tanks on the bottom of the Gulf to provide reef structure.

Funnily enough, we're also in the process of destroying some of the best established reefs in the Gulf- old, unused oil platforms.

Army Diver Jason Jakovenko posted:

You get down about 20 feet and it starts to come into sight, it's actually really-- it's like the moon or something. It's weird, it doesn't look like anything you could imagine, it's just tires for as far as you can see down there.

Chexoid posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDS_YABbh6w

Senor Gato posted:

In the 70s they tried this off the coast of Fort Lauderdale in an attempt to attract game fish to the area. Osborne Reef was enlarged with 2 million tires bound together with steel bands. Of course, nobody bothered to ensure that the bands didn't corrode in the ocean, so over time the tires became loose. It became a total environmental disaster as the tires' mobility ensured no significant marine life latched onto them. They even wrecked natural reefs by colliding with them. They're still cleaning it up. Luckily cleaning up the tires is good training for military divers, so the US military is doing most of the cleanup operation rather than the state of Florida (which probably would either refuse to pay for it or gently caress it up worse somehow).

How are u posted:

Why in the ever-living gently caress could they have not have realized that plastic bindings would have been better? Jesus Christ.

Senor Gato posted:

McDowell posted:

True, but one should consider the utility (tons of product/distance transported) compared to the emissions. In that regard I'd consider cars more wasteful than cargo ships.

quote:

...
Shipping is by far the biggest transport polluter in the world. There are 760 million cars in the world today emitting approx 78,599 tons of Sulphur Oxides (SOx) annually. The world's 90,000 vessels burn approx 370 million tons of fuel per year emitting 20 million tons of Sulphur Oxides. That equates to 260 times more Sulphur Oxides being emitted by ships than the worlds entire car fleet. One large ship alone can generate approx 5,200 tonnes of sulphur oxide pollution in a year, meaning that 15 of the largest ships now emit as much SOx as the worlds 760 million cars.

Radbot posted:

Maybe you're not aware of exactly how polluting these things are. I don't understand why D&D gets that nuclear power isn't the bogeyman, but still thinks personal car emissions are. Using gas sucks for a number of reasons, but cars are loving clean these days.

http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

Peven Stan posted:

I think when it comes to that people aren't sweating particulates like SOx (which is not a greenhouse gas but causes acid rain) and are mainly talking about greenhouse gasses.

quote:

Carbon dioxide emissions from shipping are double those of aviation and increasing at an alarming rate which will have a serious impact on global warming, according to research by the industry and European academics.

Separate studies suggest that maritime carbon dioxide emissions are not only higher than previously thought, but could rise by as much as 75% in the next 15 to 20 years if world trade continues to grow and no action is taken. The figures from the oil giant BP, which owns 50 tankers, and researchers at the Institute for Physics and Atmosphere in Wessling, Germany reveal that annual emissions from shipping range between 600 and 800m tonnes of carbon dioxide, or up to 5% of the global total. This is nearly double Britain's total emissions and more than all African countries combined.


Carbon dioxide emissions from ships do not come under the Kyoto agreement or any proposed European legislation and few studies have been made of them, even though they are set to increase.

Aviation carbon dioxide emissions, estimated to be about 2% of the global total, have been at the forefront of the climate change debate because of the sharp increase in cheap flights, whereas shipping emissions have risen nearly as fast in the past 20 years but have been ignored by governments and environmental groups. Shipping is responsible for transporting 90% of world trade which has doubled in 25 years.

Donald Gregory, director of environment at BP Marine, said this week that BP estimates that the global fleet of 70,000 ships uses approximately 200m tonnes of fuel a year and this is expected to grow to 350m tonnes a year by 2020. "We estimate carbon dioxide emissions from shipping to be 4% of the global total. Ships are getting bigger and every shipyard in the world has a full order book. There are about 20,000 new ships on order" he said.

The estimate supports other academic studies which, until now, have been dismissed as "extreme", because the industry fears that emissions regulations will be forced on it if it is not seen to be addressing the issue. "The International Maritime Organisation [IMO] needs to come up with an emissions strategy, or it will be down to us," said Mr Gregory. "Aviation is in the firing line now but shipping needs to take responsibility. There will be increasing pressure to do something."

Dr Veronika Eyring, a researcher at the Institute of Physics and Atmosphere, calculates that the global fleet used 280m tonnes of fuel in 2001 and that could reach 400m tonnes by 2020.

"People are becoming more aware of the shipping emissions problem, but there is still uncertainty as to the exact amount of fuel being used," she said.

An IMO study of greenhouse gas emissions has estimated that emissions from the global fleet would increase dramatically in the next 20 years as globalisation leads to increased demand for bigger, faster ships. Without action the IMO predicts that by 2020, emissions from ships would increase up to 72%.

Yesterday the independent Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, which has launched a two-year study into shipping emissions, said the problem needed to be addressed urgently. "The proportion of [greenhouse gas] emissions from international shipping continues to receive scant regard within government. Shipping has been missed off the climate change agenda, said researcher Alice Bowes.

Britain downplays the problem, saying that ships in UK waters emit less than 2m tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. But no record is kept of the fuel used and most ships take on fuel outside Britain.

Although the industry maintains that ships are more efficient at transferring freight than air, it admits improvements can be made.

Yesterday Caroline Lucas, a Green MEP, said: "[Shipping] has got away with doing nothing and maintained a clean image which it does not deserve."

Peven Stan posted:

I think when it comes to that people aren't sweating particulates like SOx (which is not a greenhouse gas but causes acid rain) and are mainly talking about greenhouse gasses. Acid rain doesn't get the headlines anymore since SOx emissions are down 2/3rds from their high in the 70s.

quote:

It is important to note that fuel consumed in international travel by aircraft and marine sources is not counted in national greenhouse gas inventories. However, international trade has been growing rapidly, thus increasing the role of transportation as a source of global emissions.

TheMammoth posted:

From my old neighborhood in San Francisco:


Beautiful ocean mural. Must be an aquarium or museum right? On the side of the Mitchell Brother's O'Farrell Strip Club.


Alley side of same mural.

I miss the Tenderloin.

Exclamation Marx posted:

Pope's resigned

Elston Gunn posted:

Driving a pickup is dangerous in LA.

Stultus Maximus posted:

For reference, this is a gray Nissan Titan like the actual target vehicle:

poemdexter posted:

I thought they found the truck burned out in the mountains days ago? Are they searching for a new truck?

Content:

quote:

On the third floor, there were two chicks yelling at us and the point man was yelling at them and he said to me, "Hey, we need to get moving. These bitches is getting truculent." I remember saying to myself, Truculent? Really? Love that word.

Highspeeddub posted:

I can't wait for tomorrow night.

http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/ted-nugent-to-join-stockman-at-state-of-the-union

quote:

Stockman will also be unveiling this week The Obama Failometer, a ten-foot-long billboard that will objectively measure the failure of Obama’s economic policies.

TyChan posted:

http://www.esquire.com/features/man-who-shot-osama-bin-laden-0313

Crasscrab posted:

Why doesn't he just become a mercenary, oh I'm sorry "private military contractor", like the rest of them?

System Metternich posted:

Lightning hits St. Peter's the day Pope Benedict resigns.

Elston Gunn posted:

Driving a pickup is dangerous in LA.

System Metternich posted:

Lightning hits St. Peter's the day Pope Benedict resigns.

Crasscrab posted:

I like when my gas station tells me things!

Earth posted:

Please tell me that you took this picture and can tell me what area of the country so I know to never live there.