←back to thread

233 points kamaraju | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.256s | source
Show context
phtrivier ◴[] No.43554052[source]
What still baffles me is the reduction in SO2 emissions due to regulations on shipping fuel.

How did the shipping industry accept / manage / afford to switch fuels (presumably, to more expensive ones) in order to follow the regulation ; as opposed to delay / deny / deflect, or plain old lobbying the hell against the changes ?

Are we in a "Montreal protocol" situation, where the alternative was existing and acceptable and in the same price range ?

Or did one actor implement coercion differently ? Was a standard change made, that enabled drop-in replacement ?

(If we were living under Discworld-like physics where narrativium existed, I would understand _why_ the change happened : it's making climate change worst, so of course there is all the power of narrative irony.

Are we in a world governed by narrative irony ? That would explain so many things...)

replies(4): >>43554067 #>>43554201 #>>43554868 #>>43554880 #
1. TimByte ◴[] No.43554201[source]
And especially considering its usual resistance to change