←back to thread

233 points kamaraju | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.205s | 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 #
dyauspitr ◴[] No.43554067[source]
Are we at the point where corporate adherence to laws is considered shocking?
replies(4): >>43554108 #>>43554112 #>>43554396 #>>43554424 #
1. cycomanic ◴[] No.43554424[source]
Yes, e.g. compare that to agriculture where emissions are still increasing exponentially. The political power the farmers have is amazing, apart from the fact that they managed to get exempt from emissions penalties in many countries, they also continue to be able to push increased meat and dairy consumption which does not only increase pollution but has many other serious environmental and health impacts.