←back to thread

232 points pseudolus | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.346s | source
Show context
ljf ◴[] No.43947293[source]
Looks like this needs updating now https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/chinese-cargo-seattle-tari...
replies(5): >>43947341 #>>43947367 #>>43947401 #>>43947511 #>>43947709 #
kristjansson ◴[] No.43947401[source]
> In fact, the Northwest Seaport Alliance … said it was so far seeing more vessels call into port in 2025 than in 2024, with three more calls in the first quarter of 2025 than during the same period in 2024.

> However, the ships calling into port were arriving with unpredictable volumes of cargo — sometimes 30% less than anticipated

And Snopes felt comfortable rating “mostly false” to the top level claim? I get that they’re trying to navigating treacherous waters, but “there’s still ships, they’re just 1/3 empty” is as much support for the top level claim as it is contradiction

replies(5): >>43947547 #>>43947638 #>>43947689 #>>43947726 #>>43947985 #
echoangle ◴[] No.43947547[source]
Not really, the claim was „the port is empty“, not „the ships arriving are empty“. If there are still ships arriving, the claim is false.
replies(2): >>43947683 #>>43949092 #
kristjansson ◴[] No.43947683[source]
Most of what comprises a port is infrastructure for handling containers and bulk cargo. If cargo volumes are down, some fraction of that infrastructure is disused, or used below its capacity. That a ship was at berth is cold comfort to the longshoremen, truck drivers, etc. who expected to work that cargo, nevermind to the people that expected to, y’know, purchase and consume those goods.

Is 30% underutilized / partially disused tantamount to empty? Maybe not. But it’s in the ballpark in a way the snopes rating undersells.

replies(2): >>43947735 #>>43947775 #
lurk2 ◴[] No.43947735[source]
> But it’s in the ballpark

It is not remotely in the ballpark. The word “empty” is not understood to mean “70% full” anywhere in the English-speaking world.

replies(2): >>43949097 #>>43950305 #
1. michaelt ◴[] No.43949097[source]
There are websites that provide tracking for a lot of ships.

For comparison here's Tilbury, near London in the UK: https://www.vesselfinder.com/?p=GBTIL001 you'll note that big cargo vessels are shown in yellow.

And here's the port of Seattle: https://www.vesselfinder.com/?p=USSEA001 You'll note a distinct lack of yellow. If you zoom out a bit you can find some 'bulk carriers' but those aren't container ships.

So when the article quotes the Seattle port commissioner who says "we currently have no container ships at berth" that might be literally true right now at that specific port.

Other US ports seem to be doing better - Perhaps Seattle is badly located or expensive, and has taken a disproportionate fraction of the 30% drop in volumes? There are certainly larger ports on the same coast https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Top_container_ports_...