[LINK] Carbon Tax as an import disincentive - Was - Windows Department

[Kim Holburn]

Well how do we in Australia address problems such as this:

http://gas2.org/2009/06/03/one-container-ship-pollutes-as-much-as-50-million-cars/

> One Container Ship Pollutes As Much As 50 Million Cars

> Much ado and attention has been paid to the pollutants emmitted from the tail pipes of cars and trucks in recent years, both here in the U.S. and across the pond in Europe. With an estimated 250 million passenger vehicles in the U.S. alone, it would seem that cars would be a major contributor to pollution and air quality issues here and abroad. But newly released data from Europe suggests that a single container ship may cause as much pollution as 50 million cars and release as much as 5,000 tons of sulfur oxide into the air annually. And there are 90,000 such ships of varying sizes across the world at any one time.
> 
> This has raised the ire of many an environmentalists both in Europe, which has many of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, and the U.S., where the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that as many as 60,000 deaths a year can be attributed to coastal pollution from container ships. The Emma Maersk, the longest operating cargo ship in the world, is about 1,300 feet from bow to stern and can carry as many as 11,000 twenty-foot metal shipping containers. All that baggage requires a massive 14 cylinder, 109,000 horsepower diesel motor that consumes 1,660 gallons of heavy oil fuel an hour even at its most efficient setting. These motors are among the most efficient in the world too, with a thermal efficiency rating around 50%, where the average car or airplane motor has thermal efficiency of just 25-30% at best.
> 
> It isn’t so much the motors that are causing the pollution as it is the heavy oil fuel, the lowest quality fuel available, which makes shipping across the ocean both cost-efficient and damaging to the environment. These ships operate 24 hours a day, 280 days a year, essentially becoming floating pollution factories that are absolutely necessary to the world economy. But unlike cars, you can’t demand smaller ships or more efficient engines since they already return half the energy in the fuel back into propelling power. My solution; bring back sails. Big sails.

And there are various tax incentives for shipping.

http://www.cleartheair.org.hk/marine-pollution.php

> A very dirty fuel:
> 
> The air pollution generally emitted from ocean-going vessels is such that 16 large ships emit as much sulfur as do all cars in the world combined.
> 
> Besides, we have to keep in mind that there are 100,000 ships of various sizes on the seas today. It is known that international shipping in its present form accounts for 8 to 10 percent of sulphur emissions from all types of fossil fuels and also contributes  to nearly 30% of global releases of nitrogen oxides.
> 
> The reason behind these figures is the very nature of the fuel used by ships, a very low cost tar fuel residue left at the end of the oil refining process which is allowed to be burned on the high seas; it is called bunker fuel. If ships do not burn it, no other industry can effectively absorb it.  If all ships were to burn much cleaner low sulphur diesel, there would not be enough refining capacity worldwide to supply it, and it would represent an investment amounting to roughly USD 130 Billion, causing a potential rise in shipping cost of 50 to 70%.
> 
> This low cost fuel is rich in sulphur, with a percentage ranging form 2.7 to 4.5 %, to be compared with road vehicles using now Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) with a sulphur content of 0.001% in Europe, making ship fuel 4,500 times more polluting and harmful.
> 
> It is estimated that thousands of people die every year from these toxic fumes, lingering in the air as a brown haze for many days  especially those in proximity to the sea lanes and ports. “Once emitted, sulphur oxides react with other pollutants in the air such as nitrates or ammonium, to form very small particles. Moreover the burning of high-sulphur heavy fuel oils results in higher emissions of primary particles (particulate organic matter and black carbon), these are the killer fine particles which can enter into the lungs unhindered by nose hairs and are less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5).
> 
> (Acid News Nr 3 – Oct. 2009).
> 
> The need for Emissions Control Areas (ECA’s):
> 
> The United States and Canada want ships to burn cleaner fuel when approaching the continent to reduce PM2.5 smog-related deaths. On  27th March 09, both countries jointly submitted a proposal to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to designate most areas of the coastal waters covered by their Exclusive Economic Zones as an emissions control area (ECA) for the control of sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter emissions notably the deadly PM 2.5 and superfines.
> 
> “According to calculations by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the creation of an ECA would save up to 8,300 American and Canadian lives every year by 2020 by imposing stricter environmental standards on large ships.”
> 
> (Acid News – 02 June 09).
> 
> Ships would be required to switch to cleaner fuel when entering an ECA and many are already fitted with dual tanks for this purpose.
> 
> The implementation of such an agreement should be a model for the Pearl River Delta (PRD) which includes the two different jurisdictions of Hong Kong and Guangdong where both are subjected to an intense shipping activity : 12% of the global container traffic is concentrated in the PRD.
> 
> If incentives and voluntary measures for vessels to reduce speed in the PRD, and as a result burn less fuel, are incremental steps  towards tighter air pollution control, regulations ultimately, are the only way forward to drastically reduce this massive source of harmful pollutants.

On 2011/Apr/17, at 11:00 AM, Tom Koltai wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
>> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au 
>> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of David Boxall
>> Sent: Saturday, 16 April 2011 2:35 PM
>> To: link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>> Subject: Re: [LINK] I am from the Windows Department and we 
>> want to solveserious problems with your computer etc
>> 
>> 
>> On 15/04/2011 5:39 PM, Tom Koltai wrote:
>>> ...
>>> OK, how about Zero GST on Aussie made and 20% GST on all 
>> Foreign made.
>> ...
>> The WTO would impose sanctions. The Yanks would probably invade.
> 
> Ahh, the way to do it is through Clean Energy amendments...
> 
> Quote/ [From: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125271824237605479.html]
> President Barack Obama campaigned for the presidency using tough trade
> rhetoric and appealing to union workers. He said he would renegotiate
> the North American Free Trade Agreement to incorporate stricter labor
> and environmental standards. And he said China must abide by the rules
> of the WTO or face consequences.
> /Quote
> 
> So the argument is, all that pollution freighting containers across the
> pacific needs to be added as a Carbon Tax on Landed goods.
> We could add to that the Carbon ratio of the country of manufacture.
> 
> Kyoto compliance rating -30 would equal a plus 30% carbon tax on all
> imported manufactured goods.
> 
> In Australia of course, the Carbon taxes are paid by the manufacturers
> [both of them] during the production process.
> 
> We're not creating a barrier to trade, just trying to clean up the
> economy; sorry I meant to say, environment...
> 
> 
> 
> /body

-- 
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
T: +61 2 61402408  M: +61 404072753
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request