Toward IMO's 2050 goal

More details on this project:

oh the irony…
Like a diesel truck delivering electric cars to the dealer

1 Like

Will finance acrobats and hedge fund lions abandon ship(ing) in droves?:

Not a bad thing if it leave real shipping people to run the show.
Butt with there be enough funds available to renew the fleet to meet the IMO 2050 goal?

they moved into the PSV and AHTS market for a while, look where that is now

PS> ESG criteria refer to environmental, social and corporate governance factors that are taken into account when investing in a company. Although their origin dates back several decades, they have become a reference for socially responsible investing in recent years.

1 Like

IEA is pessimistic:

While others are trying to speed up the process:

Who is going to be proven right???

Somebody has to take the lead to reach the 2050 goal and it ain’t gona be any Government:

EU is stepping up to the plate:

What are we going to do once we actually get to carbon neutral or even negative and the planets temp keeps going up?

Same thing when we start to get planet cooling?

I don’t know about you, but I’ll likely be looong gone by then, so no issue.

I believe the prediction is that it will take a couple of generation from carbon neutrality until world temperature flatten out and even longer before it starts to fall, so “see above”.

PS> I’m sure there will be more than enough for you to worry about in the meantime,

its a guess that reducing the carbon output will lower the temp

Not according to science

1 Like

Even if you don’t believe that it is man made, I think you realize that the earth’s average temperature is warming.(??) (We MAY even reach 1.5C above pre-industrial level this year)

It is not happening at the same rate everywhere (refr. your broken thermometer somewhere in Oz). In the Arctic the warming is happening much faster than average, causing sea ice, glaciers and permafrost to melt, causing all kinds of problems:

But don’t worry, the Arctic Counsil has been discussing it in their meeting in Reykjavik. (Or maybe all that “hot air” will speed up the Arctic melting??)

Time you Aussies realize that relying on export of coal, LNG and iron ore to China is not sustainable. You should start to cover some of your empty dry hot land with solar cells and lay that cable to Singapore so you can keep the Singaporeans cool.

Now back to IMO and the 2050 goal.
Some big names in shipping thinks things are going too slow:

And a more serious view on IMO and it’s 2050 goal:

But my point regardless of the fact that we pollute too much and are adding carbon to the atmosphere is that the science is guesswork that reducing that will reduce or hold the worlds temp.
The world has been hotter and had lots more carbon in the atmosphere before.

The Wuhan wog has caused the carbon output to massively drop and where’s the science measuring that?

“The most direct effect of reduced particle pollution on the weather will be on increasing the sunlight that can warm the surface, rather than being absorbed higher up in the atmosphere or reflected back to space,” says Richard Allan, a climate scientist at the University of Reading in the UK. Earlier this year Allan and his colleagues showed that changes in air quality in recent decades have noticeably increased the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface ( Nature Geoscience 13 110). Their analysis of solar radiation measurements from the last 40 years revealed that grimy skies over Europe through the 1980s blocked sunlight and made it dimmer at ground level. But the implementation of air-pollution regulations from the late-1980s had a significant brightening effect across Europe. China has followed a similar path but had to wait until around 2005 for its atmospheric clean-up and the accompanying brighter skies.

LOL are we warming up because we pollute less?

Isn’t that a contradiction in terms??

No. The science being discussed here is in dispute - lots of ‘science’ is. The resolution of that dispute should be done scientifically but it will most probably be attempted by politics, enviro-activism, disinformation and everything but science.

In my view it’s already been resolved well enough. The world will heat and cool naturally and the puny, stupid things humans do will have a much lower effect - at staggering cost. We should instead resolve much more pressing human issues.

Remember I mentioned malaria. Start there if you like. It’s easier than changing the climate. Just spray with DDT.

1 Like

your out of context quote there doesnt support my post.
the science is not science is what I am saying as its a prediction on the future with no basis in history

1 Like

Yes, but by some jugheads that is powering about, not by scientists.

the science of the future is a prediction, science has got plenty wrong when they attempt to predict the future via modelling which this is 100%

1 Like