cherryexile
Vital 1st Team Regular
Here is an interesting addition to my comment #38 from the Beeb talking about the backlog of ships that may cause shortages at Christmas,
90% of global trade is moved by sea and with demand having shown no sign of easing, the shipping industry is looking to tackle its impact on climate change.
It's responsible for about 2% of carbon emissions, meaning that if the industry was a country it would be the sixth biggest polluter, above Germany.
This ties in with Greta Darling's (she is one of Peter Pan's followers isn't she?) comments on the UK's understatement of a 46% reduction in gases only being correct if you ignore transport and import, both by sea and air (a clear example of marketing over responsibility in my view - ignoring things that relate to the country [importing and exporting goods] and just reporting the effects within country borders. I could even go as far as to say "a typical Brexitesque view of the world that ignores the inter-connectivity that actually the planet actually takes place across the planet",
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48025650
As much as I am naturally defensive against the claims of the environmental brigade, the fact that each country chooses to ignore the climate impacts it has over the sea and in the air is a really good example of how we are still dealing with marketing over substance.
In my working world there is a saying, "if you claim not to have any fraud, then you are simply not looking for it", I feel the same sense of 'not looking for bad news' in the way environmental impact is reported by each individual country.
90% of global trade is moved by sea and with demand having shown no sign of easing, the shipping industry is looking to tackle its impact on climate change.
It's responsible for about 2% of carbon emissions, meaning that if the industry was a country it would be the sixth biggest polluter, above Germany.
This ties in with Greta Darling's (she is one of Peter Pan's followers isn't she?) comments on the UK's understatement of a 46% reduction in gases only being correct if you ignore transport and import, both by sea and air (a clear example of marketing over responsibility in my view - ignoring things that relate to the country [importing and exporting goods] and just reporting the effects within country borders. I could even go as far as to say "a typical Brexitesque view of the world that ignores the inter-connectivity that actually the planet actually takes place across the planet",
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48025650
As much as I am naturally defensive against the claims of the environmental brigade, the fact that each country chooses to ignore the climate impacts it has over the sea and in the air is a really good example of how we are still dealing with marketing over substance.
In my working world there is a saying, "if you claim not to have any fraud, then you are simply not looking for it", I feel the same sense of 'not looking for bad news' in the way environmental impact is reported by each individual country.
