Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It's only that cheap because they're using our atmosphere as a free open sewer



In terms of carbon let's calculate that. Rotterdam to Shanghai is about 9000 km. The package is 250 g. Container ship transport is about 15 grams of carbon per kilometer per metric ton. So a total emission of 2.25 grams of carbon for the trip.

It costs about $600 to remove a ton of carbon from the atmosphere the hard way, rather than messing about with tree credits and other stuff that's too easy to game. So we'd want to add another $.001 to the price to account for the cost of the carbon involved in transporting it. Bulk container ships are very energy efficient compared to other sorts of transportation.

However, they do use bunker fuel and the above doesn't take account of all the sulfur and particulates that gets emitted.


> It costs about $600 to remove a ton of carbon from the atmosphere the hard way

I think I found the source you used to get that number[0] (or [1]) it says:

> Atmospheric carbon removal can be as simple (and relatively inexpensive) as planting trees. But to remove sufficient carbon to meet the target, new technologies will be needed. Some are currently being piloted, including potentially expensive and/or environmentally-invasive technologies. Costs are estimated to range up to $600 per tonne of sequestered CO2, although no one really knows for sure.

So I don't think we should be using hypothetical future tech (with a big question mark to boot) to put a dollar value on pollution emitted transporting goods today, particularly when it focuses on carbon and doesn't account for the other emissions.

[0] - https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-10-06-carbon-removal-will-cos...

[1] - could actually have been this one, which starts by describing it as $600/ton and later clarifies that this is using experimental tech: https://www.science.org/content/article/cost-plunges-capturi...


Plus ocean pollution and other disruption, directly due to ships or infrastructure for them.


Naturally. I see this increase in cost as a good simulation of what would happen if we had a heavy, global carbon tax.

To me it isn't nearly as bad as the dark scenarios some conjured.


The insane part is a carbon tax wouldn't be that high, it's only about 1-10% of the cost to save the world




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: