You won't believe how an obscure regulator may make gas prices explode in 2020 with this one trick!
 

Billions hate him!

Gas Prices Expected to Rise in 2020—Thanks to an Obscure UN Regulator

Yet another great reason to oust those fools from New York and forever put paid to "Global Government."

The United states doesn't have to import oil.

Plus I drive an electric.

Probably it will lead to an increase in the amount of LNG-powered ships from Asian shipping companies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrodesulfurization.

It isn't hard. It isn't entirely free though. Fuel costs would rise somewhat, but not prohibitively.

Wasn't this a thread already? Something about phasing out bunker fuel.

They will just go back to coal.

Air pollution kills 6(?) million people per year. The wildest unregulated pollution is burned bunker oil. Examinations of ship pollution has been on-going for many decades & regulations should have been enacted over a decade ago.The post of Xist, as if one person regulates world wide shipping, is immoral & kicks air pollution killed people in the teeth, if the dead still have teeth.
///////
http://www.livebunkers.com/bunker-fuel-pollution
From the report:
There are 760 million cars in the world today emitting approx 78,599 tons of Sulphur Oxides (SOx) annually. The world's 90,000 vessels burn approx 370 million tons of fuel per year emitting 20 million tons of Sulphur Oxides. That equates to 260 times more Sulphur Oxides being emitted by ships than the worlds entire car fleet. One large ship alone can generate approx 5,200 tonnes of sulphur oxide pollution in a year, meaning that 15 of the largest ships now emit as much SOx as the worlds 760 million cars.
///////
Regulate bunker oil now, which compassion toward mankind, would have regulated long ago.

Maybe ships will use more sails.......
Anyhow, the shipping companies & CEO's had decades to prepare, & they did build monster container ships. As Khan said, "Let them eat static".

You mean more regulations, control, and government interference? No thanks.

6 million is less than 0.1% of the world's population (7-8 billion). Restricting 99.9% of the populace to save 0.1% is ridiculous.

Maybe if you're not one of that 0.1% of the population. If you were one of those 6M you'd be wanting more restrictions. I don't like the idea of more government regulations and higher prices any more than the next person but I don't think it's right to put a $ amount on human life. An older friend of mine was hospitalized early last week for pneumonia. By Thursday they had sent him home because medicare wouldn't cover him staying any longer. Government and insurance companies have more power anymore than the treating physicians and that's not right.

... and making shipping more expensive effectively makes everything cost more, which effectively makes everyone poorer, which actually kills people.

Making things cost more is "kicking the teeth" of those that have died as a result of lack of material needs.

We've already shown that as worldwide prosperity increases, death decreases. The only thing left to determine is if the SOx pollution, which is short lived and mostly confined to the location in which it's emitted (mostly out at sea), kills more people, or if the decrease in material wealth due to more expensive shipping would kill more people.

All decisions have opportunity costs associated. There is no such thing as a decision that is without expense to something else.

I am shocked, shocked to find that fuel requirements are going to be... Oh, right, it's been coming for years. Too many business "planners" never look beyond the next quarterly report when making their plans.

I'm actually a fan of clean air, despite the immediate, measurable expense for polluters. If .01% die from poor air quality, how many more are sickened or otherwise suffer? Do polluters get credit for the added economic activity of those people seeking treatment or buying air purifiers?

As simple policy, I'm in favor of less pollution. I don't care who makes money from it.

First mention on the topic of the pollution here:

https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthre...ers-19988.html

...and here's the original thread talking about this exact topic:

https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthre...ump-37303.html

Why not continue conversation in the original for the sake of continuity?

mpg_numbers_guy muffs its numbers. 6 million people per year over a lifetime is over a third of a billion people. Dying to breathe is tough enough. But when living people say to dying people, "You're not worth it", the sadistic, living people should be allowed to exit life, first.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/at-la...ts-dirty-fuels

https://fruitworldmedia.com/wp-conte...-pollution.jpg

We know global warming cultists have made numerous attacks against international commerce.
Last time they were crying about how mersk produced as much CO2 as whatever small country.
Of course they always offer the same solutions for both problems.

The question then arises, who will implement these regulations? Physicians can't. It then becomes yet another government program, another overreach of government authority into private life.

It is NOT okay to punish 99.9% of the population to save 0.1%.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about less pollution, but I think it should come from individual and organizational effort, not government regulation.

Huh. I am subscribed to that thread. I shall commit ritual Sudoku.

Wait, what was I supposed to do?

No need for that at all:
https://fruitworldmedia.com/wp-conte...-pollution.jpg

..... except when international commerce attacks young children & general populations of people living near sea ports & heavily polluted shipping lanes. "4 oil pans" makes shipping sound like a poor whimpering dog in the corner, instead of the boardroom plotting CEO's, who increase their deep & black child-killing pollution rates, so the CEO's are richer.

LOL do those people not deserve to live? How many people need to die before the threshold is reached to do something about this pollution? Is there a magic number? Are the lives of other living breathing human beings less valuable than some "pain" at the gas pump? Is paying an extra 30 cents for a gallon of gas a "punishment" so intolerable that it warrants the deaths of others?

Yeah when pigs fly right?

Some government-enforced regulations might be unavoidable, but it does require some long-term planning, and technical aspects must be observed in order to reach a reasonable balance between the so-called "sustainability" and the viability of the operation.

I'll take a stab at this one...

My first objection is regarding how the data shows x number of people die due to y every t amount of time.. How was that determined? The worlds people are living longer than at any other time in history, and that despite whatever the pollution levels are. Then, who's to say they were killed by pollution? It may have been a contributing factor and they would have died a day later had the pollution not been around. So the fact is suspect to begin with and lacks any context at all.

We put monetary value on human life all the time. Absolutely everything made could be made safer if only some incremental amount more was spent. At some point we determine that something has been made safe enough, and we accept that people will still die.

So, would I personally spend $0.30 more per gallon to save 1 human life; absolutely. I'd do that the rest of my life if I knew some person whose life would have been cut much shorter could instead live a "full life". If instead the $0.30/gallon saves 1/100,000th of a life that was cut 1 month shorter than it otherwise would have, then no, I'm not spending the extra thirty cents.

It's absolutely pointless and evil to try to paint someone as heartless just because they understand that everything is a trade-off and that their calculus for that trade-off differs.

...as to MPG guy; the way he phrased the response was either intended to provoke a reaction, which you provided, or perhaps he doesn't actually care that much.

That's a good point. BTW most of the eco-terrorists who try to paint everyone else as evil for not following their bandwagon are the first ones to reject some practical solutions for the real problems.

I'd rather donate 60 cents a gallon to an organization actively working to improve the living conditions of humans, than 30 cents a gallon to the government, of which only a fraction of it will do anything.

Redpoint did a good job of expounding on what I didn't really have the time to say. I won't repeat it for risk of redundancy.

So what are we going to do then, force people to be charitable through government regulations? Look at history; the more control the government has over a person's personal freedom, belongings, money, etc., the poorer the nation usually is and the quicker it is to fall.

Straw man/slippery slope argument, etc., possibly, but while yes, this is just one regulation, but then it becomes one more, and one more, and then one more, until you have total governmental dictatorship, initiated by an ignorant population that willingly submitted themselves to an unrevealed tyranny.

Not going to engage in a debate on this topic as that will derail from the thread, but consider examples such as Venezuela, and the former USSR and Nazi Germany. How many lives have been lost due to all that?

I've already had the chance to talk with people who have lived under those examples. If I were still fool enough to believe that some "government-enforced solidarity" could actually work, talking to those people would've opened my mind. Sure some degree of environmental awareness and its impact on the lives of other people is a relevant matter, but it would be pointless to get rid of common sense in order to achieve a so-called "equality" which leaves anyone but the leading politics to extreme povertry.

Thanks for calling me evil and referring to people like me as eco-terrorists. That's what I am and deserve to be called because I gave a s*** about some other people. That makes me evil. Thank you.

Also the hypothetical 30 cents doesn't go to the government it goes to the oil companies or refineries to pull the sulpher out of the fuel. We are talking about the fuel the boats are using. Unless I understand the problem incorrectly, I thought it was pressure on the companies to refine the fuel will cost them money and the price of doing that will affect general global gas prices. Am I missing something?

And what the heck are you guys trying to do here? Do you guys like breathing in smog? We have smog here it sucks it is not a good time. My understanding is my city has high rates of asthma and ear infections because of it. Are you trying to defend air pollution? Or is it just some government conspiracy jfk assassination illuminati lizard people interior sun bull**** the government is trying to pull over on us so they can have the new world order? If it's a conspiracy they're doing a really good job because I can see it in the sky. It must have cost them a lot of money to make the sky hazy on bad smog days. Gosh I'd hate to live in California I can't even imagine what they deal with.

Once or twice a year I come in here and post something to ruffle the feathers of the wonderful collection of climate deniers and paranoid conspiracy theorists we have in the ecomodder lounge forum. I don't have the energy or time or patience to fight with the people in here all the time and I know I won't get any backup because this is an echo chamber for people like you.

And yes you in particular redpoint, I have read many of your posts over the years, and as far as I can tell you seem to think you've got everything figured out on all kinds of topics and you know what's best. And you probably have enough financial stability and confidence that in your life you may never experience a comeuppance or defeat that may challenge your perspective on things or give you a sense of humility. And you aren't even unique in that respect. There are countless others like you who walk through their lives sure of themselves and everything because it all works out perfectly in your minds, but at the end of the day we are just over evolved monkeys and you're no exception. You don't have a monopoly on wisdom just because you have an easier time putting words together or you have undentable confidence. And you can use that to swat me away as though I am an annoying fly. And you can say "oh look you reacted to this post see i triggered you" and discount everything I say, but just because you are unshaken doesn't mean you actually know anything or are right about any of the topics discussed in this thread, or the other ones I've read where you weighed in.

You are out of your mind if you think having pollution controls against cargo ships burning high sulpher fuels is going to lead to the fall of nations that embrace that regulation.

You're right, it's evil to be concerned about the total annihilation of our environment. I should get out of big oil's way. They know what's best. I'll sell my Honda Insight and buy an Escalade so I can better support the oil companies.

Already anticipated and addressed your response:

^ extra emphasis added by me

And no, don't misuse my words. I don't believe that pollution control in and of itself will cause the fall of nations. Excessive government control beyond protecting and preserving basic human freedom causes poverty and death; the examples I already mentioned prove this. Oftentimes this does cause either the downfall of the nation, or a virtual enslavement of its people.

I believe our energy would be better spent advocating for electric vehicles than about overtaxing gasoline.

Well, while you guys argue the morals and ethics of saving the world I think I'll go buy a small fleet of high mileage econoboxes while the price is down so I can sell them next year at double the price. ;)
JJ

Your examples of the nazis or Venezuela are so far out and off topic that I don't understand why you bothered to include them, as they in no way support your argument. "Excessive government control beyond protecting and preserving basic human freedom causes poverty and death" like what does that have to do with Hitler? He was a strong man dictator who swept into power at the right time. He didn't over-regulate the economy of Germany to the point that people died, he went and built the camps and propped up his government by attacking minorities. This wasn't an out of control regulatory regime that has anything remotely to do with pollution control or atmospheric protection. Same with Venezuela, they have had strongman dictators who give 0 f***s about the environment, they only care about the 1 thing all strongman dictators care about -- staying in power and then expanding that power. Which is why they kill their own people or they start dumb wars like WWI and WWII.

Hitler WON WWII before it became a world war. He just got cocky (they always do!) and decided to attack Russia for no reason. Europe hasn't had another war that in any way compares to that for the last 75 years because it hasn't been run by strongman dictators for the last 75 years. The EU exists as a remnant of the cold war effort to build institutions and trade agreements in order to stop dumb wars like that from happening again.

We aren't talking about a gasoline tax in this thread. The price increase is money that goes to the refineries//oil companies because they have to produce more of the lower sulpher content fuel. I just converted my Insight to LTO last weekend so I'm already on the electrification track anyway.

Yes exactly. I've been buying, fixing, and selling old Insights the last couple of years. There are low income people who can benefit from cheap and reliable fuel saving cars that will save them money. Affordable transportation can let people find better work and get better jobs.

Seems like all the low income people around here want a huge truck or SUV.
Then they get more money, get a better paying job ect they buy a new huge truck or SUV.
They don't use it to do anything but drive around because they live in town and are broke.

I see the problem. By purchasing economical and efficient cars I am denying myself the ability to afford more expensive inefficient vehicles.

Don't take it personally. When I refer to eco-terrorists, it's about some folks who use a fake concern about the environment in order to push an anti-development agenda. I am favorable to some measures that I believe are good when it comes to reach a balance between environment protection and economical development, but I don't agree with some groups and so-called "activists".


I'm not unfavorable to decrease the sulphur content on bunker fuel, but using it as an excuse to increase the price of anything else sounds quite pointless for me. Sulphur has other uses in the chemical and pharmaceutical industry, which could cover at least some part of the impact on fuel prices.

I don't think there are many people that fake a concern for the environment, and if there are, I cannot see why they'd favor anti-development as a motive over more common human weaknesses like greed.
I'd expect those motives at the other side; those vested in fossil fuel related business who fear change more than death.

There's plenty of people who pretend to care about the environment. They are called virtue signalers.
These are the ones who say they care about the environment and CO2 but still live in the city and drive a gas burner, but think other people should be forced to buy electric vehicles.
People who rail against fracking but use natural gas.
People who rail against the oil industry but depend on the oil industry to make their car go or the air plane fly when they want to travel.
People who live in the city and think they know more about farming than farmers, more about ranching than ranchers, or more about sustainable forestry than foresters.
You get the idea.

First, I apologize for sounding like I'm calling you evil. I don't have that impression of you at all. That said, I do sometimes point out what evil behavior looks like, and it has to do with viewing certain people as "others"; something less than human. I'm guilty of that behavior often myself, so I'm just as much in need of having bad behavior and ideas pointed out to me.

You've got me pegged as having an unhealthy confidence. That said, my genuine purpose for participating in forums is to learn, and that requires that I state things as I see them and allow them to be picked apart. I can honestly say that it brings me more joy to be shown to be wrong than to beat someone else's idea down, because that's an instance where I grow in understanding. So even though I state things with confidence from the perspective I have, I hold those thoughts as loosely as I can manage because I want to be willing to let them go if necessary.

Your point about humility is a good one. We'll all lose absolutely everything, so pain and suffering is something common to everyone in varying degrees and ways.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my post and contributing on the forum. I'd disagree that we have an echochamber here, which is the appeal of this forum.

Found this about emission regulations for ships
For Environmental regulations | DAIHATSU DIESEL

Nowadays some ships even have to rely on DEF generation aboard, in order to avoid the DEF to deteriorate.
http://www.dhtd.co.jp/assets/flash/pdf_scr_en/book.pdf