Dear all,
Amongst other things I run the information website www.flyless.info - a site dedicated to the soft sell of the benefits of travelling without flying, given the environmental impact of air travel.
One of the major solutions we push is passenger travel by cargo ship. We promote the tour operators that provide bookings, and provide some focus on the aesthetic benefits of cargo ship travel.
Doing some research today, however, I've discovered some conflicting information on how sustainable - primarily in terms of CO2 emissions - travel by cargo ship currently is, and how sustainable it can be in the future.
Can anyone help clarify these questions?
- Present day cargo ship travel -
Sidestepping the debate about air travel, in summary it seems there really is no sustainable long or short-term solution for fast cross-ocean travel. The technology and economics will not allow it.
The sustainable shift that is needed for transatlantic crossings and similar ocean crossings is 'slow travel'. By taking more time the journey can be made environmentally sound.
The only present way to do this is by cargo ship. The ethos of slow travel can be practiced today, as I'm about to do travelling from the UK to Canada by cargo ship.
However the information on how polluting cargo ships currently are seems mixed:
"Despite the fact that shipping carries 75% of world trade, last week's Stern Report showed that shipping and rail combined produce only 1.75% of greenhouse gas emissions - compared with 10.5% for road transport"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1942795,00.html
"While oceangoing vessels worldwide account for just 2 to 3 percent of global fossil-fuel consumption, they are responsible for 14 percent of the nitrogen emissions from fossil fuels and 16 percent of all sulfur emissions from petroleum, according to a study by Carnegie Mellon University.
One reason: cargo ships run on "bunker fuel," the dirtiest, cheapest product that remains after gas and other high-grade fuels are refined from crude oil. Bunker fuel contains up to 5,000 times more sulfur than diesel. As a result, according to Bluewater Network, a division of Friends of the Earth, a single container ship emits more pollution than 2,000 diesel trucks."
http://www.grist.org/biz/tp/2006/05/23/shipping/
My argument for passenger travel on cargo ships rather planes for long haul travel is as follows:
Despite the increased cost, duration, potential for delay or cancellation, I am not supporting the unsustainable flight industry. I am instead 'free-riding' on the emissions of a separate industry - so not directly contributing to them, whilst at the same time, increasing the demand for and pushing the economics in the direction of, a return to long-haul passenger freight.
- Future cargo ship travel -
Firstly there seems to be great scope through the sails, fuel technology and so on to make cargo shipping much more sustainable (hence this website).
As more people demand a 'slow travel' alternative to long-haul transatlantic and other flights, a market for dedicated passenger cargo travel could be created, using future sustainable shipping technology.
The main stumbling block in all of this is getting people to accept the ethos of 'slow travel' and to start demanding it en-masse. This is slowly starting to happen, through the voluntary noflying movement, and is one purpose of my website and other work, and of the work of others.
Am I on the right lines with these arguments?
Is shipping currently so hideously unsustainable that I shouldn't even slightly support it with my passenger travel?
Could a big shift in demand ever translate into a market for much greater passenger travel by cargo ship?
And how quickly could cargo ship travel become much more sustainable than air travel, in terms of emissions per passenger?
