Container ships are a problem because they usually run on ridiculously dirty fuel, which ends up polluting the ocean. But they're also extremely energy-efficient on a mass/distance basis. A saner world would have them use cleaner fuel[0].
Cars are a problem because at the scale they're used, they're both significant contributor to global warming and inefficient, energy-wise. Electrifying land transportation would fix the inefficiency and significantly reduce the carbon footprint. Powering the new electric fleet with green energy[1] would finally kill the emission issues.
Plastic straws, plastic packaging and other consumer disposables are a problem[2] because the plastic ends up in oceans, where it gets broken by UV into microplastics which then end up back in the food chain. Beyond that, it's mostly a sad thing to see. Energy and emissions-wise, plastic disposables are much smaller problem than other uses of fossil fuels, and sometimes they're likely better than the reusable alternatives proposed. But it's still so fucking sad to see so much garbage existing only as vehicle for marketing.
IMO people need to stop bundling these problems together. Even though they're all related, energy security != global warming != poisons in food chain != ethical considerations about animals. Those are all separate problems, with separate sets of solutions, and quite honestly, different prioritization.
--
[0] - My utopia would have nuclear-powered cargo ships as permanent global infrastructure, essentially treated as virtual conveyor belts.
[1] - Renewables or nuclear.
[2] - And we aren't even sure yet how big a problem this is. AFAIK this topic is covered mostly out of quite reasonable abundance of caution - we've noticed plastics showing up where they aren't supposed to. Even though there isn't any clear danger identified yet, history teaches us that human-released chemicals showing up in unexpected places generally don't lead to happy outcomes.
One reason that they burn dirty fuel is because we have that fuel, and the way our economy works, it's going to be burned somewhere. Making large ships with engines that can burn that fuel was intended to be a way of having the air pollution be produced away from inhabited land.
Having the ships work with cleaner fuel means the dirty fuel will be burned somewhere else, without further changes.
But I agree with your main point -- "sustainability" attracts so much momentum that people try to frame everything under that umbrella. E.g. suffering of animals raised for food production is a problem, but even less related to the things you mention. Still often seen as part of the same agenda as reducing our CO2 output.
Anyway, if there were sufficient political will to do things, taxes would solve this shit overnight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil
>> "Small molecules like those in propane, naphtha, gasoline for cars, and jet fuel have relatively low boiling points, and they are removed at the start of the fractional distillation process. Heavier petroleum products like diesel fuel and lubricating oil are much less volatile and distill out more slowly, while bunker oil is literally the bottom of the barrel; in oil distilling, the only things denser than bunker fuel are carbon black feedstock and bituminous residue (asphalt), which is used for paving roads and sealing roofs. "
I'm asking because I only have a passing familiarity with how oil production works.
>> "It can't be cracked economically?"
This trash oil is produced anyway. There's no way to not make it and still make the less dirty kinds since it's what's left at the end of the process.
I see two possible solutions:
1: Invent commercial fusion reactors and burn it there. I don't know if this would produce less CO2.
2: Find something else to do with the trash oil that's less polluting. Markets are pretty good at finding uses for things, so there may just not be anything else.
Gasoline was a waste product until internal combustion engines came along. Trash oil probably occupied a similar status as waste until someone figured out it worked in ships. If trash oil were no longer economical to burn on ships, they would probably dump it in international waters instead unless some better use was incentivized.
The US and probably other countries pay farmers to destroy some crops to keep it profitable enough to make farming a viable industry. Farmers would sell all their crops without government intervention, driving profits below a sustainable level. They wouldn't just trash it otherwise.
Cargo ship owners are probably the only people who want the leftover oil. The shipping industry burns the oil industry's trash to make their ships go. Make using it uneconomical, and it gets dumped. That's what happens with byproducts no one wants to buy.
It might be a good idea to get people into contact with the smaller problems you mentioned because they are less political and less scary, still somewhat connected and people feel they can make a change. That's more than you get when people shy away instead.
Also, one point of activism is to get people into contact with an issue or a viewpoint so they can get used to the idea slowly, and when the time for changes comes it is familiar and unsurprising. So it's not about changing things right now but to pave the way for change in the future. (Maybe this is obvious, but for me it was a slightly different take of it.)
Not obvious at all. In fact, it's the first time I've encountered this idea. Thanks a lot for writing this. It makes me view some of the activist actions in a different light.
All of this depends on number of people constantly growing, and more of them buying more stuff and doing more stuff.
Even if we move to 100% electric cars powered by renewables tomorrow, that’s 43% of CO2 output. After decades, we are not even at the point where we can do that much, by the way. Grid-scale battery storage is an essential part of the equation, and we are not there yet.
We are still at the beginning stages of even thinking about the other 57%. Electrifying the national freight rail grid would be massively expensive. (Keeping overheard catenary well maintained is so expensive that Maryland’s commuter rail is moving to diesel locomotives for Baltimore to DC service, even though the corridor was electrified more than a century ago.) There are no commercially available electric trucks yet.
That stuff can’t wait for later. To limit temperature increases to 2C, we need to immediately cut global CO2 by three times as much as the US’s total CO2 output. Meanwhile, in the last couple of decades, China has added more than a US worth of CO2 output. If India develops similarly, we’ll add another US and a half. Europe and the US going to zero output won’t cancel out those increases. Even the communist party’s goal in China only calls for 20% electric cars by 2025.
The reliable models we have show that if we don’t cut emissions dramatically and immediately, we will need to go to negative emissions in the short term. That’s another generational problem. Carbon recapture is in its infancy. Look how long it took to perfect solar.
I'm not sure about how that chart is constructed, but for me it's obvious that we need to lower the carbon intensity of electricity production right now. That would "eliminate" 32% of the chart, and I guess also have a dent in the other pies.
I don't see how stopping consuming or fundamentally changing society is a better or even faster way to achieving our goals.
I think it's absurd to talk about trying to radically change society before you stop burning fossil fules for electricity.
Cutting emissions dramatically and immediately is by deploying nuclear, and by electrifying your rail lines.
This is a sentiment that rubs me the wrong way. I totally agree that we, at a global scale, need to drastically reduce our carbon footprint. And these reductions will have changes to our society. But many of the suggestions of those currently engaged in the cultural revolution are either focusing on small problems (like not buying food in plastic containers) or have complicated unintended consequences (like buying locally grown foods).
Shipping stuff on large boats is incredibly efficient per kg/km. It's not unlikely that I emit more Co2 driving my car to/from the grocery store than the emissions from shipping all the things I purchase to the store itself.
We should focus on things like stopping the burning of fossil fule for electricity generation and carbon natural land based transportation long before we almost religiously ban plastic straws.
I don't think the best way forward to actually solving this problem is engaging in some almost Protestant self hatred and punishment, trying to make the transition as impactful on our lives as possible.