In terms of environmental damage, not at all. Container ships burn some of the nastiest, most sulphrous and damaging forms of crude oil in existence, with little to no emissions controls.
I think rail transport is best, but I could be wrong.
This report, for instance (I have not read it completely) says "Rail is generally the cleanest mode of transport for most pollutants" and "Maritime shipping is one of the cleanest mode of freight transport, except for PM and specific sulphur oxide (SOx) emissions". While there is lots of emphasis currently on CO2 emissions, other pollutants are also worth considering.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/specific-...
http://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/hottopics/pages/sulphur-20...
In fact, if global shipping were a country, it would be the sixth largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions. Only the United States, China, Russia, India and Japan emit more carbon dioxide than the world’s shipping fleet. Nevertheless, carbon dioxide emissions from ocean-going vessels are currently unregulated.
According to wikipedia, ships account for 2.2%[1] of co2 emissions. However, the transportation sector as a whole accounts for 29% of co2 emissions. Considering how much ships move, that's pretty good.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shippi...
[2] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
It might be easier for the shipping industry to reduce it's emissions, or it might be easier for India. The benefit(s) of India polluting is spread across 1.3 billion people. The beneficiaries of polluting by the shipping industry is presumably the whole world, though the benefits are unevenly spread. It might be easier or more impactful for one to reduce while the other doesn't, but again, we can't know without more data.
A better comparison would be between shipping and air freight. Or make the case that we don't need to ship if we can produce locally instead. Maybe it could be supplemented by saying that if the cost of the externality (pollution) was borne by the producer of the products, then it would incentivize local production.
My impression was that this was the argument being made. Shipping emissions could be cut dramatically if more things were made close to their end destination.
http://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-biggest-ships-create-mo...
Athens Greece has a pall of smog over it mostly coming from the ships in the harbor as they sit there spewing columns of thick black smoke into the sky. I don't doubt some of the pollution is from vehicles, but it's pretty noticeable how the particulate smog starts in the harbor and moves inland.
Still, shorter is better.
Road freight is 1.3 to 2.4 and air freight is 6.9 to 10.5 waaaay worse than any of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_tran...
I am trying really hard to not post a bunch of expletives here, too many people on HN downvote facts, even with sources (my fault for thinking everyone has a brain and can use Google or something). Wtf happened to this site...
http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/the-inefficiency-of-local...