In Shallow Water Ships Trigger Seafloor Methane Emissions, Study Finds (msn.com) 52
An anonymous reader shared this report from the Washington Post:
Ships trigger seafloor methane emissions while moving through shallow water, researchers report in Communications Earth & Environment. The scientists say the unexpected discovery has nothing to do with the type of fuel used by the ship. Instead, "ship-induced pressure changes and turbulent mixing" trigger the release of the gas from the seafloor. Bubbles and gas diffusion push the methane into the atmosphere, where it acts as a greenhouse gas...
Container and cruise ships triggered the largest and most frequent methane emissions, but the study suggests that ships of all kinds, regardless of their type of engine or size, trigger methane emissions. Researchers said they observed emissions that were 20 times higher in the shipping lane than in undisturbed nearby areas. Given the number of ports in similarly shallow areas worldwide, it's important to learn more about emissions in shipping lanes and to better estimate their "hitherto unknown impact," study co-author Johan Mellqvist, a professor of optical remote sensing at Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden, said in a news release.
Container and cruise ships triggered the largest and most frequent methane emissions, but the study suggests that ships of all kinds, regardless of their type of engine or size, trigger methane emissions. Researchers said they observed emissions that were 20 times higher in the shipping lane than in undisturbed nearby areas. Given the number of ports in similarly shallow areas worldwide, it's important to learn more about emissions in shipping lanes and to better estimate their "hitherto unknown impact," study co-author Johan Mellqvist, a professor of optical remote sensing at Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden, said in a news release.
Re: (Score:1)
...with precise empirical observation that whenever I go wading in the surf after eating Taco Bell, there are bubbly methane emissions of a marine type.
Well, of a beachgoer type. A mess hall omelette fueled Marine will have emissions of an entirely different type. :-)
Easy fix ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
the green thing to do is build products on the continent they will be sold on.
If the raw materials are all on one continent, the end users are on another, and the finished product is less massive than the raw materials, it's going to require less shipping to build it where the raw materials are then ship it to the customer.
Also, what about things like coffee, that simply don't grow everywhere they are consumed?
Re: (Score:2)
the green thing to do is build products on the continent they will be sold on.
If the raw materials are all on one continent, the end users are on another, and the finished product is less massive than the raw materials, it's going to require less shipping to build it where the raw materials are then ship it to the customer.
Sure, assuming the pollution of resource acquisition and the pollution of manufacturing is also figured in. Otherwise a locale might externalize the pollution to falsely appear greener than they actually are.
Also, what about things like coffee, that simply don't grow everywhere they are consumed?
No one said manufacture locally is always possible. Just that a goal of being greener may justify different practices than a goal of having cheaper goods. "Cheaper" has a cost at times; pollution, labor abuse, predatory behavior, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
If you build local you won't have to ship quite so much stuff global. Giving you more room for raw materials and coffee beans.
Climate change will probably kill off the coffee industry, perhaps at the end of the century. You might have to learn to love roast chicory and dandelion root.
waves (Score:1)
So, how does the total emission compare to normal ocean waves hitting the beach?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://phys.org/news/2025-01-... [phys.org]
January 23, 2025
An underestimated source of methane found in shallow coastal waters
by Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Shallow coastal waters are hotspots for methane emissions, releasing significant amounts of this potent greenhouse gas into the atmosphere and contributing to global warming. New research highlights how tides, seasons, and ocean currents strongly influence methane emissions and how tiny microorganisms, called methanotrophs, help reduce their impac
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why coffee couldn't be shipped by train (beyond possibly the lack of railroads in certain locations - which should be built) - the only body of water that separates the United States from Colombia, for example, is the Panama Canal, which presumably has at least one railroad or tunnel over it. While Europe doesn't have access to Colombia, there are land bridges to similar climates where coffee presumably could grow quite well.
That said, this is all me doing an "Acksurely" on a minor point you're
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So containerships are a problem, so the green thing to do is build products on the continent they will be sold on.
To counter your top-down slightly moralistic solution, a fairly standard economic analysis is that this effect is an externally borne cost (a negative externality), and it should be taxed equal to the amount of harm done, and the tax should be distributed to the ones that are harmed (in proportion to the harm). This is a logistical nightmare, requiring agreement from multiple governments about what the harm is and how the proceeds should be distributed. But it's a tidy theory because shipping would be less
How about create no one to compensate? (Score:2)
So containerships are a problem, so the green thing to do is build products on the continent they will be sold on.
To counter your top-down slightly moralistic solution, a fairly standard economic analysis is that this effect is an externally borne cost (a negative externality), and it should be taxed equal to the amount of harm done, and the tax should be distributed to the ones that are harmed (in proportion to the harm).
You are not countering, you are discussing a tangent. Who is to bear the cost of the current damage. My argument is to not incur the damage in the first place, create no one to compensate.
Re: (Score:2)
You're just pushing the damage to somewhere else where is less easily counteracted. You're sweeping it under the rug.
Yes, if you don't ship internationally the farmer in India may be less impoverished due to climate change. But the brewer in Spain will certainly be impoverished by having to pay four times as much for the brewing vessels. And that's a silly example--everything would cost more. Every country that trades would be poorer. Your suggestion in tantamount to eliminative comparative advantage betwee
Re: (Score:2)
You're just pushing the damage to somewhere else where is less easily counteracted. You're sweeping it under the rug.
Absolutely incorrect. You have it backwards actually. If things were manufactured on the continent sold then the US and EU would not be able to greenwash their stats by exporting the pollution of manufacturing to China, which then externalizes the cost to acquire more manufacturing deals.
But the brewer in Spain will certainly be impoverished by having to pay four times as much for the brewing vessels.
Nope. Local vendors would no longer be competing against vendors on other continents artificially lowering their costs through pollution externalization, labor abuse, and a host of other misdeeds.
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding greenwashing: okay, but we're not discussing advertising.
Regarding competition: when you limit the competition, you're also limiting the customers. It's two sides of the coin. Local vendors also can't sell beyond whatever area you limit trade to. That prevents economies of scale and makes a lot of production unrealistic. Do you like being able to afford more than one pair of shoes per year?
This is really hard to think about. You might enjoy the Econ Talk podcast. It's at a level for ordinary peopl
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding competition: when you limit the competition, you're also limiting the customers. It's two sides of the coin. Local vendors also can't sell beyond whatever area you limit trade to.
I'm suggesting limiting trade to continents, that represents quite large potential markets. Also, a vendor based on one continent can open factories and sell on another continent. We see this today with Japanese and German automakers who have factories in the US.
That prevents economies of scale and makes a lot of production unrealistic.
What greenhouse gas reduction plan does not have costs?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I didn't take that as a serious argument. Sea freight is much more efficient than trucking. Without hard numbers on the methane emissions, I assume that's still the case methane emissions. If you switch to trucking, things would probably be worse, but either way you'd still want a Pigouvian tax to prevent people from shopping from southern Mexico to eastern Canada to save a small amount of money at the cost of high shipping emissions and/or outsourcing of harm.
Reducing emissions is important but ever
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I didn't take that as a serious argument. Sea freight is much more efficient than trucking.
You do realize that when goods are delivered to a seaport, it still has to be distributed within the continent by land?
Just as if it had been manufactured within that continent?
Re: (Score:2)
Haha, that was silly of me--thanks for calling me out.
Re: (Score:2)
Btw, I realize this conversation has run its course, but you should know that shipping is vastly less emissive than trucking. Vastly. And that "don't ship" is the same as a very high Pigouvian tax--high enough that nobody would do it. But maybe there's net positive value from lowering it some, so some parties would ship. For example that way you could have coffee and tea. If you buy this argument, then the actual proper rate would be somewhere between "net zero value" for the ones that are harmed (low tax)
Re: (Score:2)
Btw, I realize this conversation has run its course, but you should know that shipping is vastly less emissive than trucking.
I get that. But, unlike the land transportation, it seems optional. Secondarily, resource acquisition and manufacturing in the US or EU would be less emitting than current providers who have acquired share through externalizing pollution, labor abuse, etc. Basically a host of bad practices that could be eliminated by operating under US or EU law.
And my primary mental image is auto manufacturing. Japanese and German automakers who opened factories in the US. Shipping reduced, market still satisfied. Some
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh. And as an added benefit to your idea, cars are at the top of the food chain. It's not gonna have a huge amount of unintended consequences like if you limited importing raw materials.
Though shipping by sea may still require less trucking than trucking from Detroit (or wherever).
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh. And as an added benefit to your idea, cars are at the top of the food chain. It's not gonna have a huge amount of unintended consequences like if you limited importing raw materials.
No one said anything about limiting things that can't be produced locally.
Re:Easy fix ... [Onshore factories] (Score:2)
David Ricardo's grave is now releasing methane.
Re:Easy fix ... (Score:4)
with the ship passage (presumably creating pressure waves that disturb the muck).
Would natural (tidal, volcanic, storm-caused) disturbances release
less methane, or more, or the same amount, in the absence of shipping?
There's no clear benefit to that fix.
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno, I go out on the mud flats and oyster bars of the gulf coast for my fishing just about every weekend, and yes, just walking in the mud or shoving thru it with a paddle, or disturbing bottom with my trolling motor prop can bring some nasty smelling gasses out
I would think though that any channel large enough for a big ship like what you'd want to use to transport goods (as opposed to a 12-18' flat bottom boat or canoe or pontoon) would have sufficient current flow and regular disturbances from passing
Re: (Score:2)
The observation is a weak one, correlating the release of gas with the ship passage (presumably creating pressure waves that disturb the muck).
Not really. There is a claim made by other than rising water temperatures will melt or otherwise increase the amount of methane released. Making such disturbances release even more methane.
Would natural (tidal, volcanic, storm-caused) disturbances release less methane, or more, or the same amount, in the absence of shipping?
An irrelevant point. The shipping disturbances are adding to whatever is occurring naturally.
There's no clear benefit to that fix.
Other than the claimed existential climate change crisis that demands we alter our society in major ways even for the most modest improvements? Are you making a climate change denial argument? :-)
We keep finding new sources of emissions (Score:1)
It's no wonder the predictions of calamity and the real world weather keep getting worse.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to think who I sent money to.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to think
I have doubts, but if you are trying, you're failing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I would expect it is primarily happening through vibration rather than turbulence, which would be tied to engine use more than oars or sails.
Could be useful (Score:4)
Buildup of methyl clathrates beneath the ocean floor have been implicated in mass-extinction events of the past. If overpressure from a ship's wake can partially release clathrates, we can control oceanic methane releases and prevent a mass release event in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
That too. It may be difficult to leverage the methane release phenomenon mentioned in the summary/article for actual collection of clathrates though.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems likely to be caused by vibration, so we could deploy a collection tent and play the seafloor some thumpin' bass.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans invent ever more ways to F up Earth.
Re: (Score:1)
What to do? (Score:2)
What a terrible title (Score:2, Redundant)
What's wrong with "Ships in shallow water trigger seafloor methane emissions"?
Global Trade by Ship Bad (Score:1)
banit (Score:2)
Ban all ships! Save the planet!
How much area are we talking? (Score:2)
Seriously, how much of the Earth's surface is "shallow" (and how do you define shallow) where ships are moving? How does that compare with emissions from wetlands which a lot of people seem to want to protect and expand?