so these ships are abandoned by the companies that own them, with the crew still on board? and then the crew is just stuck there with dwindling food supplies until somebody comes to rescue them?
in my head this seems like a problem that could be solved by getting on the radio to a nearby port and saying "hey, we've got a tanker carrying $50m worth of crude oil, you can have it if you let us dock", but obviously it can't be that simple if that's not happening. why not?
This seems like one of those problems that arise when we let rich people and corporations arbitrage for the lowest possible legal consequences, in this case flags of convenience that have no standards.
There is always some poor or corrupt country willing to ignore consequences as long as they can make a buck. The profits are private, but costs and consequences always laid onto the public. Miserable way to run things.
When you are flying a foreign flag docked in a port you are complex legal situation - in international law, you follow the laws of the flag country, in addition to being under local jurisdiction (most of the time). And if you’re flying a flag for a boat that’s not registered under that flag, which as this article explains is easily verifiable, who is going to buy the oil, and how? not to mention any possible international sanctions on the oil, customs, the crew getting paid and wanting to return home, wherever that may be, and you get situations that can last for a long time. For this case a boat to boat transfer may be the only real way.
> so these ships are abandoned by the companies that own them, with the crew still on board? and then the crew is just stuck there with dwindling food supplies until somebody comes to rescue them?
Yes, basically. The situation is really really nasty, every year thousands of sailors are stuck aboard abandoned ships [1][2]. Sometimes, crews get stuck for years [3] - and the situation is made worse by the fact that leaving ship means forfeiting payment.
If we actually taxed fossil fuel producers what it took to offset the negative externalities offloaded to the public, we'd be 100% on renewables long ago.
And perhaps with an economic collapse to rival the climate outcomes we're afraid of nevermind noncompliance by economies that couldn't begin to survive with such an expensive early switch followed by... what recourse? War?
Wouldn't everything be great if everyone did the super hard thing in the past so all of our problems would be solved and we'd live in peace and perfect harmony! /s
Therefore we should do nothing! Why should I do anything if the folks before and around me didn't already do everything? Moreover, why work on a climate catastrophe for everyone if there's even a chance of negative economic impact for the investor class?
> if everyone did the super hard thing in the past
I'd settle for the present, or the near future, or at all, really, in place of the "let's just drive this bus off the cliff at full speed and hope we learn to fly in midair" policy we've been implicitly choosing.
This kind of thing seems to be pretty core to the oil industry business model. In the US when they don't want to deal with an oil well anymore they have whatever fake shell company owns it declare bankruptcy and then they don't have to deal with cleaning it up (https://www.propublica.org/article/oil-orphan-wells-cleanup-...).
This is a feature of all resource extraction industry. I live in New York - we have 100+ year old oil related hazards in western NY to this day. My folks had a gravel mine near their home that would occasionally cause issues relating to flooding and some sort of contamination that was there.
IMO, these industries need to be heavily taxed if not owned by the government.
> IMO, these industries need to be heavily taxed if not owned by the government.
... or for every building and infrastructure, a bond needs to be placed with the government to be a safeguard for its demolition cost, and for projects that risk environmental damage (mining, oil drills), proof of insurance needs to be provided before the construction begins, and should that insurance ever lapse, the entire property gets seized by the government.
This is another one of those things that, having put no thought into it as something that has sat in the background of life since childhood, I had figured was better organised/protected against malicious, negligent and/or fraudulent behaviour.
The world is far more of a chaotic jungle than the facade makes it appear. There is yet much opportunity for mischief for those who dare and have the resources and lack of moral compass.
Reminds me of the Shipbreakers article from 3 years ago:
https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/the-toxic-tide-of-sh...
The toxic tide of ship breaking https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34905496 - 30 comments
Unforgettable.
The video used for this fan-made film clip is from a documentary called Working Man's Death about ship breaking:
https://youtu.be/KVm8G0ipETc
so these ships are abandoned by the companies that own them, with the crew still on board? and then the crew is just stuck there with dwindling food supplies until somebody comes to rescue them?
in my head this seems like a problem that could be solved by getting on the radio to a nearby port and saying "hey, we've got a tanker carrying $50m worth of crude oil, you can have it if you let us dock", but obviously it can't be that simple if that's not happening. why not?
This seems like one of those problems that arise when we let rich people and corporations arbitrage for the lowest possible legal consequences, in this case flags of convenience that have no standards.
There is always some poor or corrupt country willing to ignore consequences as long as they can make a buck. The profits are private, but costs and consequences always laid onto the public. Miserable way to run things.
When you are flying a foreign flag docked in a port you are complex legal situation - in international law, you follow the laws of the flag country, in addition to being under local jurisdiction (most of the time). And if you’re flying a flag for a boat that’s not registered under that flag, which as this article explains is easily verifiable, who is going to buy the oil, and how? not to mention any possible international sanctions on the oil, customs, the crew getting paid and wanting to return home, wherever that may be, and you get situations that can last for a long time. For this case a boat to boat transfer may be the only real way.
> so these ships are abandoned by the companies that own them, with the crew still on board? and then the crew is just stuck there with dwindling food supplies until somebody comes to rescue them?
Yes, basically. The situation is really really nasty, every year thousands of sailors are stuck aboard abandoned ships [1][2]. Sometimes, crews get stuck for years [3] - and the situation is made worse by the fact that leaving ship means forfeiting payment.
[1] https://www.voanews.com/a/fleet-of-abandoned-ships-is-growin...
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3r4nr2zy2do
[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-56842506
If we actually taxed fossil fuel producers what it took to offset the negative externalities offloaded to the public, we'd be 100% on renewables long ago.
And perhaps with an economic collapse to rival the climate outcomes we're afraid of nevermind noncompliance by economies that couldn't begin to survive with such an expensive early switch followed by... what recourse? War?
Wouldn't everything be great if everyone did the super hard thing in the past so all of our problems would be solved and we'd live in peace and perfect harmony! /s
Therefore we should do nothing! Why should I do anything if the folks before and around me didn't already do everything? Moreover, why work on a climate catastrophe for everyone if there's even a chance of negative economic impact for the investor class?
> if everyone did the super hard thing in the past
I'd settle for the present, or the near future, or at all, really, in place of the "let's just drive this bus off the cliff at full speed and hope we learn to fly in midair" policy we've been implicitly choosing.
This kind of thing seems to be pretty core to the oil industry business model. In the US when they don't want to deal with an oil well anymore they have whatever fake shell company owns it declare bankruptcy and then they don't have to deal with cleaning it up (https://www.propublica.org/article/oil-orphan-wells-cleanup-...).
This is a feature of all resource extraction industry. I live in New York - we have 100+ year old oil related hazards in western NY to this day. My folks had a gravel mine near their home that would occasionally cause issues relating to flooding and some sort of contamination that was there.
IMO, these industries need to be heavily taxed if not owned by the government.
> IMO, these industries need to be heavily taxed if not owned by the government.
... or for every building and infrastructure, a bond needs to be placed with the government to be a safeguard for its demolition cost, and for projects that risk environmental damage (mining, oil drills), proof of insurance needs to be provided before the construction begins, and should that insurance ever lapse, the entire property gets seized by the government.
This problem is one of the reasons Maritime unions worldwide have been significant and strong players in national labour relations.
This is another one of those things that, having put no thought into it as something that has sat in the background of life since childhood, I had figured was better organised/protected against malicious, negligent and/or fraudulent behaviour.
The world is far more of a chaotic jungle than the facade makes it appear. There is yet much opportunity for mischief for those who dare and have the resources and lack of moral compass.
Before I read, I’m going to guess some combination of shady business bullshit and global instability.
reads
Yup.