We often say that CO₂ emissions from shipping are hard-to-abate but 40% by weight of what we ship are fossil fuels so it should get easier when we decarbonize.

And as long as the method of decarbonisation isn't akin to that used at the Drax power station in the UK, which burns wood pellets from North American forests (including old-growth forests).

Assuming we don’t ship the decarbonized alternatives.

Suspect some decent % of fossil fuel shipping might be replaced by shipping ammonia/synfuels. But who knows. At the very least that coal demand is doing to evaporate

Great, thanks! Coal first, since its value (joules / kg) is lowest and its damage to the environment highest. Oil next because so many regions have *some* oil, so as demand drops, need for shipped oil will collapse. (do have a source for this, btw?)

I could barely believe this when I first learned it! But of course it makes sense.

There's regular updates on the replacement of heavy oil engines in splash247.comwww.corepower.energy/about/mission

Presumably some share of that would turn into green fuels- I wonder what the best guess is

The loss of the sulphur emissions from the shipping fleets, that were partly shielding some regions of the planet from global heating, remains a major issue, it seems...

Question how much of the remaining 60% is useless plastic products? Maybe it’s even more …

So many lay-ups and free throws we're no even attempting to hit so we can keep on chunking up carbon-capture half-court shots instead