Skip navigation
10comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Lily Wells

May 4, 2014
12:20

Member


1 |
Share via:
Transport through the artic is dangerous for marine environment and that risk outweighs any emission benefit. Far better to get rid of bunker fuel worldwide, use of natural gas, or low sulfur fuel

Johnnie Buttram

May 8, 2014
11:06

Member


2 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Dear Lilygisella, Thank you for your comment and concern regarding the Arctic. On the 6/11/13 I submitted to Co Lab . . "Fossil Fuel Extraction and the Burden of International Security!" which I believed could someday become a major Planetary dilemma. Although . . I was disappointed to receive only 3 supportive votes for this proposal . . I am now encouraged to receive your comment and concern the Arctic is highly regarded and valued to the continued sustenance of Planet Earth.

Paul Wolfram

May 16, 2014
08:32

Fellow


3 |
Share via:
What is the main objective of your proposal? Reduced CO2 emissions or higher revenues for shipping companies? There could be a rebound effect, i.e. shipping gets faster and cheaper sothat more and more ships are travelling, which undermine the initial CO2 reductions. Also, I think your proposal might decrease CO2 emissions in the southern hemisphere but at the same time increase CO2 emissions in the northern hemisphere. Furthermore, according to Oceans North (http://www.oceansnorth.org/industrial-shipping-protecting-life) black carbon from ships can settle on the ice and snow, which makes it melting even faster. Hence, we would only support climate change and even accelerate it. A second point that Oceans North mentions are Arctic indigenous people. Their traditional way of life should be protected and not being jeopardized solely out of economic interest. Similar situations occurred with indigenous tribes many times before in the world history.

Johnnie Buttram

May 17, 2014
04:59

Member


4 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Dear Paul Wolfram, When I wrote the proposal. . Fracking Ice . . I had no preconceived agenda to give the shipping operators an advantage or disadvantage over the other issues involved. I will agree this proposal, like many others on planetary drawing boards, has both positive and negative features. There is an old saying, "That beauty is in the eye of the beholder!" Your comments merit the concern of those who will view, review, and ultimately decide what is best for their agenda. Your comments have also prompted me to ask myself questions which could possibly make interesting topics for future CoLab proposals and discussion. The questions are; (1) When someone pens a proposal that focuses on innovation and the results prove negative or hurtful, where is the burden of responsibility placed? On the messenger or on those who put the innovation in motion or both parties? (2) If the innovation proves positive and helpful and beneficial to our planet, who gains the credibility, etc.? Over the years, I have observed that sometimes in our search for the pros and cons of black and white climate issues, we sometimes end up with subtle shades of gray. Tragically, this sometimes will translate into loss or gain of lives. I sincerely believe Climate CoLab has built into their program well thought out contingencies to view, review, and reduce these shades to a minimum.

Johnnie Buttram

May 19, 2014
03:04

Member


5 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Paul . . please note . . As a follow-up to my comments - the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), will soon enforce a carbon tax on the shipping industry for the atmospheric and ocean pollution they are responsible for each year. Unfortunately, this will translate over to us as consumers of goods, because the shipping operators will go out of business, if they don't pass this tax on to the consumer. The bottom line here is . . we have huge planetary economics in play that are at best confusing, but with the devastating potential to eventually topple governments. The saddest part of this ongoing situation is the devastating effects will be placed on those who are totally innocent of wrongdoing. I begin to focus on this . . Fracking Ice . . proposal when I found information where a ship owner shaved about 1,000 nautical miles off its normal trip to Finland via the Panama Canal which translated into savings of about $200,000 per trip. As a researcher and inventor - I have the hope that the savings of pollution and money will somehow help neutralize the dilemma we face in the not-to-distant future.

Agharese Lucia Ojelede

Jun 15, 2014
03:46

Catalyst


6 |
Share via:
Hello Jonnie, How do you interned to get Governments, shipping operators, collations, and consortiums to take action. This is an important aspect of your proposal. Arese

Johnnie Buttram

Jun 16, 2014
04:44

Member


7 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Dear Arese, Thank you for your comment! I am hopeful a large percentage of those involved will do the right things for the right reasons as humanitarian gestures to their fellow human beings. I am also hopeful . . there will be those who will use the shorter route to save fuel expense and while sticking more money in their pockets, will also pass the savings of shipping on to the consumer. I am very hopeful that global non-profit organizations like Sir Richard Branson's Carbon War Room who are concerned with Maritime Shipping Efficiency will provide the useful information everyone needs to know to decide what is best for Planet Earth. Thank you, Johnnie Buttram

Clifford Goudey

Jul 16, 2014
09:16

Member


8 |
Share via:
Johnnie, the loss of sea ice is one of the unfortunate feed backs of global warming. The more ice we loose, the less reflective the polar oceans become - further contributing to warming seas. I further see your suggestion to use explosives to break ice as a step in the wrong direction from the standpoint of protecting the animals that live on and under the ice. I would argue that nuclear-powered icebreakers and the convoying of shipping would be a better approach.

Johnnie Buttram

Jul 17, 2014
09:17

Member


9 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Dear Cliff, Thank you for your sincere comments! Climate change will create "catch 22" situations where very difficult decisions will have to be made. As a researcher & inventor, I try my best to give us more options to evaluate. To be honest - I am not qualified to know what are the best decisions our Planet needs to make in the inevitable end! Thanks again, Johnnie Buttram

Climate Colab

Aug 6, 2014
12:26

Member


10 |
Share via:
This is a really interesting idea, and we we're especially pleased with the discussion that it generated. I'm not sure I was convinced that Arctic shipping routes would be environmental positive, but I really appreciated that it was a new way to look at the issue. However, your proposal is an operational plan, rather than the research protocol/control strategy we called for in the proposal, so I'm afraid I can't justify advancing this proposal to the semifinals. I do, seriously, encourage you to keep working on the implications of arctic shipping lanes though, you are providing a unique perspective on the issue and I think there digging in even further would pay off for you.
ADD YOUR COMMENT
You must be logged into your account to post a comment.
Click on the box