What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
CNET Top Weekly Download for Free Anti-Virus view!
free.avg.com - 2.4 million people a week get AVG Anti-Virus Free, for the best protection against web threats.
66 Comments
- gvlax50, on 07/02/2009, -4/+36...and this just in: all U.S.-flagged large ships are changing their registration to foreign countries.
- Tarnum, on 07/02/2009, -1/+22Ah, that's why most ships are registered in Panama.
- solboldi, on 07/02/2009, -6/+21I'm in favor pollution reduction, but what is the potential economic impact when the economy is already suffering?
- lordmike, on 07/02/2009, -6/+17If this increases the price of imports, it will help keep American jobs close to home...
- jerryjamesstone, on 07/02/2009, -4/+15What about the ships that use kite propulsion. I like those.
- enrq, on 07/02/2009, -0/+10"Just because there are workarounds doesn't mean the efforts are futile"
In this case, I think that's exactly what it means actually - Barackalypse, on 07/02/2009, -6/+16"to reduce air pollution from U.S.-flagged large ships."
Adding US shipping to a growing list of businesses the Government apparently wants offshore. And we wonder why the job loss numbers continue to rack up. Frankly I can't imagine why any company that has a choice would want to subject itself to all this regulation and abuse. - jaxter2010, on 07/02/2009, -10/+19The way I see it, the economy is already ***** up, so we might as well make use of this time and get done what should have been done a long time ago.
- rizzo2008, on 07/02/2009, -2/+11Um job losses as more heavy commercial ships are registered in the Bahamas and Latin America. Good job saving the environment dumb-assess.
- inactive, on 07/02/2009, -1/+9There aren't many left anyway.
- Barackalypse, on 07/02/2009, -3/+10Just think all the emissions we will prevent if we kill it entirely and go back to an agrarian existence!
- trejrco, on 07/02/2009, -0/+6Actually, I suspect the reality is that the few ships still 'flagged' as US will be flagged elsewhere.
- inactive, on 07/02/2009, -3/+8Ships? Who need ships?
- sphigel, on 07/02/2009, -3/+8What I love is that some people actually get angry that companies move overseas. Why on Earth, given all our regulation, would any company choose to stay in the US? All these people clamoring for more and more regulation don't seem to understand the real consequences.
- fauxbro, on 07/02/2009, -0/+5Yeah because Tariff's are a good thing right?
- yibbutkeen, on 07/02/2009, -0/+5There is so little of the US fleet left anyway. At the end of the Viet Nam war, there were approximately 1700 ships flying the US flag. While I was working as a merchant marine officer, there were just under 200 ships left (1990s). By 2000 that number had dwindled to appx 70 ships.
Shipping has a massive impact on a countries economy. When the UK ruled the world, it had a huge maritime presence. Once they removed cabotage laws (requiring in country commerce to be on domestic ships - the airline industry has this too, ie why you can't fly from NY to LA on Quantas) their industry collapsed. Same is happening to the US now. Most of the ships left move oil from Alaska to another US state, and Matson shipping moves between the mainland and Hawaii.
Flagging out has taken over due to wages (the guy who replace me works for $4 a day, and if he complains he gets thrown over the side and a new guy comes on at the next port). Another big reason is safety - safety is expensive, and most flags of convenience have minimal safety inspections. They safety inspections that due exist are mostly enforced by insurance agencies, not states. Due to international trade collusion, countries aren't allowed to enforce their own stricter safety standards on foreign ships, with minimal exceptions - ie radar and engines have to work, etc. In fact the port state agreements/laws may give the EPA a smack down on this.
If they get away with enforcing any kind of emissions rules, it will take a big bite out of port cities. They chinese have been trying for years to bypass the longshore unions in California. They have lost every time so far. They'll just set up shop in Mexico, that bastion of environmental protection, and truck everything up. Say goodbye to a lot of high paying longshore jobs.
Sorry for the long rant... - lnxfi, on 07/02/2009, -0/+5I guess you've never tried to send pallets across an ocean. Surface Freight vs Air Freight is a huge cost difference.
- Barackalypse, on 07/02/2009, -1/+5Anything that increases the cost of anything consumers buy is bad for consumers. There are a lot more consumers than there are workers. American jobs don't do crap for my grandparents who live on a fixed income, only lower taxes or less expensive products help them.
- fury420, on 07/02/2009, -3/+7now all we need is regulations for ships flying flags of convenience operated by U.S. companies that travel in US waters, rather than just the small portion that are actually US-flagged
- cscalfani, on 07/02/2009, -0/+4You mean use wind power? Amazing !!!
What will they think of next?..... Sails, perhaps? - tgc1, on 07/02/2009, -0/+4Right after this gets passed, if it gets passed into law, every single US ship will be registering in another country. There will be NO US ships. Sure they'll still deliver to those harbors and ports, but they will all be foreign owned.
Way to get stuck on stupid EPA. I mean I admire the mandate, trying to clean up and get tough on pollution. Problem is, our ENTIRE ***** infrastructure is based on petroleum and coal. You try to get tough on that we're going back to the stone age in a big ***** hurry.
The alternatives, which I advocate heavily, are still a ways off in terms of public perception and cost. We can't switch overnight. I am hoping for the changes to get electric online and more nuclear and more renewables. But honestly, people can't put up millions of windmills over night. That sort of cost vs. ROI is a proposition that will take a decade or more to transition with. Figuring a 10% investment cap per year over 10 years to fully transition. And that'd be if we all started tomorrow. Not likely to happen in this economy. - BottledViolence, on 07/02/2009, -1/+5I'm fine with the fuel rules, but the emissions law is stupid. Its the wrong thing for the right reason. Prohibit ANY vessel that cannot meet the emission standards from operating in US Exclusive Economic Zones and entering US ports. To just require US flagged ships to meet these standards is just going to force shipping lines to reflag their ships and create WORSE environmental and economic situations.
- sphigel, on 07/02/2009, -2/+6You're forgetting half of the equation. Americans are consumers as well as producers. Economic protectionism does not work.
- daveesq, on 07/03/2009, -0/+3Maybe some, but most can't. There's already a law on the books that says if you're transporting cargo from one US port to another, you have to use a US flagged vessel. That huge amount of traffic can't get around the rule, lest the vessel owners lose their business.
- goodinohio, on 07/02/2009, -3/+6***** the green Nazis!
- enrq, on 07/02/2009, -0/+3then U.S. companies will open sister companies in other countries just so that they operate and own these ships... unless most countries jump on board, these won't improve anything and will just increase outsourcing
- calypsoschnitzl, on 07/02/2009, -1/+4*****. You're comparing a broken window to pollution. Nice try.
- fury420, on 07/02/2009, -6/+9wait.... so the EPA has the freedom to actually do something for the first time in nearly a decade and suddenly they need to be "reigned in, and their budget needs cut in half."?
wow, we can totally see your coming at this from a completely non-partisan position - jaxter2010, on 07/02/2009, -5/+8I don't think anyone is suggesting that. The goal is to increase the energy/emission ratio. There has been a lot of advancement in the area, however many cargo ships are using very old engines. It has to be dealt with at some point. Why not now?
The problem is that most people take an alcoholic's stance on pollution. ex.
--"I'll stop drinking once work settles down."
--"I'll stop drinking when my marriage isn't so rocky."
--"I'll stop drinking next week."
Same thing with pollution. Somebody will always have an excuse. - sphigel, on 07/02/2009, -5/+7broken window fallacy. check into it.
- JohnInMT, on 07/02/2009, -0/+2I had a car shipped to the US from overseas. It took a fair amount of time (all of which was spent looking at FailBoats on failblog.org and worrying) but it got here in one piece :D The price to ship it would've been insane if it was air freight.
- winmywii, on 07/02/2009, -0/+2Cruise ships have been doing it for years.
- Riggaberto, on 07/02/2009, -3/+5Economic impact needs to be considered, but it would be short sighted to not make some tough choices now, because the economic impact down the road will be devastating. It's tough, but "affordable" now.
- Pyehole, on 07/03/2009, -0/+2Wait a minute, we still have an EPA after 8 years of the Bush administration???
- inactive, on 07/07/2009, -0/+2I hope they come the the Houston Ship Channel. I'm tire of pulling precooked fish out of the waters of Galveston.
- winmywii, on 07/02/2009, -1/+3I have nothing against protecting the environment. It is a well known fact that most ships are registered to foreign countries to avoid taxes, etc. This does nothing to stop pollution. This causes, any ships that are left with U.S. flags to be register in another country and continue to operate the way that they do now. If anything all this does is send a message, but that's about it.
- Mike17102, on 07/02/2009, -0/+2In related news, many ships are now moving their flags to other countries.
Edit: I see someone else beat me to it already. - lordmike, on 07/02/2009, -0/+1Apparently, you think that importing more than we export is also a good thing... and that domestic job creation is a bad thing as well...
You've got some investments in China or something?
Unmitigated free trade has led to the 30 year wage stagnation that is crippling the American economy and destroying the middle class... a little equity on the trade front can only be helpful... - lordmike, on 07/02/2009, -0/+1You aren't looking at the big picture... if it costs more to import stuff from China than it is to make here, then more jobs will move here... You'll still be able to buy the same stuff, only the benefits will multiply throught the economy...
- seltaeb4, on 07/02/2009, -0/+1Red Ships of Spain... Red Ships of Spain...
- inactive, on 07/07/2009, -0/+1Pirates.. Ninjas already have the land covered.
- Pattyo13, on 07/02/2009, -0/+1http://news.cnet.com/2300-11395_3-6140455-1.html
- Atario, on 07/13/2009, -0/+1Easy fix: require all companies doing business within the US to have shipping traffic US-registered in proportion to the amount of business they do here.
The problem there is not that we don't let corporations run roughshod over us *enough*. It's that we don't regulate them properly *enough*. - TxAggie08, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1Our regulations have already made it so almost no ships outside the navy are US flagged anymore. This won't do anything but cause the last remaining ships to change their registration to "friendlier" countries. Good job environmentalist, another segment of the economy dead and no benefit to the environment. Keep up the good work!
- lordmike, on 07/02/2009, -2/+3"Dude there is a reason the "buy american" provision was a terrible idea..."
You mean my tax dollars should have gone to fund Chinese jobs? How is that a good idea? how many Chinese tax dollars are funding U.S. jobs?
That doesn't sound very "fiscally conservative" at all.. It sounds more like throwing money away...
Maybe someday the free traders can explain how stagnant wages over the last 30 years is somehow good of the American economy... - fury420, on 07/02/2009, -0/+1then make the regulations for ships that operate in U.S. waters & serve U.S customers regardless of ownership? I agree that the USA can do little to curb pollution on foreign-flagged vessels that do not enter US territorial waters, but to do business with the USA they kind of need to visit a North American port
- Atario, on 07/13/2009, -0/+1Also, I understand that unless you are US-flagged, you can't get help from US agencies in international waters (e.g., Somali pirates boarded you? Sorry!).
- TxAggie08, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1Good, so it will just jack up prices on goods transported that way. Greeeat.
- AngryChris, on 07/06/2009, -0/+1This is a non-story. Most US ships aren't US flagged. They're flagged in like Trinidad (or some other minor island) because US taxes are too high and regulation too harsh (compared to those places) for merchant shipping.
-
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is