Did the crackdown on cheap sulphurous bunker oil have no effect on it? Or was there no real crackdown and it was just media hype? (This is a genuine question).
The crackdown was so successful that some scientists attribute the even-warmer-than-expected weather we have had in the last few years to additional warming due to the lack of light-reflecting sulphur in the atmosphere (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shippin...). Oops...
Not sure if that's sarcasm, given the existence (or, not) of practical fusion technology.
We do of course know how to power large ships with nuclear fission. The US Navy has been doing so - for generations(!).
Only issue with that is the US military is a "money is no object" scenario. Price container shipping at the unit cost of hauling it on a naval nuclear reactor, and we'd be looking at degrowth anyway. It's proven, practical technology, but very very expensive.
(Other countries with nuclear deterrents run their sub fleets on fission, but even those with nuclear subs have found it too costly for their surface fleet).
Microsoft expects to get fusion power from Helion in 3 years, so (if we are very, maybe unrealistically, optimistic) the wait won't be that long.
Actually, seeing recent developments, I'm afraid the only remotely realistic chance left to limit global warming is for fusion to become widely available and dirt cheap pretty damn soon! Renewables, you say? Nah, those windmills are disgusting and made in China anyway, so we're better off burning good clean American coal and oil (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/03/trump-war-on...).
We can't even close the hole in the ozone layer. We were all patting each other on the back for a job well done (which it almost was), but then took our foot off the accelerator and now it's opening back up again.
Chlorofluorocarbons stay 50-150 years in the atmosphere, once they are there it takes a while for things to go back to normal.
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons are also now banned pretty much everywhere, replaced with hydrofluorocarbons and hydrofluoroolefins which both have an ozone depletion potential of 0 (zero).
Note that if you did want to directly compensate for the decrease in sulfur (exclding reductions in emissions), I think you could just, like, spray water in the air?
Bunker oil is an orthogonal issue. Generally, it's restricted to offshore use. For example, ships have to switch to low sulphur 60 miles outside of San Francisco Bay.
As for the IMO 2020 restrictions, I've read that they have significantly lowered pollution but that would be in addition to Slow Steaming.
Did the crackdown on cheap sulphurous bunker oil have no effect on it? Or was there no real crackdown and it was just media hype? (This is a genuine question).