From the fucking article: Fossil fuel cargoes travel long distances in very large flows, so their decline removes more than a proportional share of cargo mass. It removes a larger share of the ocean work and the fuel burned to do that work.

And if I can get on my soapbox. This same problem (carrying fuel to feed the transportation unit) is well studied in medieval England because it was one of the main determinants of where cities and castles were placed (albeit unknowingly at the time). And we see what happened in England when they were able to get out from under feeding oxen.

▲

zahlman 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> It removes a larger share of the ocean work and the fuel burned to do that work.

Sure, but as long as ratio of fuel moved:fuel used is good enough, people won't care (as demonstrated by historical data). This isn't an argument that leads to change. For those not already convinced of the climate crisis, you'll need to lean on economics.

▲

megaman821 3 hours ago | parent [-]

That is orthogonal to the point. Shipping is considered a hard industry to reduce CO2 emissions, like aviation, but unlike aviation, 50% of the distance ships are traveling are just delivering fuel. So solving non-shipping fuel use solves nearly half of shipping fuel use. The remaining uses of shipping are also much more tractable to electrify.

	▲	Spooky23 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It’s also a clue as to why there’s such serious political opposition to wind and solar and to some extent nuclear for electric generation. Point of use generation is disruptive to many industries… not just petroleum but automotive, trucking, various services that serve both, etc. There’s a significant portion of the population employed by schlepping oil around and doing things with it to support those activities.

▲

idontwantthis 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://acoup.blog/2022/07/15/collections-logistics-how-did-...

The Tyranny of the Wagon

▲

bryanlarsen 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Are you making a reference to the Tyranny of the Rocket Equation? The Earth's gravity is so large that it's almost at the limit of chemical rockets. A typical rocket is 90% propellant by mass, 8% structure and 2% payload.

▲

throwup238 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes it’s a reference to the tyranny of the rocket equation. The same principle applies to wagon logistics because the animals and driver are constantly eating the food the wagons carry.

▲

jfengel 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

FTA: "We may call this problem the ‘tyranny of the wagon equation’ as a number of readers have noticed the similarity to the tyranny of the rocket equation."

	▲	idontwantthis 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		God’s work.

▲

api 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’ve wondered if this belongs on the Fermi paradox pile. Many biospheres may be more massive planets that are so hard to get off that a space enterprise never starts.

Meanwhile lighter planets might have trouble holding onto atmospheres.

▲

pfdietz 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's mathematically very similar.

▲

dboreham 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]