> 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 2 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.