Comment by xxpor
Comment by xxpor 21 hours ago
The oil used for shipping from Shenzhen to Long Beach is completely trivial compared to what the truck used getting it from Long Beach to Pasadena.
Comment by xxpor 21 hours ago
The oil used for shipping from Shenzhen to Long Beach is completely trivial compared to what the truck used getting it from Long Beach to Pasadena.
https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/freight-transportation
> While nearly three-quarters of the world’s cargo is carried by ocean-going ships, road vehicles like trucks and vans make up the majority, 65%, of freight’s emissions. Most ships burn fossil fuels and emit carbon, but they carry large amounts of freight at the same time, making them the most efficient way to move cargo. Road freight, however, can emit more than 100 times as much CO2 as ships to carry the same amount of freight the same distance. Road transport is also a fast-growing sector—80% of the global increase in diesel consumption can be attributed to trucks. E-commerce and home delivery are two reasons for this growth.
Not disagreeing but it’s amazing a ship plowing water out of the way is so much more efficient.
Perhaps trains beat road transport efficiency to a similar degree.
> Perhaps trains beat road transport efficiency to a similar degree.
Not just efficiency but you can use electric trains if your tracks are electrified. Add into that electricity production system that is mostly renewable+nuclear (the Nordics for example) and you get very very low emissions.
They do, trains are BAFFLINGLY fuel efficient in terms of pounds of cargo. Once they get up to speed, trains can move one ton of cargo about 480 mile per gallon, vs 130 with trucks
The distance the boat has to cover is 11800 kilometers, and the truck covers only 54 kilometers. Taking that average of 12 times more usage from the table of sibling comment means the ship is still 20x worse.
This is already taken into account: Shagie's table is based on [1], which is per kilogram-kilometer
[1] https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/freight-transportation
The distance from Shenzhen to Long Beach is some 300 times the distance from Long Beach to Pasadena, depending on where exactly in Pasadena and which route you take. The CO2 emissions factor for a truck is some 10-100x that of a container ship. The exact ratio depends on what kind of truck, and what scope of emissions are being included. The more one accounts for, the more it will favor the boat. But overall, the emissions from the oceanic leg of the trip are probably anywhere from 1-3x those of the truck.
From the data at the end of https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/freight-transportation
+----------+------------------------+---------------+----------+----------+
| Mode | Freight (bn tonne-km) | CO2 (Mt) | CO2/Frgt | Vs. Sea |
+----------+------------------------+---------------+----------+----------+
| Air | 303 | 155 | 511 | 79 |
| Rail | 10,842 | 170 | 15 | 2 |
| Road | 26,807 | 2,230 | 83 | 12 |
| Sea | 101,486 | 657 | 6 | 1 |
+----------+------------------------+---------------+----------+----------+I did some napkin math on this as I recently picked up a 3D Printer and wondered the environmental comparison to print-at-home vs pick something up at the store and I was surprised. Had some help from Claude but "last mile delivery" is absolutely where the majority of the kWh is burned in the supply chain.
Container ships use ~0.015 kWh per ton-km[1] and a car is ~1.35 kWh/km.
If you go to the store and end up getting >10 things it becomes "worth it" from an energy standpoint. Anything less printing at home seemed to be more economical... Not an expert though just saying it opened my eyes to how inefficient "last mile delivery" energy consumption is.
[1] https://www.withouthotair.com/c15/page_95.shtml (old reference)
> Not an expert though just saying it opened my eyes to how inefficient "last mile delivery" energy consumption is.
One of the oddities of home shopping and delivery is that it can be more efficient.
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/10/nx-s1-5020321/food-delivery-m...
> In 2022, researchers from the University of Michigan and Ford Motor Co. modeled a single 36-item grocery cart to compare greenhouse emissions from an e-commerce grocery delivery and a traditional trip to the store to get the same items. Gregory Keoleian and colleagues at the university's Center for Sustainable Systems found that using an electric vehicle to pick up groceries could cut emissions by as much as half, compared to a gas-powered vehicle.
> They also found that home delivery could be an even better option. That's because with a delivery vehicle, orders are often clustered, with a driver dropping off not just your groceries, but also hitting neighbors during the same run. "Delivery is actually going to be more efficient in general than driving yourself in a gasoline SUV to the store to pick up your groceries," Keoleian says.
The mentioned paper is https://css.umich.edu/publications/research-publications/car...
---
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/what-if-more-people-bought...
> A recent USDA survey found that in 88% of U.S households, people hop in their car to buy groceries, driving an average of 4 miles to their preferred store. ... All these car trips result in carbon pollution: over 17 million metric tons of CO2 come from car tailpipes just from driving back and forth to the grocery store.
---
https://csanr.wsu.edu/how-do-grocery-and-meal-kit-deliveries...
> While it is common for the consumer to associate convenience in the food industry with increased greenhouse gas emissions, this is not always the case. Results from a 2013 University of Washington study indicate that grocery delivery has the potential to reduce carbon emissions anywhere from 20 to 75 percent (Ma 2013), while another study out of Finland found the potential for grocery delivery to reduce emissions by up to 87 percent (Siikavirta et al. 2002).
---
https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/shop-online-sustaina...
> Buying goods online can be better for the environment than in-store shopping for one fundamental reason: With online shopping, a single truck or van can replace multiple car trips, by multiple households, to stores. It helps to think of it this way: In most of the United States, almost every purchase means putting a vehicle on the road—either your own or a delivery company’s.
---
Some others:
https://blog.sevensenders.com/en/ecommerce-carbon-footprint-...
https://web.archive.org/web/20250302115526/https://sustainab... (this one is quite comprehensive also including the difference in packaging)
And those articles come with their own citations to other articles.
So the EPA report is bullshit interpretation of the USDA study: >A recent USDA survey found that in 88% of U.S households, people hop in their car to buy groceries, driving an average of 4 miles to their preferred store.2
USDA study: >Overall, households are, on average, 2.2 miles from the nearest SNAP-authorized supermarket or supercenter, but their usual store is 3.8 miles away.
Based on these questions: >This report presents initial findings from the FoodAPS survey on three key questions:
1. How do shoppers travel to their main store and how far do they travel to get there?
2. In what type of store (eg., supermarket, mass merchandiser, convenience store) do U.S. households typically shop for groceries?
3. Do store and travel mode differ by participation in food assistance programs or food security status?
This can only tell us the distance to the store and does not support "All these car trips result in carbon pollution: over 17 million metric tons of CO2 come from car tailpipes just from driving back and forth to the grocery store."
In order to draw that conclusion, you need to show that the travel to and from grocery store was single purpose. Which is not supported by the data.
Most people I know don't go out of their way to go grocery shopping nor do they take specific trips to do so. It will be done in conjunction with another outing or when returning from work.
This could also! explain the reason that food secure people travel greater distance, as they tend to travel greater distance overall they choose a location closer to their travel route rather than their dwelling.
If the goal is reducing carbon emissions, making shipping emit half as much (650 Megatonne to 325 Mt) would be less of a gain than making trucking emit only 80% of its carbon (2,230 Mt to 1,830 Mt).
The question is which is easier to do (ROI)... to cut the shipping fuel carbon footprint by half, or over the road trucking (that's about 1/4th of all the shipping) by 20%? For that matter, moving 25% of the over the road trucking to rail would accomplish that too.
I'd love a napkin math calculation at this.