Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Transportation

In Shallow Water Ships Trigger Seafloor Methane Emissions, Study Finds (msn.com) 27

An anonymous reader shared this report from the Washington Post: Ships trigger seafloor methane emissions while moving through shallow water, researchers report in Communications Earth & Environment. The scientists say the unexpected discovery has nothing to do with the type of fuel used by the ship. Instead, "ship-induced pressure changes and turbulent mixing" trigger the release of the gas from the seafloor. Bubbles and gas diffusion push the methane into the atmosphere, where it acts as a greenhouse gas...

Container and cruise ships triggered the largest and most frequent methane emissions, but the study suggests that ships of all kinds, regardless of their type of engine or size, trigger methane emissions. Researchers said they observed emissions that were 20 times higher in the shipping lane than in undisturbed nearby areas. Given the number of ports in similarly shallow areas worldwide, it's important to learn more about emissions in shipping lanes and to better estimate their "hitherto unknown impact," study co-author Johan Mellqvist, a professor of optical remote sensing at Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden, said in a news release.

In Shallow Water Ships Trigger Seafloor Methane Emissions, Study Finds

Comments Filter:
  • by drnb ( 2434720 ) on Saturday July 19, 2025 @06:06PM (#65531788)
    So containerships are a problem, so the green thing to do is build products on the continent they will be sold on.
    • by davidwr ( 791652 )

      the green thing to do is build products on the continent they will be sold on.

      If the raw materials are all on one continent, the end users are on another, and the finished product is less massive than the raw materials, it's going to require less shipping to build it where the raw materials are then ship it to the customer.

      Also, what about things like coffee, that simply don't grow everywhere they are consumed?

      • by drnb ( 2434720 )

        the green thing to do is build products on the continent they will be sold on.

        If the raw materials are all on one continent, the end users are on another, and the finished product is less massive than the raw materials, it's going to require less shipping to build it where the raw materials are then ship it to the customer.

        Sure, assuming the pollution of resource acquisition and the pollution of manufacturing is also figured in. Otherwise a locale might externalize the pollution to falsely appear greener than they actually are.

        Also, what about things like coffee, that simply don't grow everywhere they are consumed?

        No one said manufacture locally is always possible. Just that a goal of being greener may justify different practices than a goal of having cheaper goods. "Cheaper" has a cost at times; pollution, labor abuse, predatory behavior, etc.

      • If you build local you won't have to ship quite so much stuff global. Giving you more room for raw materials and coffee beans.

        Climate change will probably kill off the coffee industry, perhaps at the end of the century. You might have to learn to love roast chicory and dandelion root.

    • by piojo ( 995934 )

      So containerships are a problem, so the green thing to do is build products on the continent they will be sold on.

      To counter your top-down slightly moralistic solution, a fairly standard economic analysis is that this effect is an externally borne cost (a negative externality), and it should be taxed equal to the amount of harm done, and the tax should be distributed to the ones that are harmed (in proportion to the harm). This is a logistical nightmare, requiring agreement from multiple governments about what the harm is and how the proceeds should be distributed. But it's a tidy theory because shipping would be less

    • David Ricardo's grave is now releasing methane.

    • by whit3 ( 318913 )
      The observation is a weak one, correlating the release of gas
      with the ship passage (presumably creating pressure waves that disturb the muck).

      Would natural (tidal, volcanic, storm-caused) disturbances release
      less methane, or more, or the same amount, in the absence of shipping?

      There's no clear benefit to that fix.
  • It's no wonder the predictions of calamity and the real world weather keep getting worse.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by taustin ( 171655 )

      Indeed. To sustain the desired level of hysteria, the claims of gloom and doom have to constantly get more dire. Otherwise, people get used to them, and stop sending money to the doom criers.

    • Hmm, are the ships stirring up shark shit or geological methane? In either case it hardly matters, since the methane won’t stay down there anyway.
  • If I read this right, ancient seafaring peoples had the same problem, just on a much smaller scale.

    • I would expect it is primarily happening through vibration rather than turbulence, which would be tied to engine use more than oars or sails.

  • Buildup of methyl clathrates beneath the ocean floor have been implicated in mass-extinction events of the past. If overpressure from a ship's wake can partially release clathrates, we can control oceanic methane releases and prevent a mass release event in the future.

  • Cow farts, or ships triggering methane gas? LOL
  • Okay, now we know this. What will it accomplish? All I foresee is governments of the world wanting to charge a tax for this and thus make things more expensive and thereby life get harder. Unless this knowledge can inspire a way to use this methane, or a way to not disturb the sea floor, maybe there will be a positive. I’m just not optimistic because typically the answer to these problems is an artificial fix whereby someone gets paid.
  • What's wrong with "Ships in shallow water trigger seafloor methane emissions"?

A formal parsing algorithm should not always be used. -- D. Gries

Working...