On the strategic importance of shipping chokepoints
April 17, 2021 7:53 AM Subscribe
"Ships so big they get stuck in the Suez Canal literally define 'chokepoint' but other waterways will play much more serious roles as the rivalry between China and the U.S. heats up." A Twitter thread by David Fickling of Bloomberg on the strategic importance of ocean straits throughout history, including the Trojan War, the British Empire, and China's Belt and Road Initiative. Article by Fickling and Anjani Trivedi.
Joseph Heath summarizes the fuel-efficiency and importance of long-distance transport by ship compared to trucks or trains: "[Trucks] produce 10 times more greenhouses gases, per tonne-kilometer, than trains (180 tonnes of CO2/t-km compared to only 18). Trains, in turn, produce about twice as much greenhouse gas as ships (11 for container, 7 for tankers). Ships, in fact, produce very close to nothing by comparison to all other modalities. As a result, the international dimension of the global food trade is the least important, from an environmental perspective, simply because most of it occurs by ship."
Fickling on the increasing size of container ships. The larger the ship, the less fuel required per container.
Joseph Heath summarizes the fuel-efficiency and importance of long-distance transport by ship compared to trucks or trains: "[Trucks] produce 10 times more greenhouses gases, per tonne-kilometer, than trains (180 tonnes of CO2/t-km compared to only 18). Trains, in turn, produce about twice as much greenhouse gas as ships (11 for container, 7 for tankers). Ships, in fact, produce very close to nothing by comparison to all other modalities. As a result, the international dimension of the global food trade is the least important, from an environmental perspective, simply because most of it occurs by ship."
Fickling on the increasing size of container ships. The larger the ship, the less fuel required per container.
The use of bunker fuel was (and remains) a huge problem that's slowly being addressed:
As more evidence points to the risks of burning bunker fuel, the global maritime industry is embarking on a major overhaul of its fuel supply. Starting January 1, 2020, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) will require that all fuels used in ships contain no more than 0.5 percent sulfur. The cap is a significant reduction from the existing sulfur limit of 3.5 percent and is well below the industry average of 2.7 percent sulfur content. Public health experts estimate that once the 2020 sulfur cap takes effect, it would prevent roughly 150,000 premature deaths and 7.6 million childhood asthma cases globally each year.
This particular claim, though, is bogus:
Ships, in fact, produce very close to nothing by comparison to all other modalities.
Pollution: Three steps to a green shipping industry:
Shipping is the most energy-efficient way to move large volumes of cargo. Yet ships emit nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), carbon dioxide and particulate matter (PM) into the atmosphere. Worldwide, from 2007 to 2012, shipping accounted for 15% of annual NOx emissions from anthropogenic sources, 13% of SOx and 3% of CO2. In Europe in 2013, ships contributed 18% of NOx emissions, 18% of SOx and 11% of particles less than 2.5 micrometres in size (PM2.5). For road transport, the figures were 33%, 0% and 12%, respectively. Aviation, by contrast, accounted for only 6%, 1% and 1%, respectively, and rail just 1%, 0% and 0%.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 8:37 AM on April 17, 2021 [9 favorites]
As more evidence points to the risks of burning bunker fuel, the global maritime industry is embarking on a major overhaul of its fuel supply. Starting January 1, 2020, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) will require that all fuels used in ships contain no more than 0.5 percent sulfur. The cap is a significant reduction from the existing sulfur limit of 3.5 percent and is well below the industry average of 2.7 percent sulfur content. Public health experts estimate that once the 2020 sulfur cap takes effect, it would prevent roughly 150,000 premature deaths and 7.6 million childhood asthma cases globally each year.
This particular claim, though, is bogus:
Ships, in fact, produce very close to nothing by comparison to all other modalities.
Pollution: Three steps to a green shipping industry:
Shipping is the most energy-efficient way to move large volumes of cargo. Yet ships emit nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), carbon dioxide and particulate matter (PM) into the atmosphere. Worldwide, from 2007 to 2012, shipping accounted for 15% of annual NOx emissions from anthropogenic sources, 13% of SOx and 3% of CO2. In Europe in 2013, ships contributed 18% of NOx emissions, 18% of SOx and 11% of particles less than 2.5 micrometres in size (PM2.5). For road transport, the figures were 33%, 0% and 12%, respectively. Aviation, by contrast, accounted for only 6%, 1% and 1%, respectively, and rail just 1%, 0% and 0%.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 8:37 AM on April 17, 2021 [9 favorites]
"...as the rivalry between China and the U.S. heats up", this could have been an interesting dicussion about environmentalims and logistics, but I guess we're doing this again?
I don't know about you, but I vividly remember 1999/2000 when, before the World Trade Center was destroyed, and the usual military-imperialist proxagandists were out there beating the drums hard for a war with China because after the Soviet Union collapsed there was this entire military apparatus out there without a single defensible reason to exist absent a great-power war that needed to justify its continued existence. Since endless war is the only full employment or education program the Republican party will support and the only other option on the table then was actually re-thinking the trillion dollars a year the U.S. spends on the military, and we can't have that hey let's try to drum up a goddamn war with our by-far largest trading partner on the far side of an ocean, this is a totally sensible and reasonable to want. Then 9/11 happened and that whole question was put behind us to an enormous sigh of militarist relief, and here we are now two decades and trillions of dollars later.
It didn't make an ounce of sense then and it doesn't now, but I guess now that we're done painting and re-painting over the writing that's been on the wall in Afghanistan for fifteen years we can get back to this low key background hum of Tensions and Things Heating Up With China and and and and and.
I'm sorry this came off as a rant, but I just wanted to remind people that we've been here before, and this low-grade pervasive hum of militarism, war metaphor and conflict is a tool. It doesn't happen accidentally; it's being deployed to a purpose we can recognize, and we should know to see it and call it what it is.
Otherwise though interesting thread, definitely a reminds me of the old, possibly-apocryphal Eisenhower line that amateurs study tactics but professionals study logistics. Some of the pollution numbers are suspect, but in general a good overview of the importance of historic supply lines.
posted by mhoye at 8:40 AM on April 17, 2021 [62 favorites]
I don't know about you, but I vividly remember 1999/2000 when, before the World Trade Center was destroyed, and the usual military-imperialist proxagandists were out there beating the drums hard for a war with China because after the Soviet Union collapsed there was this entire military apparatus out there without a single defensible reason to exist absent a great-power war that needed to justify its continued existence. Since endless war is the only full employment or education program the Republican party will support and the only other option on the table then was actually re-thinking the trillion dollars a year the U.S. spends on the military, and we can't have that hey let's try to drum up a goddamn war with our by-far largest trading partner on the far side of an ocean, this is a totally sensible and reasonable to want. Then 9/11 happened and that whole question was put behind us to an enormous sigh of militarist relief, and here we are now two decades and trillions of dollars later.
It didn't make an ounce of sense then and it doesn't now, but I guess now that we're done painting and re-painting over the writing that's been on the wall in Afghanistan for fifteen years we can get back to this low key background hum of Tensions and Things Heating Up With China and and and and and.
I'm sorry this came off as a rant, but I just wanted to remind people that we've been here before, and this low-grade pervasive hum of militarism, war metaphor and conflict is a tool. It doesn't happen accidentally; it's being deployed to a purpose we can recognize, and we should know to see it and call it what it is.
Otherwise though interesting thread, definitely a reminds me of the old, possibly-apocryphal Eisenhower line that amateurs study tactics but professionals study logistics. Some of the pollution numbers are suspect, but in general a good overview of the importance of historic supply lines.
posted by mhoye at 8:40 AM on April 17, 2021 [62 favorites]
Ship transport is very energy efficient, the problem is they burn the cheapest garbage fuel they can get.
posted by ryanrs at 10:04 AM on April 17, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by ryanrs at 10:04 AM on April 17, 2021 [7 favorites]
That Joseph Heath quote needs many a [citation needed] on the source article. Anyone stuck on the Bluewater Bridge crossing the Canada-US border (what a quaint memory …) when a laker goes underneath can tell you those things belch out grotty shit. I'd hate to think what the less-regulated ocean marine fleet leaves behind.
posted by scruss at 10:05 AM on April 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by scruss at 10:05 AM on April 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
Note that, within the EU/ECC and Canada/US Economic zones (200 nm from shore), black ship fuels, the intermediate ("Bunker B" or Fuel No. 5) and heavy fuel oils ("Bunker C" or Fuel No 6) have been forbidden for use for years now. Most ships have now converted to dual fuel systems, with an ultra-low sulphur marine diesel being used in continental waters. Ships that travel in costal waters only generally only carry diesel now.
Diesel is a lot more expensive than black fuels, so the dual system remains in the IMO agreements for the trans-oceanic shipping routes.
In terms of spills, diesel and black ship fuels are by far and away the most common spills in the world. Crude oils can result in huge spills when they happen, but are increasing not from ships but from storm-damaged pipes or production platforms.
posted by bonehead at 10:07 AM on April 17, 2021 [4 favorites]
Diesel is a lot more expensive than black fuels, so the dual system remains in the IMO agreements for the trans-oceanic shipping routes.
In terms of spills, diesel and black ship fuels are by far and away the most common spills in the world. Crude oils can result in huge spills when they happen, but are increasing not from ships but from storm-damaged pipes or production platforms.
posted by bonehead at 10:07 AM on April 17, 2021 [4 favorites]
...ships contributed 18% of NOx emissions, 18% of SOx and 11% of particles less than 2.5 micrometres in size (PM2.5)
The frustrating thing is that tech to mitigate this exists and isn't all that high tech. A 10% salt water injection with the fuel can drop NOX to near nothing and can nearly eliminate PM as well. Of course, it's a money thing.
posted by bonehead at 10:11 AM on April 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
The frustrating thing is that tech to mitigate this exists and isn't all that high tech. A 10% salt water injection with the fuel can drop NOX to near nothing and can nearly eliminate PM as well. Of course, it's a money thing.
posted by bonehead at 10:11 AM on April 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
Most ships have now converted to dual fuel systems, with an ultra-low sulphur marine diesel being used in continental waters.
Would add that the Great Lakes Steamship Repower Incentive Program still permits the use of "residual" fuel in Great Lakes shipping, subject to certain provisions:
The simplified program will automatically permit the use of residual fuel, through December 31, 2025, in a steamship if it has been repowered with a certified Tier 2 or later marine diesel engine, provided the steamship was operated exclusively on the Great Lakes and was in service on October 30, 2009.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 10:18 AM on April 17, 2021
Would add that the Great Lakes Steamship Repower Incentive Program still permits the use of "residual" fuel in Great Lakes shipping, subject to certain provisions:
The simplified program will automatically permit the use of residual fuel, through December 31, 2025, in a steamship if it has been repowered with a certified Tier 2 or later marine diesel engine, provided the steamship was operated exclusively on the Great Lakes and was in service on October 30, 2009.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 10:18 AM on April 17, 2021
That's a phase-in measure. As I understand it they have to cease operating soon. But sure, they're still using black fuels in some of those ships.
posted by bonehead at 10:28 AM on April 17, 2021
posted by bonehead at 10:28 AM on April 17, 2021
On the other hand, those boats competing with CSL who are experimenting with non-fossil fuels for their fleet.
posted by bonehead at 10:31 AM on April 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by bonehead at 10:31 AM on April 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
Yeah, the phase-in has a great deal to do with the age of a lot of lakers. I mean, the Arthur M. Anderson is still in service. It was built in 1952!
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 10:37 AM on April 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 10:37 AM on April 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
Don't forget the war of 1812, and the civil war. The union moved swiftly to capture new orleans, and neuter any chance at a confederate sea power securing the Gulf of mexico for the slave economy.
The United States military, in the form of the Army Corps, is still in control of dredging and maintaining inland navigation for petro-corn export, which they tell Washington dc is critical for the Pax Americana, also their continued funding.
The dredging of the river is centralized economy, with the corps awarding contracts to only a select number of companies that control prices. Attempts to reform this system have emerged from the flooding of New Orleans and St Louis. The Army Corps has been found guilty of neglect of its public trust duties under the law, and it neglected those duties to maintain its dominance over inland navigation. But popular movements to place the river under civilian control, even after the destruction of cities, have failed.
posted by eustatic at 10:59 AM on April 17, 2021 [7 favorites]
The United States military, in the form of the Army Corps, is still in control of dredging and maintaining inland navigation for petro-corn export, which they tell Washington dc is critical for the Pax Americana, also their continued funding.
The dredging of the river is centralized economy, with the corps awarding contracts to only a select number of companies that control prices. Attempts to reform this system have emerged from the flooding of New Orleans and St Louis. The Army Corps has been found guilty of neglect of its public trust duties under the law, and it neglected those duties to maintain its dominance over inland navigation. But popular movements to place the river under civilian control, even after the destruction of cities, have failed.
posted by eustatic at 10:59 AM on April 17, 2021 [7 favorites]
mhoye: "I'm sorry this came off as a rant, but I just wanted to remind people that we've been here before, and this low-grade pervasive hum of militarism, war metaphor and conflict is a tool. It doesn't happen accidentally; it's being deployed to a purpose we can recognize, and we should know to see it and call it what it is."
(shrug) The most important divide in international politics isn't between heroes and villains. It's between those powers supporting the status quo (currently the US and its allies), and those opposed to it (currently China and Russia).
When the countries opposed to the status quo are stronger than those supporting it - in the leadup to WWII, for example, when Germany, the Soviet Union, and Japan outweighed Britain and France - we can expect trouble.
China's recent "wolf warrior" / "might makes right" approach to diplomacy certainly suggests that they see the US as a power in permanent decline. Their bullying, undiplomatic ambassadors aren't there by mistake.
posted by russilwvong at 1:27 PM on April 17, 2021 [7 favorites]
(shrug) The most important divide in international politics isn't between heroes and villains. It's between those powers supporting the status quo (currently the US and its allies), and those opposed to it (currently China and Russia).
When the countries opposed to the status quo are stronger than those supporting it - in the leadup to WWII, for example, when Germany, the Soviet Union, and Japan outweighed Britain and France - we can expect trouble.
China's recent "wolf warrior" / "might makes right" approach to diplomacy certainly suggests that they see the US as a power in permanent decline. Their bullying, undiplomatic ambassadors aren't there by mistake.
posted by russilwvong at 1:27 PM on April 17, 2021 [7 favorites]
China's Geography Problem, a ten-minute video by Wendover Productions, is a quick primer on China's military and economic challenges.
posted by Bee'sWing at 2:51 PM on April 17, 2021
posted by Bee'sWing at 2:51 PM on April 17, 2021
China's recent "wolf warrior" / "might makes right" approach to diplomacy certainly suggests that they see the US as a power in permanent decline.
Or as a model to be emulated?
posted by biffa at 2:51 PM on April 17, 2021 [3 favorites]
Or as a model to be emulated?
posted by biffa at 2:51 PM on April 17, 2021 [3 favorites]
"In 1990, [the U.S.] manufactured about 37% of the world's semiconductors. Now we only manufacture 12%," Neuffer said. "That is a supply chain vulnerability that has come into bold relief over the past year."
If there was a war with China would we run out of weapons and other essentials if there are no chips getting shipped?
posted by sammyo at 4:36 PM on April 17, 2021
If there was a war with China would we run out of weapons and other essentials if there are no chips getting shipped?
posted by sammyo at 4:36 PM on April 17, 2021
The 'status quo' is forever war, though. Do you think China will want to emulate that? Opinions vary.
“Since the 1970s, China has not once gone to war; the U.S. has not spent a day at peace.”
posted by asok at 5:01 PM on April 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
“Since the 1970s, China has not once gone to war; the U.S. has not spent a day at peace.”
posted by asok at 5:01 PM on April 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
If there was a war with China would we run out of weapons and other essentials if there are no chips getting shipped?
I wonder how many weapons and other essentials in that scenario would simply stop working, or perhaps betray their ostensible owners.
posted by mhoye at 5:52 PM on April 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
I wonder how many weapons and other essentials in that scenario would simply stop working, or perhaps betray their ostensible owners.
posted by mhoye at 5:52 PM on April 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
If there was a war with China would we run out of weapons and other essentials if there are no chips getting shipped?
The military are sticklers about manufacturing their weapons domestically, so the answer is probably "no" for the first half of your question.
posted by ryanrs at 5:55 PM on April 17, 2021 [3 favorites]
The military are sticklers about manufacturing their weapons domestically, so the answer is probably "no" for the first half of your question.
posted by ryanrs at 5:55 PM on April 17, 2021 [3 favorites]
For anyone with interest in exploring the development and impact of the shipping container, I recommend Marc Levinson's non-fiction book The Box.
One thing that surprised me while reading it was how heavily regulated transportation in the US was -- e.g. different transport rates based on the type of good, rather than based on volume and mass. Similarly, prices being controlled by regulators so that one transport method (e.g. truck or mixed truck+ship) that could move goods at much lower cost could not put pressure on another less competitive transport method (rail). Shipping lines formed "conferences" (read: cartels) to set standard prices for carrying cargo along standarised routes. The shipping business does not sound like a great business to be in these days, given the huge capital cost of building ships and ports and the constant pressure to reduce costs.
The book doesn't focus on nation-state level strategy, but there are a few connections: the Sea-Land shipping line -- one of the early adopters of containers -- won the contract to ship supplies from continental USA to troops in Vietnam, which led to the US military starting to understand the benefits of containerization.
A lot of ports that were historically major centres for handling labour-intensive breakbulk cargo got left behind and lost a lot of business - directly, as cargo flows moved to newer ports that could more efficiently handle containers, but also indirectly, as decreasing shipping costs meant the cost of transport was no longer a dominating factor of where to locate a factory, compared to other factors such as labour costs. For example, in the UK the formerly insignificant Port of Felixstowe negotiated a deal to become the UK's first container terminal, and now accounts for about half of Britain's containerised trade.
posted by are-coral-made at 6:05 PM on April 17, 2021 [3 favorites]
One thing that surprised me while reading it was how heavily regulated transportation in the US was -- e.g. different transport rates based on the type of good, rather than based on volume and mass. Similarly, prices being controlled by regulators so that one transport method (e.g. truck or mixed truck+ship) that could move goods at much lower cost could not put pressure on another less competitive transport method (rail). Shipping lines formed "conferences" (read: cartels) to set standard prices for carrying cargo along standarised routes. The shipping business does not sound like a great business to be in these days, given the huge capital cost of building ships and ports and the constant pressure to reduce costs.
The book doesn't focus on nation-state level strategy, but there are a few connections: the Sea-Land shipping line -- one of the early adopters of containers -- won the contract to ship supplies from continental USA to troops in Vietnam, which led to the US military starting to understand the benefits of containerization.
A lot of ports that were historically major centres for handling labour-intensive breakbulk cargo got left behind and lost a lot of business - directly, as cargo flows moved to newer ports that could more efficiently handle containers, but also indirectly, as decreasing shipping costs meant the cost of transport was no longer a dominating factor of where to locate a factory, compared to other factors such as labour costs. For example, in the UK the formerly insignificant Port of Felixstowe negotiated a deal to become the UK's first container terminal, and now accounts for about half of Britain's containerised trade.
posted by are-coral-made at 6:05 PM on April 17, 2021 [3 favorites]
Do you think China will want to emulate that? Opinions vary.
Umm, if that article is going to pull stuff from the 1400s as an example of China being peaceful, then shouldn't also the wars and conflicts that the Ming and Qing fought also considered? They are an imperial power, so they did wage wars against their neighbors in Central, East, and Southeast Asia. They also meddled in their politics and occupied their lands. Xinjiang and Tibet were independent kingdoms in the past that became part of China later, while Vietnam was at certain points of it's history occupied and considered a part of China before it gained it's independence. And lastly, China has also violently put down uprisings by non-Han ethnic minorities and tribal groups within it's border too, like the Miao.
And I'm not saying the West is better than China. I'm just saying the idea that China is always peaceful and would never ever invade another country is not true, it's propaganda.
posted by FJT at 6:34 PM on April 17, 2021 [13 favorites]
Umm, if that article is going to pull stuff from the 1400s as an example of China being peaceful, then shouldn't also the wars and conflicts that the Ming and Qing fought also considered? They are an imperial power, so they did wage wars against their neighbors in Central, East, and Southeast Asia. They also meddled in their politics and occupied their lands. Xinjiang and Tibet were independent kingdoms in the past that became part of China later, while Vietnam was at certain points of it's history occupied and considered a part of China before it gained it's independence. And lastly, China has also violently put down uprisings by non-Han ethnic minorities and tribal groups within it's border too, like the Miao.
And I'm not saying the West is better than China. I'm just saying the idea that China is always peaceful and would never ever invade another country is not true, it's propaganda.
posted by FJT at 6:34 PM on April 17, 2021 [13 favorites]
I'm just saying the idea that China is always peaceful and would never ever invade another country is not true, it's propaganda.
They don't need to invade because their political structure knows the power of long term planning and soft power. The lessons have been written in blood the entire last century. Invasions are huge, messy things that have rarely ever been worth the cost when you put aside all the machismo and bravado that normally accompany 19th-21st century western style dick swinging war. Better to secure the supply with investment and then take more than your fair share if things get tough.
When Teddy Roosevelt spoke about "speak softly and carry a big stick", China have literally taken it to heart while the US has lost the plot.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:15 PM on April 17, 2021 [4 favorites]
They don't need to invade because their political structure knows the power of long term planning and soft power. The lessons have been written in blood the entire last century. Invasions are huge, messy things that have rarely ever been worth the cost when you put aside all the machismo and bravado that normally accompany 19th-21st century western style dick swinging war. Better to secure the supply with investment and then take more than your fair share if things get tough.
When Teddy Roosevelt spoke about "speak softly and carry a big stick", China have literally taken it to heart while the US has lost the plot.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:15 PM on April 17, 2021 [4 favorites]
Construction of the Suez canal (wikipedia)
The excavation took some 10 years, with forced labour (corvée) being employed until 1864 to dig out the canal.[57] Some sources estimate that over 30,000 people were working on the canal at any given period, that more than 1.5 million people from various countries were employed,[49][58] and that tens of thousands of labourers died, many of them from cholera and similar epidemics.
Estimates of the number of deaths vary widely with Gamal Abdel Nasser famously citing 120,000 deaths upon nationalization of the canal in a 26 July 1956 speech and the company's chief medical officer reporting no higher than 2.49 deaths per thousand in 1866.[50] Doubling these estimates with a generous assumption of 50,000 working staff per year over 11 years would put a conservative estimate at fewer than 3,000 deaths. More closely relying on the limited reported data of the time, the number would be fewer than 1,000.
So how many people died building the canal? I dunno somewhere between half a million and thirty thousand? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
FUCK! FUUUUUCK!!!!
This isn't in ancient times where bookkeeping was crap and the records were lost, this is just 150 years ago. They just DGAF enough to even count how many bodies were piling up. I used to wonder with contempt at the people who constructed the Hoover dam or the Golden Gate bridge and their callous disregard that led to the deaths of dozens of workers. But half a fucking million (maybe?) died making this canal!
Beware. When empire gets a horny for a shipping lane, they don't care how many people get fucked.
posted by adept256 at 7:19 PM on April 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
The excavation took some 10 years, with forced labour (corvée) being employed until 1864 to dig out the canal.[57] Some sources estimate that over 30,000 people were working on the canal at any given period, that more than 1.5 million people from various countries were employed,[49][58] and that tens of thousands of labourers died, many of them from cholera and similar epidemics.
Estimates of the number of deaths vary widely with Gamal Abdel Nasser famously citing 120,000 deaths upon nationalization of the canal in a 26 July 1956 speech and the company's chief medical officer reporting no higher than 2.49 deaths per thousand in 1866.[50] Doubling these estimates with a generous assumption of 50,000 working staff per year over 11 years would put a conservative estimate at fewer than 3,000 deaths. More closely relying on the limited reported data of the time, the number would be fewer than 1,000.
So how many people died building the canal? I dunno somewhere between half a million and thirty thousand? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
FUCK! FUUUUUCK!!!!
This isn't in ancient times where bookkeeping was crap and the records were lost, this is just 150 years ago. They just DGAF enough to even count how many bodies were piling up. I used to wonder with contempt at the people who constructed the Hoover dam or the Golden Gate bridge and their callous disregard that led to the deaths of dozens of workers. But half a fucking million (maybe?) died making this canal!
Beware. When empire gets a horny for a shipping lane, they don't care how many people get fucked.
posted by adept256 at 7:19 PM on April 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
Beware. When empire gets a horny for a shipping lane, they don't care how many people get fucked.
Witness pretty much every "transcontinental railway".
posted by maxwelton at 9:11 PM on April 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
Witness pretty much every "transcontinental railway".
posted by maxwelton at 9:11 PM on April 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
the company's chief medical officer reporting no higher than 2.49 deaths per thousand in 1866.[50] Doubling these estimates with a generous assumption of 50,000 working staff per year over 11 years would put a conservative estimate at fewer than 3,000 deaths. More closely relying on the limited reported data of the time, the number would be fewer than 1,000.
Uh, if 1,500,000 people were employed, that is 1,500 thousands times 2.49 per thousand = 3735 deaths, which is neither fewer than 3000 nor fewer than 1000. There is some fishy math going on somewhere in at least one of those estimates.
posted by eviemath at 9:35 PM on April 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
Uh, if 1,500,000 people were employed, that is 1,500 thousands times 2.49 per thousand = 3735 deaths, which is neither fewer than 3000 nor fewer than 1000. There is some fishy math going on somewhere in at least one of those estimates.
posted by eviemath at 9:35 PM on April 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
(adept256, I definitely suspect the official counts at the time, including that 3735 number, were significant under-counts, 'cause colonialism and capitalism and racism. But I don't see where you are getting half a million (500,000) from any the numbers you quoted?)
posted by eviemath at 9:40 PM on April 17, 2021
posted by eviemath at 9:40 PM on April 17, 2021
> if 1,500,000 people were employed
The "fewer than 3000" number is arrived at by setting the worker population to 50,000 per year. Perhaps the "some sources" that say 1.5million are considered unreliable?
posted by bashing rocks together at 12:20 AM on April 18, 2021
The "fewer than 3000" number is arrived at by setting the worker population to 50,000 per year. Perhaps the "some sources" that say 1.5million are considered unreliable?
posted by bashing rocks together at 12:20 AM on April 18, 2021
I used to wonder with contempt at the people who constructed the Hoover dam or the Golden Gate bridge and their callous disregard that led to the deaths of dozens of workers.
112 people died building the Hoover Dam. 28 died building the Bay Bridge. 11 people died constructing the Golden Gate Bridge.
"'On the Golden Gate Bridge, we had the idea we could cheat death by providing every known safety device for workers.'" [1] "The Golden Gate was not the first big job to feature hard hats and safety lines … But it was the first to enforce their use with the threat of dismissal.” [2]
"'Anytime someone got killed on the job, we’d go jittery and go home for the day. … If we got hurt, we couldn’t get no insurance, no welfare or nothing, until the union came up. I don’t know where I’d be without the union.' In October of 1936 Zampa fell from the Golden Gate Bridge and lived to tell the story." [3] "There were ten of us that fell into the nets those first few weeks. Four got hurt. I was one of them. We were in the hospital together. We formed the [Halfway to Hell Club] right there in St. Luke's Hospital." [4], [video]. Al Zampa died in 2000 at the age of 95. "The Alfred Zampa Memorial Bridge is the only bridge in the U.S. named for a blue-collar worker." [ibid 3]
"Sutter Health-owned St. Luke’s hospital in San Francisco plans to shut its skilled nursing facility in the Mission District by October. … All 72 of the union-represented workers have received layoff notices … Sutter did not explain why it is shutting the facility. … '[I]t looks like (Sutter is) reducing services for some of the most vulnerable in the city and focusing on services that are going to be more cost effective for them.'" [5, 15 June 2017]
"Construction of a suicide prevention net at San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge is two years behind schedule … won’t be ready until 2023 because of issues with the lead contractor, Shimmick Construction Co., which was sold two years ago, leading to many projects slowing down. … Backers of the net say a two-year delay equals 60 lives lost." [6, 13 Dec 2019]
"'Shimmick’s civil infrastructure expertise provides an immediate complement to our leading North American design practice, further enhancing our integrated delivery offering as governments and their constituents have approved hundreds of billions of dollars to improve infrastructure across the Western U.S.,' said Michael S. Burke, AECOM’s chairman and chief executive officer." [7, 6 Jul 2017]
“'Today’s announcement of the sale of our Civil construction business, together with the sale of our Power construction business in October, represents a significant milestone in advancing our strategy and focusing our efforts on our higher-margin and lower-risk Professional Services businesses,' said Troy Rudd, AECOM’s chief executive officer. 'Our outlook is bright as we bring together our company under our Think and Act Globally strategy, which includes transforming how we operate through the digital delivery of our work and focusing on growing our Professional Services businesses. I thank the Civil construction team on behalf of our company for their efforts over the years and wish the business the best of success under the stewardship of Oroco Capital.'” [8, 10 Dec 2020]
posted by PresidentOfDinosaurs at 12:25 AM on April 18, 2021 [8 favorites]
112 people died building the Hoover Dam. 28 died building the Bay Bridge. 11 people died constructing the Golden Gate Bridge.
"'On the Golden Gate Bridge, we had the idea we could cheat death by providing every known safety device for workers.'" [1] "The Golden Gate was not the first big job to feature hard hats and safety lines … But it was the first to enforce their use with the threat of dismissal.” [2]
"'Anytime someone got killed on the job, we’d go jittery and go home for the day. … If we got hurt, we couldn’t get no insurance, no welfare or nothing, until the union came up. I don’t know where I’d be without the union.' In October of 1936 Zampa fell from the Golden Gate Bridge and lived to tell the story." [3] "There were ten of us that fell into the nets those first few weeks. Four got hurt. I was one of them. We were in the hospital together. We formed the [Halfway to Hell Club] right there in St. Luke's Hospital." [4], [video]. Al Zampa died in 2000 at the age of 95. "The Alfred Zampa Memorial Bridge is the only bridge in the U.S. named for a blue-collar worker." [ibid 3]
"Sutter Health-owned St. Luke’s hospital in San Francisco plans to shut its skilled nursing facility in the Mission District by October. … All 72 of the union-represented workers have received layoff notices … Sutter did not explain why it is shutting the facility. … '[I]t looks like (Sutter is) reducing services for some of the most vulnerable in the city and focusing on services that are going to be more cost effective for them.'" [5, 15 June 2017]
"Construction of a suicide prevention net at San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge is two years behind schedule … won’t be ready until 2023 because of issues with the lead contractor, Shimmick Construction Co., which was sold two years ago, leading to many projects slowing down. … Backers of the net say a two-year delay equals 60 lives lost." [6, 13 Dec 2019]
"'Shimmick’s civil infrastructure expertise provides an immediate complement to our leading North American design practice, further enhancing our integrated delivery offering as governments and their constituents have approved hundreds of billions of dollars to improve infrastructure across the Western U.S.,' said Michael S. Burke, AECOM’s chairman and chief executive officer." [7, 6 Jul 2017]
“'Today’s announcement of the sale of our Civil construction business, together with the sale of our Power construction business in October, represents a significant milestone in advancing our strategy and focusing our efforts on our higher-margin and lower-risk Professional Services businesses,' said Troy Rudd, AECOM’s chief executive officer. 'Our outlook is bright as we bring together our company under our Think and Act Globally strategy, which includes transforming how we operate through the digital delivery of our work and focusing on growing our Professional Services businesses. I thank the Civil construction team on behalf of our company for their efforts over the years and wish the business the best of success under the stewardship of Oroco Capital.'” [8, 10 Dec 2020]
posted by PresidentOfDinosaurs at 12:25 AM on April 18, 2021 [8 favorites]
2021: 6,500 migrant workers have died since Qatar was awarded the 2022 world cup. The total figure is likely to be higher.
posted by biffa at 2:34 AM on April 18, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by biffa at 2:34 AM on April 18, 2021 [6 favorites]
About 1000 workers died building the 202 km long Rideau Canal in Eastern Ontario, mostly of malaria. That opened in 1832. There were only 7 accidental deaths recorded.
posted by fimbulvetr at 6:42 AM on April 18, 2021
posted by fimbulvetr at 6:42 AM on April 18, 2021
And they held an inquest for every accidental death on the Rideau Canal.
posted by fimbulvetr at 6:48 AM on April 18, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by fimbulvetr at 6:48 AM on April 18, 2021 [1 favorite]
A naval war between China and the US and its allies in the South China Sea would be unlikely to stay purely naval for long, considering that China has land-based systems that would be involved. And not just on the artificial islands (but those too).
China's long game is probably best exemplified by the belt and road initiative. I wonder if we'll ever know how many workers will have been injured, or died, or subjected to various human right abuses on the frontiers of its various rail and road projects.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:02 AM on April 18, 2021
China's long game is probably best exemplified by the belt and road initiative. I wonder if we'll ever know how many workers will have been injured, or died, or subjected to various human right abuses on the frontiers of its various rail and road projects.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:02 AM on April 18, 2021
The "fewer than 3000" number is arrived at by setting the worker population to 50,000 per year. Perhaps the "some sources" that say 1.5million are considered unreliable?
Yeah, that was my point - at least one of the 1.5 million number, or the death rate number, or the lower estimates of total death numbers must be wrong. (Or two of those, or all three!)
30,000 workers at any time or 50,000 a year are not very useful numbers to work with because they don't give you any information about overlap - was it the same 50,000 workers year after year? Did no one last longer than a year? Somewhere in the middle most likely, but that includes a huge potential variation in turnover rate.
And on top of the lack of turnover info, what time units are used for the 30,000 at any time number? Daily? Monthly? Quarterly? 30,000 workers at a time quarterly with complete turnover over 11 years would give the 1.5 million total workers figure, but, if the 30,000 number is accurate, it's more likely to be weekly or monthly with some overlap/some percentage of turnover, I would imagine.
Anyway, 50,000 = 50 x 1000 and 50 x 2.49 deaths per thousand x 11 years = 1,3695.5 deaths assuming complete turnover annually, which is less than 3000 but more than 1000, but at least in that range. But there is still too much detail missing (from just that one quoted section, anyway) to use this as the calculation of total deaths.
posted by eviemath at 7:52 AM on April 18, 2021 [1 favorite]
Yeah, that was my point - at least one of the 1.5 million number, or the death rate number, or the lower estimates of total death numbers must be wrong. (Or two of those, or all three!)
30,000 workers at any time or 50,000 a year are not very useful numbers to work with because they don't give you any information about overlap - was it the same 50,000 workers year after year? Did no one last longer than a year? Somewhere in the middle most likely, but that includes a huge potential variation in turnover rate.
And on top of the lack of turnover info, what time units are used for the 30,000 at any time number? Daily? Monthly? Quarterly? 30,000 workers at a time quarterly with complete turnover over 11 years would give the 1.5 million total workers figure, but, if the 30,000 number is accurate, it's more likely to be weekly or monthly with some overlap/some percentage of turnover, I would imagine.
Anyway, 50,000 = 50 x 1000 and 50 x 2.49 deaths per thousand x 11 years = 1,3695.5 deaths assuming complete turnover annually, which is less than 3000 but more than 1000, but at least in that range. But there is still too much detail missing (from just that one quoted section, anyway) to use this as the calculation of total deaths.
posted by eviemath at 7:52 AM on April 18, 2021 [1 favorite]
I still have not read an explanation for how the Evergreen was even allowed into the Suez. I remember reading about this in the beginning when it got stuck; that ships this size were prohibited from the use of the Suez. If that's the case; who authorized it? Also; why is Egypt suing the Shipping company for the disaster; when Pilots employed by the Suez are the one's supposed to be guiding the ships through the canal; and Captain of the ship has reduced authority on the navigation?
I tried searching for answers to this; but could not find it.
posted by indianbadger1 at 9:40 AM on April 18, 2021 [1 favorite]
I tried searching for answers to this; but could not find it.
posted by indianbadger1 at 9:40 AM on April 18, 2021 [1 favorite]
that ships this size were prohibited from the use of the Suez.
I don't believe that's the case? The Ever Given (the actual name of the ship) is one of over 100 ships with a carrying capacity over 18k containers. NYT article discussing this and how these ships started getting so big.
As to the lawsuit, there will be many of them, and jurisdiction will be complex. The ownership of this megaships is nested in layer on layer of holding companies and subsidiaries.
The ship's owners are suing its operators in the UK. Last I checked Egypt's Suez Canal Authority hadn't even figured out exactly who they were demanding the $1B from, although ultimate responsibility will possibly fall on Shoei Kisen Kaisha.
From a different NYT article: "Flagged in Panama, the Ever Given is owned by two Japanese firms, Luster Maritime and Higaki Sangyo Kaisha, which are the plaintiffs in the lawsuit and are both subsidiaries of holding company Shoei Kisen Kaisha (itself a subsidiary of Japanese shipbuilder Imabari.) It is being leased by Evergreen Marine Corporation, a Taiwan-based conglomerate listed as the defendant. On top of that, the ship’s technical manager is Bernhard Schulte Shipmanagement, a German entity that isn’t a party to the lawsuit and was responsible for hiring the Indian crew."
posted by aspersioncast at 11:02 AM on April 18, 2021 [1 favorite]
I don't believe that's the case? The Ever Given (the actual name of the ship) is one of over 100 ships with a carrying capacity over 18k containers. NYT article discussing this and how these ships started getting so big.
As to the lawsuit, there will be many of them, and jurisdiction will be complex. The ownership of this megaships is nested in layer on layer of holding companies and subsidiaries.
The ship's owners are suing its operators in the UK. Last I checked Egypt's Suez Canal Authority hadn't even figured out exactly who they were demanding the $1B from, although ultimate responsibility will possibly fall on Shoei Kisen Kaisha.
From a different NYT article: "Flagged in Panama, the Ever Given is owned by two Japanese firms, Luster Maritime and Higaki Sangyo Kaisha, which are the plaintiffs in the lawsuit and are both subsidiaries of holding company Shoei Kisen Kaisha (itself a subsidiary of Japanese shipbuilder Imabari.) It is being leased by Evergreen Marine Corporation, a Taiwan-based conglomerate listed as the defendant. On top of that, the ship’s technical manager is Bernhard Schulte Shipmanagement, a German entity that isn’t a party to the lawsuit and was responsible for hiring the Indian crew."
posted by aspersioncast at 11:02 AM on April 18, 2021 [1 favorite]
I remember reading about this in the beginning when it got stuck; that ships this size were prohibited from the use of the Suez.
That was a bit of misinformation that cropped up early in the discussion about the Ever Given; as rdr noted in the thread about the Ever Given, like many other big cargo ships, it was constructed to be exactly the maximum size permitted in the Suez Canal. (If you look at the lengths on a list of the largest container ships ever built, it's pretty obvious what that maximum size allowed in the Suez Canal is!)
posted by mstokes650 at 11:19 AM on April 18, 2021 [1 favorite]
That was a bit of misinformation that cropped up early in the discussion about the Ever Given; as rdr noted in the thread about the Ever Given, like many other big cargo ships, it was constructed to be exactly the maximum size permitted in the Suez Canal. (If you look at the lengths on a list of the largest container ships ever built, it's pretty obvious what that maximum size allowed in the Suez Canal is!)
posted by mstokes650 at 11:19 AM on April 18, 2021 [1 favorite]
You: spreading misinformationSo I checked Joseph Heath's fuel efficiency numbers. It's true that freight transport by train requires a lot less fuel than by truck, and that transport by ship requires a lot less fuel than by train - see Figure 1 of Freight Transport in a Low-Carbon World by Alan McKinnon, but the numbers should be in grams of CO2 per t-km, not tonnes of CO2.
Me: getting at the bigger picture
posted by russilwvong at 3:40 PM on April 18, 2021
« Older We're a Problem | Meow-si Blue Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by notyou at 8:06 AM on April 17, 2021