Month: September 2018

This story originally appeared on Grist and is part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

When a blue-hulled cargo ship named Venta Maersk became the first container vessel to navigate a major Arctic sea route this month, it offered a glimpse of what the warming region might become: a maritime highway, with vessels lumbering between Asia and Europe through once-frozen seas.

Years of melting ice have made it easier for ships to ply these frigid waters. That’s a boon for the shipping industry but a threat to the fragile Arctic ecosystem. Nearly all ships run on fossil fuels, and many use heavy fuel oil, which spews black soot when burned and turns seas into a toxic goopy mess when spilled. Few international rules are in place to protect the Arctic’s environment from these ships, though a proposal to ban heavy fuel oil from the region is gaining support.

“For a long time, we weren’t looking at the Arctic as a viable option for a shortcut for Asia-to-Europe, or Asia-to-North America traffic, but that’s really changed, even over the last couple of years,” says Bryan Comer, a senior researcher with the International Council on Clean Transportation’s marine program. “It’s just increasingly concerning.”

Venta Maersk departed from South Korea in late August packed with frozen fish, chilled produce, and electronics. Days later, it sailed through the Bering Strait between Alaska and Russia, before cruising along Russia’s north coast. At one point, a nuclear icebreaker escorted Venta Maersk through a frozen Russian strait, then the container vessel continued to the Norwegian Sea. It’s expected to arrive in St. Petersburg later this month.

The trial voyage wouldn’t have been possible until recently. The Arctic region is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet, with sea ice, snow cover, glaciers, and permafrost all diminishing dramatically over recent decades. In the past, only powerful nuclear-powered icebreakers could forge through Arctic seas; these days, even commercial ships can navigate the region from roughly July to October—albeit sometimes with the help of skilled pilots and icebreaker escorts.

Russian tankers already carry liquefied natural gas to Western Europe and Asia. General cargo vessels move Chinese wind turbine parts and Canadian coal. Cruise liners take tourists to see surreal ice formations and polar bears in the Arctic summer. Around 2,100 cargo ships operated in Arctic waters in 2015, according to Comer’s group.

“Because of climate change, because of the melting of sea ice, these ships can operate for longer periods of time in the Arctic,” says Scott Stephenson, an assistant geography professor at the University of Connecticut, “and the shipping season is already longer than it used to be.” A study he co-authored found that, by 2060, ships with reinforced hulls could operate in the Arctic for nine months in the year.

Stephenson says that the Venta Maersk’s voyage doesn’t mean that an onrush of container ships will soon be clogging the Arctic seas, given the remaining risks and costs needed to operate in the region. “It’s a new, proof-of-concept test case,” he says.

Maersk, based in Copenhagen, says the goal is to collect data and “gain operational experience in a new area and to test vessel systems,” representatives from the company wrote in an email. The ship didn’t burn standard heavy fuel oil, but a type of high-grade, ultra-low-sulfur fuel. “We are taking all measures to ensure that this trial is done with the highest considerations for the sensitive environment in the region.”

Sian Prior, lead advisor to the HFO-Free Arctic Campaign, says that the best way to avoid fouling the Arctic is to ditch fossil fuels entirely and install electric systems with, say, battery storage or hydrogen fuel cells. Since those technologies aren’t yet commercially viable for ocean-going ships, the next option is to run ships on liquefied natural gas. The easiest alternative, however, is to switch to a lighter “marine distillate oil,” which Maersk says is “on par with” the fuel it’s using.

But many ships still run on cheaper heavy fuel oil, made from the residues of petroleum refining. In 2015, the sludgy fuel accounted for 57 percent of total fuel consumption in the Arctic, and was responsible for 68 percent of ships’ black carbon emissions, according to the International Council on Clean Transportation.

Black carbon wreaks havoc on the climate, even though it usually makes up a small share of total emissions. The small dark particles absorb the sun’s heat and directly warm the atmosphere. Within a few days, the particles fall back down to earth, darkening the snow and hindering the snow’s ability to reflect the sun’s radiation—resulting in more warming.

When spilled, heavy fuel oil emulsifies on the water’s surface or sinks to the seafloor, unlike lighter fuels which disperse and evaporate. Clean-up can take decades in remote waters, as was the case when the Exxon Valdez crude oil tanker slammed into an Alaskan reef in 1989.

“It’s dirtier when you burn it, the options to clean it up are limited, and the length it’s likely to persist in the environment is longer,” Prior says.

In April, the International Maritime Organization, the U.N. body that regulates the shipping industry, began laying the groundwork to ban ships from using or carrying heavy fuel oil in the Arctic. Given the lengthy rulemaking process, any policy won’t likely take effect before 2021, Prior says.

One of the biggest hurdles will be securing Russia’s approval. Most ships operating in the Arctic fly Russian flags, and the country’s leaders plan to invest tens of billions of dollars in coming years to beef up polar shipping activity along the Northern Sea Route. China also wants to build a “Polar Silk Road” and redirect its cargo ships along the Russian route.

Such ambitions hinge on a melting Arctic and rising global temperatures. If the warming Arctic eventually does offer a cheaper highway for moving goods around the world, Comer says, “then we need to start making sure that policies are in place.”

More Great WIRED Stories

Cars are getting bigger—the better to protect you with, my dear. But back when fuel was scarce and safety wasn’t a concern, tiny machines thrived. These wee rides filled a niche for decades, but today, some commuters still demand exceptionally small vehicles.

This article was originally published in the Fall 2018 Tiny issue of Popular Science.

On Monday, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a settlement with an after-market car technology company called Derive Systems. Derive was accused of selling 363,000 devices that could defeat the emissions control systems of any car. The settlement called for Derive to spend around $6 million correcting its sold and unsold software to prevent further emissions tampering, as well as pay a fine of $300,000.

At the tail-end of 2017, Apple announced that it was buying music discovery service Shazam for $400 million. Now that the deal has completed, the company has revealed that the platform will soon go ad-free. Even without the revenue that advertisements bring, it’s likely that the purchase price will be a bargain if Apple can use Shazam to become king of streaming.

There are plenty of numbers to support Apple’s judgment, like the fact that Shazam has been downloaded more than a billion times. And that the app is used more than 20 million times a day as folks across the globe sniff out what’s playing. But the really important number is 23 million; the disparity between Apple Music and Spotify’s subscriber numbers.

In the Spring, Apple Music passed the 50 million user mark, the majority of which are paying customers. Spotify has 83 million, a fact that must cause some consternation for the iPhone maker. Now, it’s likely that Apple Music’s explosive growth will continue, and just because of Apple’s size and reach, Music will naturally overtake Spotify.

Coasting to victory isn’t an option, however, and Apple will want to lure Spotify’s existing users, people who are already prepared to pay for music. They may not be swayed by flashy ads or a bigger music library (honestly, 40 million songs is plenty) but by a more compelling product. And Spotify can rest easy knowing that its product is pretty compelling already, especially in discovery.

Apple Music is considerably younger and has a corporate parent that is famously unwilling to exploit its user data. Shazam’s massive database of songs, tastes and listening behavior, which has been running for close to a decade, is just what Apple needs. It won’t hurt that Shazam knows what’s going to be a hit before anyone else does, thanks to all of the trend data it has.

Shazam already offers algorithmic suggestions for new songs, as well as tailored playlists that meet your tastes. Users can also see a Top 100 chart divided by country and even their local city. Imagine what Apple could do if it knew that 50,000 people are all listening to an obscure local act with a potential chart-topper?

I’m reminded of Onavo, the VPN that Facebook bought in 2013, which tracked what users were doing on their phones. This information alerted Facebook executives to what was hot, including Snapchat (which it tried to buy, and then copied) and WhatsApp (which it bought).

If the streaming wars has an eventual winner, it won’t be through pricing or the size of the music library on offer. Instead, it’ll be which company best uses the data it has to serve up tunes for its users can fall in love with. $400 million? Apple can earn that back in a matter of months if it can lure enough Spotify customers to switch sides.

via Engadget http://www.engadget.com

September 25, 2018 at 11:06AM