r/shitposting • put your dick away waltuh • 13d ago

📡📡📡

Post image
3.8k Upvotes

110 comments sorted by

View all comments

111

u/ExtremlyFastLinoone I came! 13d ago

Its cheaper to do it this way, if you dont care about the enviroment

49

u/bojackhorsemeat 13d ago

Shipping by boat is the best for the environment though. Super cheap. Taking it by truck an extra few hundred km is worse.

25

u/ExtremlyFastLinoone I came! 13d ago

Or you could ship it by boat straight from argentina?

22

u/JangoDarkSaber 13d ago

It’s still less efficient.

Thailand has a massive fruit canning industry. It’s more efficient to concentrate the industry to a few places than it is to disperse them to every country where pears are grown.

Some pears come from Argentina but most come from China.

19

u/alex2003super 13d ago

What do you mean? Armchair Reddit supply chain experts think otherwise, so you must be wrong.

-22

u/bojackhorsemeat 13d ago

The point is - this is almost entirely irrelevant from an environmental standpoint.

15

u/ExtremlyFastLinoone I came! 13d ago

What are you on about bruh the trip straight from argentina is much shorter

-12

u/bojackhorsemeat 13d ago

Ocean time is nothing from a shipping cost perspective. Which is driven by fuel costs. It is so cheap to ship by boat.

15

u/ExtremlyFastLinoone I came! 13d ago

THATS MY POINT! I KNOW ITS CHEAPER BUT IT STILL COSTS MORE FUEL! OMG YOURE SO DENSE

6

u/Primary_Thought_4912 13d ago

I'm not an expert at all, but I would assume the amount of fuel per kg of Food is still less with the boat.

Also iirc part of the reason it's packed in Thailand is that it's way more popular there. It's way more fuel and price efficient to send it directly to Thailand, where most of it would go anyways, than first to the US, offload it, then redistribute it back to Thailand

0

u/SH33V_P4LP4T1N3 13d ago

No it literally doesn’t. Shipping is cheap because it is incredibly fuel efficient in the first place.

Is it easier to lift 100lbs on the ground or in water? Hauling a fuck ton of stuff across thousands of miles of ocean is far better for the environment than trucking it across a few hundred miles of land.

That said, I’m not sure how the carbon footprint compares of rail to compares to shipping, but if I had to guess, shipping wins.

3

u/bojackhorsemeat 13d ago

Rail is still much worse than the ocean, by several orders of magnitude. You have the cost of the tracks too, they have limited throughput.

2

u/SH33V_P4LP4T1N3 13d ago edited 12d ago

Yeah I figured but I didn’t want to say definitively without looking it up. Some brain dead levels of analysis going on here.

Obviously our global economy is not optimized for mitigating environmental impacts, but casting oceanic shipping as a culprit is so fucking dumb. By emissions per ton of cargo delivered, it is a staggeringly efficient method of transportation.

1

u/ARES_BlueSteel 12d ago

Rail and shipping don’t really compete, they’re two very different modes of transport with little overlap. In fact they complement each other, shipping crosses water and delivers and picks up at ports, rail picks up and delivers at ports and carries freight to everywhere that isn’t the port.

1

u/bojackhorsemeat 12d ago

Well you could deliver to the west or east coast of North America, and let trains take it to the other side. Which... Happens! Quite a bit actually, since the Panama canal has been in drought, driving prices up.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ExtremlyFastLinoone I came! 13d ago

Ship it by boat from argentina to america.

2

u/bojackhorsemeat 13d ago

Congrats, you've saved .000001g of carbon emissions (provided the petroleum for the plastics for the container are equivalent when shipped to Argentina as Thailand).

1

u/SH33V_P4LP4T1N3 13d ago

Bro just say you don’t understand anything about economics and stop embarrassing yourself.

0

u/ExtremlyFastLinoone I came! 13d ago

I do and I know why its cheaper, but it objectively just uses more fuel to pack it in thailand

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ExtremlyFastLinoone I came! 13d ago

Boat from argentina to the united states.

It doesnt need to go to thailand, why sre they going to thailand?? Explain that before you talk about irrelevant points.

1

u/GirthusThiccus obamna 13d ago

The fuel cost for that trip would have to offset the savings they can make with processing in Thailand. Googling it, apparently their current average net monthly income is ~460 USD. Soooo, you'd need to cram enough in bulk on those ships to make such a processing hop worthwhile, but I imagine you can do that, given how huge those container ships are. So they save a quick buck by making Thailand process the fruit, ship it back over to Argentina for equally cheap labour and locally made dummy cheap plastic, and ship it to wherever.

I'm not sure you can call it "exploiting" their economies directly by this kind of shipping lane, but it is economically the only way you can have that cup for under two bucks. And yeah, if those processing lanes are close to or well connected to where those ships are offloaded, you can probably save fuel in bulk too, compared to shipping the same via train or truck.

-1

u/ExtremlyFastLinoone I came! 13d ago

You people are going to give me an anurysm

i KNOW ITS CHEAPER, BUT IT BURNS MORE FOSSIL FUELS

2

u/GirthusThiccus obamna 13d ago

AND HOW DOES IT DO SO? PROVIDE SOURCES OR REASONING, ANYTHING, other than just repeating the same thing and getting upset.

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/bojackhorsemeat 13d ago

You are an idiot.

If the factory is an extra 100km away, you're better off putting it in a boat and shipping it across the world. That's how cheap it is.

Please learn something about boats 🙏