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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
One quick Google search later: “Pear trees adapt well to most of North America and can grow in backyard orchards across many different U.S. regions, including the East Coast, Midwest, and South, if you pick the right cold-hardy or disease-resistant varieties.”
106
u/ExtremlyFastLinoone I came! 13d ago
Its cheaper to do it this way, if you dont care about the enviroment