Slow Trip Across Sea Aids Profit and Environment

[phantom power]

It took more than a month for the container ship Ebba Maersk to steam from Germany to Guangdong, China, where it unloaded cargo on a recent Friday — a week longer than it did two years ago.

But for the owner, the Danish shipping giant Maersk, that counts as progress.

In a global culture dominated by speed, from overnight package delivery to bullet trains to fast-cash withdrawals, the company has seized on a sales pitch that may startle some hard-driving corporate customers: Slow is better.

By halving its top cruising speed over the last two years, Maersk cut fuel consumption on major routes by as much as 30 percent, greatly reducing costs. But the company also achieved an equal cut in the ships’ emissions of greenhouse gases.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/energy-environment/17speed.html

[WhiteTara]

1. does it translate into lower rates

I wonder.

[phantom power]

2. My guess would be it translates into slower rate increases over time.

[WhiteTara]

3. then why go "slow"? n/t

[phantom power]

4. Because slower rate increases are better than faster ones?

And because companies like to save money, and also it slows our express elevator into climate hell by some non-zero amount?

[Nihil]

5. Did you mean for the transporter or the recipient?

If the former, the OP explains exactly why:
> Maersk cut fuel consumption on major routes by as much as 30 percent

If the latter, what real difference does it make?
As long as the shipment arrives when it is scheduled to arrive,
the amount of time it takes to get there is immaterial.

Sounds like a damn good move to me.

:shrug: