Recreational Boating & the Green Movement
- Thread starter divebums
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
Hippocampus
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2020
- Messages
- 4,180
- Location
- Plymouth
- Vessel Name
- Hippocampus
- Vessel Make
- Nordic Tug 42
Please read
https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/
This is plain, factually based science. Please read and critique. Find it most unfortunate most people on both sides of this issue haven’t taken the time to read any source documents. Believe only if you look at data concerning any subject can you generate an informed opinion and have a meaningful discussion. There’s an overwhelming consensus among the folks studying this issue with very few outliers. If you choose to be an outlier please at least review the science before propagating your opinion.
https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/
This is plain, factually based science. Please read and critique. Find it most unfortunate most people on both sides of this issue haven’t taken the time to read any source documents. Believe only if you look at data concerning any subject can you generate an informed opinion and have a meaningful discussion. There’s an overwhelming consensus among the folks studying this issue with very few outliers. If you choose to be an outlier please at least review the science before propagating your opinion.
OldDan1943
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2017
- Messages
- 10,648
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Kinja
- Vessel Make
- American Tug 34 #116 2008
1) "Bad Optics" has never discouraged government control or action, good or bad
2) engines burning from 1.9gph yield 3.16 nautical miles per gallon at 6 knots yet they are considered by all boaters to be fuel efficient.......hardly wouldn't you agree
3) Boats are for "Pleasure" not economy but higher fuel prices, higher moorage rates, state taxes, more use restrictions both federal, state and local taxes and regulations are a serious threat, let's not forget restrictions where you can anchor,i.e. inter coastal issues a few years ago.....we are not a free as we think
2) engines burning from 1.9gph yield 3.16 nautical miles per gallon at 6 knots yet they are considered by all boaters to be fuel efficient.......hardly wouldn't you agree
3) Boats are for "Pleasure" not economy but higher fuel prices, higher moorage rates, state taxes, more use restrictions both federal, state and local taxes and regulations are a serious threat, let's not forget restrictions where you can anchor,i.e. inter coastal issues a few years ago.....we are not a free as we think
SteveK
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2019
- Messages
- 5,839
- Location
- Gulf Islands, BC Canada
- Vessel Name
- Sea Sanctuary
- Vessel Make
- Bayliner 4588
Hippocampus
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2020
- Messages
- 4,180
- Location
- Plymouth
- Vessel Name
- Hippocampus
- Vessel Make
- Nordic Tug 42
I’ve love motorcycles-dirt and street. Snowmobiling. Have a 4 by and it sees mud, rock and snow. Always have used motorized vehicles.
Love the ocean. Wife broke her foot falling off the sailboat. Neither of us want to give up cruising and passagemaking.
Sailboats aren’t that green either. Think about all the petrochemicals involved in making anything that big in GRP. Then think about the energy involved in mining and smelting all that Pb and Al. Even the sails are from petrochemicals as is every rope and line.
Recreational boats in total are truly insignificant as regards made made climate change. Eliminate them and you’re pissing on a forest fire. A drop in the ocean. Yes I feel fine about a FD trawler. Might feel differently about a sport fish going out to the canyons every weekend. Do hate PWCs but that’s more because I find that group obnoxious.
Do think about my carbon offsets and my personal economics. A fuel efficient car costs me less. If I was in an urban environment wouldn’t have any car. Suburban commuter would want a eVehicle or very efficient hybrid . Where I live and for what I do have a very efficient diesel with 720 mile range. They come out with an better alternative that makes economic sense while giving the same or better utility I’ll buy that.
Think people forget most of this is a win/win. Better lifestyle, more efficient and less footprint. So far every so called green decision we’ve made has saved us money and for the zero footprint house has meant much less maintenance.
Not a zealot just try to be a rational person living my life wanting to leave others people alone and be left alone.
Sure I have my pet peeves. I’m anchored at the mouth of a tidal estuary. 3/4 of the entire volume exchanges every 6 hours. There’s no clam beds nor fish farms. I’m the only one there. But I still go out 3 miles to dump my holding tanks. I’m anchored at the mouth of a river . Same set up but there’s even more flow and it’s only out. Not logical as I have no impact.
I can’t use tin on my bottom but the big boys and navy can. I can get tin down in the islands and that’s alright. Not logical.
Try and get a nice light 2 stroke for your dinghy. They can make them so they pollute less than the current 4 strokes being sold.
Just want social policy to be fact based and logical. Hasn’t been. Hopefully will be better. Need to prevent them from playing wack-a-mole and hit on the insignificant issues first.
Love the ocean. Wife broke her foot falling off the sailboat. Neither of us want to give up cruising and passagemaking.
Sailboats aren’t that green either. Think about all the petrochemicals involved in making anything that big in GRP. Then think about the energy involved in mining and smelting all that Pb and Al. Even the sails are from petrochemicals as is every rope and line.
Recreational boats in total are truly insignificant as regards made made climate change. Eliminate them and you’re pissing on a forest fire. A drop in the ocean. Yes I feel fine about a FD trawler. Might feel differently about a sport fish going out to the canyons every weekend. Do hate PWCs but that’s more because I find that group obnoxious.
Do think about my carbon offsets and my personal economics. A fuel efficient car costs me less. If I was in an urban environment wouldn’t have any car. Suburban commuter would want a eVehicle or very efficient hybrid . Where I live and for what I do have a very efficient diesel with 720 mile range. They come out with an better alternative that makes economic sense while giving the same or better utility I’ll buy that.
Think people forget most of this is a win/win. Better lifestyle, more efficient and less footprint. So far every so called green decision we’ve made has saved us money and for the zero footprint house has meant much less maintenance.
Not a zealot just try to be a rational person living my life wanting to leave others people alone and be left alone.
Sure I have my pet peeves. I’m anchored at the mouth of a tidal estuary. 3/4 of the entire volume exchanges every 6 hours. There’s no clam beds nor fish farms. I’m the only one there. But I still go out 3 miles to dump my holding tanks. I’m anchored at the mouth of a river . Same set up but there’s even more flow and it’s only out. Not logical as I have no impact.
I can’t use tin on my bottom but the big boys and navy can. I can get tin down in the islands and that’s alright. Not logical.
Try and get a nice light 2 stroke for your dinghy. They can make them so they pollute less than the current 4 strokes being sold.
Just want social policy to be fact based and logical. Hasn’t been. Hopefully will be better. Need to prevent them from playing wack-a-mole and hit on the insignificant issues first.
Last edited:
SteveK
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2019
- Messages
- 5,839
- Location
- Gulf Islands, BC Canada
- Vessel Name
- Sea Sanctuary
- Vessel Make
- Bayliner 4588
HC, good answer.
John Kerry flying everywhere on his private jet, while preaching to me and the world what we need to do about carbon pollution.
While the truth is, if everyone lived like I do, the earth would be a hell of a lot greener than if everyone lived like Kerry does.
Hippocampus
For over 20 years, internal and external associates and I have been diligently working toward manifestations of socially acceptable procedures to abate anthropogenic caused climate/environment/ecosystem changes.
My corporation sponsored [produced and funded] a meeting of high ranking scientists, physicists, professors, engineers and inventors at Sandia National Laboratories, Lawrence Livermore, CA. Two persons and I co-chaired the meeting. Among other items; lengthy discussion was on the global need and ways to "DrawDown" carbon dioxide [CO2] out of atmosphere. Then turn that CO2 into Full-Cycle, Carbon Neutral gasoline, diesel and jet fuels. These new source fuels will be fungible, drop-in ready to mix with refined crude oil fossil fuels. Resounding progress is being made. Keep your eyes and ears wide open!
On the one hand: Overload of carbon dioxide in atmosphere is the greatest contributor to ongoing, increasing global warming. On the other hand: Overload of carbon dioxide [as a gas] existing in atmosphere is the largest "liquid energy" equivalent on Earth; it dwarfs other availabilities and/or the combined volumes thereof. Prodigiously extracted from ambient air, utilized correctly and stored successfully... the act of Full-Cycling atmospheric CO2 will create economic improvements and environmental betterment boons, extending well into the 22nd Century.
There will become available [during the next 10 to 20 years] atmospheric CO2 borne Full-Cycle, Carbon Neutral liquid hydrocarbon fuels; multitudes environmentally more cooperative than and on par cost with refined crude oil fuels. This new method of liquid hydrocarbon energy production will reach dominance by fulfilling global ecosystem needs. During decades long energy source metamorphous events our new liquid fuels and fossil fuels will become joined at the hip, while these sources cooperatively navigate channels leading to a sustainable future for humanity.
One eminently important "mechanical" societal-need, while stopping climate warming/change so that world environments do not experience calamities that "crash and burn" during the last half of 21st Century, is to keep international economies strong. To do so... the over two billion internal combustion engines [ICE] in operation must be kept running strong. To accomplish that, without great impinge upon the required restorations of worsening eco-systemic conditions, the burning of Non-Cycle Carbon Positive fossil fuels must be curtailed to a large extent.
I suggest punching up - POPA Report 2011: https://www.aps.org/policy/reports/assessments/upload/dac2011.pdf
Especially read the fourth [4th] paragraph, page nine [9]; to get a reasonable inkling of this necessary global project's enormity.
Best,
Art
Last edited:
OldDan1943
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2017
- Messages
- 10,648
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Kinja
- Vessel Make
- American Tug 34 #116 2008
Art/Hippo,
What the industrialized nations are doing, IMO, is dwarfed by what the undeveloped nations are not doing.
Then there was the program "The uncomfortable truth"
What the industrialized nations are doing, IMO, is dwarfed by what the undeveloped nations are not doing.
Then there was the program "The uncomfortable truth"
Last edited:
Hippocampus
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2020
- Messages
- 4,180
- Location
- Plymouth
- Vessel Name
- Hippocampus
- Vessel Make
- Nordic Tug 42
Excellent post Art. I learned something. Think once again a Swiss cheese model is appropriate
Explore multiple strategies for removal both biological and chemical.
Decrease all contributing elements to the extent possible ( transportation, agribusiness, energy production)
Mitigation the impact to extent possible so human impact (weather events, flooding, decrease in arable land) is lessened.
Believe many of our current geopolitical issues are already a reflection of climate change. Migration out of increasingly unattenable areas for living due to to lack of water or result storms, mudslides, flooding or cost of rebuilding. Think in large part the migration into the Russian and Chinese steppes and out of Central America are examples.
Explore multiple strategies for removal both biological and chemical.
Decrease all contributing elements to the extent possible ( transportation, agribusiness, energy production)
Mitigation the impact to extent possible so human impact (weather events, flooding, decrease in arable land) is lessened.
Believe many of our current geopolitical issues are already a reflection of climate change. Migration out of increasingly unattenable areas for living due to to lack of water or result storms, mudslides, flooding or cost of rebuilding. Think in large part the migration into the Russian and Chinese steppes and out of Central America are examples.
Last edited:
Dan - True.
However... there are plans to include the undeveloped nations into the mix of improvements by teaching the impoverished how to do certain tasks that produce electricity, create potable water and make carbon neutral fuels. Income they receive will assist their areas to up-lift many levels in their societal structure.
OldDan1943
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2017
- Messages
- 10,648
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Kinja
- Vessel Make
- American Tug 34 #116 2008
Art, sadly any US monies will disappear down a political 'rat hole'.
There has never been an audited accounting of the US Funds
Maybe we oughta start the "Rat Patrol" on Govt affairs!
Problem is... taint enough prison cells to hold em all, and, they're so slippery it would be difficult to plug up all their escape holes...
OldDan1943
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2017
- Messages
- 10,648
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Kinja
- Vessel Make
- American Tug 34 #116 2008
My comment was directed towards 3rd world govt officials.
Last edited:
SteveK
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2019
- Messages
- 5,839
- Location
- Gulf Islands, BC Canada
- Vessel Name
- Sea Sanctuary
- Vessel Make
- Bayliner 4588
I dunno, your country has done an excellent job of keeping them all in the same house. Some have been serving a sentence of 40 years.
Ya... Sure!
OldDan1943
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2017
- Messages
- 10,648
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Kinja
- Vessel Make
- American Tug 34 #116 2008
Aint that the truth.
Greatlaker221
Senior Member
Show me the specific data behind these typical green headlines. You can say anything and if you say it enough most people will believe you. Just take Hurricanes, look it up. Not true!
Lou_tribal
Guru
There is a mix of different things here, between our impact on mother earth and going green, for me these are two different subjects.
1. What is advertised as green may not be so green. Basic example, bio degradable plastic bags, when they appeared on the market it was the way to go, just to realise that if was even worst than standard plastic bags as splitting in micro pieces of plastic that animals are ingesting. Just the concept of green is marketing that can be seen everywhere.
2. Impact of humans on the global environment, that cannot be denied except by blinded people. Anything that anybody does has an impact, it is physical and undeniable.
So why not try to minimize our impact first before trying to invent some so green concepts? Maybe because that means making an effort to do so instead of just blindly continue as is. Human are lazy by nature, the easiest way will always be the preferred choice.
Simple things could make a big difference at scale, like reusing instead of trashing, be careful to use only what is needed to fill your need being energy, materials, food or anything else. You get something wrapped in a plastic bag, use it as a bag for your trash can instead of putting it in the trash, one less bag out there, if everyone does this it would mean millions less plastic bags out there. Eat what you need and do not waste, compost what can be composted etc etc. Basic simple things,no need for green marketing, just common sense.
As of today, we are living on the only rock suitable for life that we know of, but the way human live right now, being green or not, is like using our living room as toilets, pooing everywhere just thinking that this does not matter as we can walk around and keep our feet clean.
L
1. What is advertised as green may not be so green. Basic example, bio degradable plastic bags, when they appeared on the market it was the way to go, just to realise that if was even worst than standard plastic bags as splitting in micro pieces of plastic that animals are ingesting. Just the concept of green is marketing that can be seen everywhere.
2. Impact of humans on the global environment, that cannot be denied except by blinded people. Anything that anybody does has an impact, it is physical and undeniable.
So why not try to minimize our impact first before trying to invent some so green concepts? Maybe because that means making an effort to do so instead of just blindly continue as is. Human are lazy by nature, the easiest way will always be the preferred choice.
Simple things could make a big difference at scale, like reusing instead of trashing, be careful to use only what is needed to fill your need being energy, materials, food or anything else. You get something wrapped in a plastic bag, use it as a bag for your trash can instead of putting it in the trash, one less bag out there, if everyone does this it would mean millions less plastic bags out there. Eat what you need and do not waste, compost what can be composted etc etc. Basic simple things,no need for green marketing, just common sense.
As of today, we are living on the only rock suitable for life that we know of, but the way human live right now, being green or not, is like using our living room as toilets, pooing everywhere just thinking that this does not matter as we can walk around and keep our feet clean.
L
Benthic2
Guru
If you don't already know these things to be true, then you are not going to believe any source that I link to.
Data can get overwhelming, and many sources have an agenda so just look at the most simple of facts.
1. Hurricanes get their energy from warm water. As ocean temperature rises, it provides more energy for hurricanes, and allows hurricanes to get larger and travel further north, thereby doing more damage.
2. As hurricanes get larger, they drop more rain increasing flooding.
3. As ocean levels rise, more coastal areas will be flooded.
Do you dispute any of those statements ?
ksanders
Moderator Emeritus
Hmmm
isn't it just a teeny, tiny bit hypocritical for anyone on the one hand feel with their heart of hearts that fossile fuels are causing all the bad things i hear by some on this thread, and at the same time be on a forum that is devoted to a pasttime that is only possible by causing this great harm to our planet and humnanity?
I promise that if I personally believed that I was doing something that was causing others, or our panet direct, irreversible harm I would stop doing that thing immediately.
Seems logical to me.
It seems we have a situation where some tout a belief, and ask others to act, while they themselves are unwilling to do so.
Seriously guys. If you really think Trawlers are killing the planet, Please buy a sail boat. We even have a sister forum devoted to sail based cruising Cruisers forum. Wonderful folks there, lots of knowledge!
Last edited:
Benthic2
Guru
Its not hypocritical, its selfish. I am willing to give up somethings and do what I consider "my part" in this problem. It's like eating salt, or unsaturated fat. I know they are bad for me, and I limit the intake in some ways but sometimes I choose to eat a bag of chips because I want to.
Isn't it hypocritical to say you would stop doing something that was causing our planet harm and doing it anyway ? No rational, sane educated person can deny that burning fossil fuel is harming the planet. You can be apathetic and say you don't care, you can be optimistic and hope future generations can solve it, you can rationalize and say you are doing your part ( as I do ) or that there are far worse violators so your efforts won't matter.....but to say that it is not happening can only be ignorance.
Isn't it hypocritical to say you would stop doing something that was causing our planet harm and doing it anyway ? No rational, sane educated person can deny that burning fossil fuel is harming the planet. You can be apathetic and say you don't care, you can be optimistic and hope future generations can solve it, you can rationalize and say you are doing your part ( as I do ) or that there are far worse violators so your efforts won't matter.....but to say that it is not happening can only be ignorance.
BruceK
Moderator Emeritus
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2011
- Messages
- 13,538
- Vessel Name
- Sojourn
- Vessel Make
- Integrity 386
I strongly suspect that every day, in many ways,many of us are doing just that. The alternative, changing the habits and practices of a lifetime to become a troglodyte, is so unattractive(even repellent), I (and very likely others) blunder on.
Last edited:
SteveK
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2019
- Messages
- 5,839
- Location
- Gulf Islands, BC Canada
- Vessel Name
- Sea Sanctuary
- Vessel Make
- Bayliner 4588
And here I thought it was cow farts and we should eat plants instead. So hard to keep up.
BTW, show us a picture of your trawler just for reference of course of why you are here. Is it electric powered?
Forests burning are fossil fuels. But you are talking about gas and diesel. What created gas/diesel, do you know?
Benthic2
Guru
Cow farts are a problem
Eating less meat does help
I don't have a trawler, I have an I/O bowrider but plan to get a trawler after retirement.
I'm confused on the last one......I believe rotting organic matter and pressure create oil from which gas and diesel are refined but readily admit I know very little about the origin of petroleum products....I am not sure of the relevance of that question, however.
The point I was trying to make was that burning oil & gas is bad for the planet. Whether I am torching oil fields like Sadam Hussein, driving a Hummer and drink from styrofoam cups does not change that fact. I do NOT claim to be a carbon neutral person or that I am doing all I can for the environment. I AM saying that burning oil is detrimental to the environment, and if you do not realize that you should look into it more and educate yourself from multiple, reputable sources with an open mind.
ksanders
Moderator Emeritus
This is serious...
Why don't you get a sailboat? Why a trawler? If you really believe what you are saying, it seems to me that a trawler would be the last thing you'd own.
Also, a comment regarding your previous post. Please be very careful. You and I may not agree regarding the subject at hand, but to assume that I am either uneducated or ignorant because I do not agree on this subject would be a serious underestimation of me, and my education. We simply do not agree as to the severity and the long term consequences of the fossil fuel and climate change issue. That my friend is a subject probably best discussed in another venue.
I own a "trawler". Well, maybe not a trawler per se. I own a large ocean going boat. I do not feel bad about burning fossil fuels to power it, and I certainly do not limit my fuel usage for the sake of the planet.
I also own several large hydrocarbon fueled vehicles, and no EV's. I'm not against EV's, I just do not own any. Too small, too dangerous. I prefer the weight behind a one ton truck as a safety factor. Quite simply if my wife gets into a serious accident with a EV, it will not be my door the police are knocking on with bad news.
Benthic2
Guru
saying "we simply do not agree as to the severity and consequences" implies that you acknowledge the issue is real, while previously you had stated "If I were doing anything to hurt the planet....." from which I inferred that you did not believe the burning of fossil fuels was harming the planet.
As to my suggestion that you are uneducated on ignorant I apologize for not being more specific. By uneducated I did not mean to imply you had not attended institutions of higher learning. You may, and probably do have multiple degrees. And by ignorant, I was not insulting your intelligence, I meant it as a synonym for "unaware". I am an intelligent person but totally ignorant in regards to many things. ( ie: astrophysics, Egyptian history, gardening, etc).
Imagine if I told you the earth was flat. You could safely assume that I was uneducated or ignorant because the facts clearly indicate the earth is round. My point was that the facts clearly indicate that burning fossil fuel has a negative impact and anyone who does not understand that is unaware of the facts. Either they have not been exposed to them, or they have been exposed and chosen to disregard them.
My comments have made this thread more personal and less productive than it should be. I've made my points as clearly as I can and I appreciate the opportunity to do so. I will be more of a spectator and less of a participant going forward.
- Status
