Environmental impact of sailing activities

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Suijin

In general as a cruiser your ethic is conservation based out of necessity, regardless of your environmental conscientiousness.

For the vast majority of cruisers this is undoubtedly correct. It's just all too easy for some to grasp the moral high ground when the reality is that cruisers generally have few other options. Either because of their own space limitations, or out of a need & desire to safely & comfortably reach the next destination.

On land, the opposite is usually in play. It's usually from an overabundance of resources that allows many people concerned about environmental issues to afford the time & energy it takes to experience the outdoors, advocate their views from their computers, purchase hybrid or electric cars, or have the means or make the necessary choices to buy a boat. There are always exceptions, i.e. those who -- regardless of means -- make a free choice to live without. But in most of the world people have few choices beyond meeting basic needs for themselves & their families.

This is all just basic human nature, and that reality more than anything else is responsible for excess pollution, resource depletion, etc. As is the need for some to feel morally (or otherwise) superior to others by exclaiming their more virtuous lives. Imo, not all "impacts" are negative solely as a result of them being caused by humans, and whether or not humans are the cause of potentially dangerous changes to the planet's ecosystem should only be relevant towards coming up with responsible & reasonable solutions. Assigning "blame" for its own sake to factors, for e.g., unique to the undeveloped or developed worlds, or to those with wealth or not, or to those who engage in certain activities vs. others, is all a distraction and, more importantly, extremely divisive.

This is why I also choose to reject the overly simplistic & unrealistic reliance on pseudo-doctrines that arise from such works as Tragedy of the Commons and its progeny. It's a socio-economic work that's been politicized in modern times to convince people that "any" impact on the environment from humans is necessarily "bad," and that the mere existence of our species renders the planet's demise inevitable. This may ultimately prove true, of course, but such absolutist, zero-sum thinking does nothing constructive towards finding balanced & thus workable solutions.

[Knapweed]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Just try asking 10 people around you, and you'll find that 9 of them have no idea how electricity is produced or where theirs comes from.... nor do they care, just so long as it keeps coming out of the wall "like magic." Most seem to believe most of it comes from windmills, solar and rainbows, they have no idea of how much diesel, coal and burning trash is required.

75% of electricity in France is generated by Nuclear power. It's clean and very cheap; so cheap in fact, it exports $3 billion per year to neighbouring countries. It also generates NO CO2, SO2 or any other greenhouse gas. In addition, the electricity provided, if applied to transport, removes any and all air pollution from our cities and countryside.

The problem, of course, is that the Eco-warriors back in the day demonised nuclear power through ignorance and fear-mongering, just like they do today. There is plenty of room for development, e.g. Thorium reactors, which are not even capable of meltdown, require more research but overall look very promising and even cheaper.

The fact that nuclear power, a proven energy source with ZERO greenhouse gasses is still being demonised, speaks to me of complete insincerity amongst the 'Manmade global warming" brigade.

Of course, fusion is the ideal, however, until that day arrives Nuclear fission is a great alternative to the disgustingly filthy way we produce electricity today, which the World Health Organisation considers responsible for 3 million deaths a year.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Knapweed

...The fact that nuclear power, a proven energy source with ZERO greenhouse gasses is still being demonised, speaks to me of complete insincerity amongst the 'Manmade global warming" brigade. ...

There’s the danger of blanket assumptions and stereotypes. I’m a member of your “brigade” and I fully support MORE nuclear power. I bet most climate scientists also support more nuclear power.

But you’re right, there is a part of the so-called environmental movement which has stupidly demonized nuclear power. I think even there these voices are getting quieter. From a ACC perspective, more nuclear is one of the best practical solutions.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Knapweed

75% of electricity in France is generated by Nuclear power. It's clean and very cheap; so cheap in fact, it exports $3 billion per year to neighbouring countries. It also generates NO CO2, SO2 or any other greenhouse gas. In addition, the electricity provided, if applied to transport, removes any and all air pollution from our cities and countryside.

The problem, of course, is that the Eco-warriors back in the day demonised nuclear power through ignorance and fear-mongering, just like they do today. There is plenty of room for development, e.g. Thorium reactors, which are not even capable of meltdown, require more research but overall look very promising and even cheaper.

The fact that nuclear power, a proven energy source with ZERO greenhouse gasses is still being demonised, speaks to me of complete insincerity amongst the 'Manmade global warming" brigade.

Of course, fusion is the ideal, however, until that day arrives Nuclear fission is a great alternative to the disgustingly filthy way we produce electricity today, which the World Health Organisation considers responsible for 3 million deaths a year.

I think you’re right about the position of the environmental community in the past, but it seems fair to say they are more split on the issue these days. And for the reasons you allude to, namely the lesser of two evils.

[Knapweed]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

There’s the danger of blanket assumptions and stereotypes. I’m a member of your “brigade” and I fully support MORE nuclear power. I bet most climate scientists also support more nuclear power.

But you’re right, there is a part of the so-called environmental movement which has stupidly demonized nuclear power. I think even there these voices are getting quieter. From a ACC perspective, more nuclear is one of the best practical solutions.

Then clearly I'm not talking about you, Mike. I'm referring to the "Manmade global warming brigade" that DO demonise nuclear power.

[model 10]

[QUOTE=Mike OReilly;more nuclear is one of the best practical solutions.

I forget, what are you doing with the waste?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Knapweed

Then clearly I'm not talking about you. I'm referring to the "Manmade global warming brigade" that DO demonise nuclear power.

So… you’re defining a group, and then attacking them for meeting your self-imposed definition .

Originally Posted by Ecos

I forget, what are you doing with the waste?

Me? I’m not doing anything . Not sure about other countries, but in Canada we’re still working to build a permanent storage facility. Last I was aware they were down to a shortlist of sites. It will happen, eventually…

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Knapweed

Then clearly I'm not talking about you. I'm referring to the "Manmade global warming brigade" that DO demonise nuclear power.

It might be a convenient generalization to throw around, but no, there isn't a complete overlap between those who oppose nuclear power generation and those who think that AGW is a problem.


The main things stopping the construction of more nuclear plants are that it's a massive undertaking that requires both private and public investment and commitment (fossil-fuel plants are easier & cheaper to build ), and that at the moment, fossil fuels are artificially cheap, all things considered.

[Knapweed]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

So… you’re defining a group, and then attacking them for meeting your self-imposed definition .

Read more carefully Mike, I said AMONGST the community. You said yourself there are members of the community that do demonise nuclear power. So, are you denying they are 'amongst' the community even though you have already agreed they are? You appear confused.

[Mike OReilly]

You defined "Manmade global warming brigade,” which I assume means people who accept the science on anthropogenic climate change. Then you claimed they were “insincere” because you claim this same group oppose nuclear power.

I pointed out I accept the findings of climate science (your “brigade”), but I also support more nuclear power. So clearly your statement is false.

You now seem to be defining a group that accepts climate science AND opposes nuclear power. As I and LE have just said, this is a smaller subset of those who agree with ACC. I agree, they exist. But that is not what you initially wrote.

[Knapweed]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

You defined "Manmade global warming brigade,” which I assume means people who accept the science on anthropogenic climate change. Then you claimed they were “insincere” because you claim this same group oppose nuclear power.

I pointed out I accept the findings of climate science (your “brigade”), but I also support more nuclear power. So clearly your statement is false.

You now seem to be defining a group that accepts climate science AND opposes nuclear power. As I and LE have just said, this is a smaller subset of those who agree with ACC. I agree, they exist. But that is not what you initially wrote.

No. I defined a group and said there was insincerity AMONGST the community not that the community was 100% against nuclear power. If you are unable to understand the difference, I really can't make it any simpler and that is exactly what I initially wrote.

Here's the sentence again, with emphasis, just in case you are still struggling:

"The fact that nuclear power, a proven energy source with ZERO greenhouse gasses is still being demonised, speaks to me of complete insincerity AMONGST the 'Manmade global warming" brigade."

Still confused Mike?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Knapweed

No. I defined a group and said there was insincerity AMONGST the community not that the community was 100% against nuclear power. If you are unable to understand the difference, I really can't make it any simpler and that is exactly what I initially wrote.

Here's the sentence again, with emphasis, just in case you are still struggling:

"The fact that nuclear power, a proven energy source with ZERO greenhouse gasses is still being demonised, speaks to me of complete insincerity AMONGST the 'Manmade global warming" brigade."

Still confused Mike?

Ah, so it’s the grammar that you are confused about. Your sentence structure is such that “amongst” applies to the group, not a subset of this group. If you had said "some amongst" … then you would be correct.

Hope that helps unconfused you.

[MountainKing]

I think for the article to be a valid look at the environmental effects of cruising, you would have to compare it with something similar. Such as the same folks maybe taking a vacation at the beach and staying in hotels. To make it even more similar, maybe they drive up the coast and stay at 4 or 5 different coastal towns during their stay so they can explore different areas, similar to what cruisers do. Otherwise, all your saying is that taking a holiday has an environmental footprint. The numbers in isolation are meaningless, we have to look at them relative to another vacation, or relative to just staying home and doing nothing.

[Knapweed]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Ah, so it’s the grammar that you are confused about. Your sentence structure is such that “amongst” applies to the group, not a subset of this group. If you had said "some amongst" … then you would be correct.

Hope that helps unconfused you.

I won't be taking grammar lessons from somebody who writes "Hope that helps unconfused you."

No, if I meant the whole group, I would have said, "The fact that nuclear power, a proven energy source with ZERO greenhouse gasses is still being demonised, speaks to me of complete insincerity FROM the 'Manmade global warming" brigade"

There is nothing wrong with the sentence structure. The only problem is, you're desperate in your attempts to prove you were right when clearly you're not. Now you're just resorting to snide innuendo in order to make a case that clearly has no merit.

[MountainKing]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Ah, so it’s the grammar that you are confused about. Your sentence structure is such that “amongst” applies to the group, not a subset of this group. If you had said "some amongst" … then you would be correct.

Hope that helps unconfused you.

I also believe in man-made global warming, perhaps because I'm a scientist and I believe in things that are proven, rather than just what I want to believe to justify my ideology. I also believe nuclear power is a safe, effective power source, the dangers of which have been overblown, and that we should be building more modern nuclear power plants. Two out of two now for man-made global warming believers that would like to see more nuclear power.