Environmental impact of sailing activities

[Sailorbob8599]

Originally Posted by serol1971

Ok. Here again.

https://www.erol.at/logbook/index.ph...t_type=message


Hope it works now for you!

I have the same problem as TP. When I click on the link I get "403 Forbidden access" . . . it didn't work the first time & it isn't working on this latest link either so I haven't been able to read it but I get the understanding it is about being 'green' … I was raised during WWII in the south of England. We recycled EVERYTHING & continue to do so. But if you were raised here in north America, the land of plenty, I can see how easy it was to become part of the 'throw away' society however, I would not want to return to those days of strife & limited goods to buy. Not that we had any money either.
Some of these current 'green' radicals carry it a bit too far, trying to educate the masses. They've never had to go without!

[fahtcha]

The paper seems fairly well informed and a good general estimate. Many of these issues end up being site and person specific, so a more precise estimate is only likely to exhibit higher error.

If anything, though, the loading from land dwelling is likely getting higher, at least in places in the U.S. All the new houses seem to be huge. Heating and cooling those monstrosities is getting crazy even with new insulation and products. It's hard to say why two people need a 5,000 square foot house, but it's their money.

[grantmc]

I've created a PDF of the article for those that can't access it.

As an aside I think it's excellent but more importantly has drawn out some very fine posts indeed. Great discussion.

[a64pilot]

Now, I’m no eco freak, yes we have a Prius, but also have a CTS-V caddy, and had a Duramax C3500 dually.
However I’m convinced my “Impact” is a fraction of what it was living on land, and I think I’m typical, nothing special, just average Mom and Pop cruisers.

However Ken, I’m curious, how do you see yourself as having negative impact?

[a64pilot]

Just had a quick look at your article.
I believe your numbers are of course just estimates, but likely aren’t close, for example I’d bet the average dinghy motor, four stroke or not pollutes more than the average US automobile per hour of operation, reasoning is that the emission controls that the dinghy motor lacks, but the auto has, are actually amazingly effective.
Likely the big boat also isn’t emissions equipped, aircraft of course are not, and if your curious, look up the amount of sulphur in jet fuel, you may be surprised.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Cadence

... Reading your analysis, it sounds like we should stop breathing, Any human activity is going to have adverse environmental impact I guess ...

I don't think human breathing has much environmental impact.
Although Human beings exhale almost 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually; the carbon we exhale is the same carbon that was “inhaled” (sequestered) from the atmosphere by the plants (& animals than consume plants) we consume. The CO2 that we breathe out comes from what we eat, and what we eat has previously absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere. The overall CO2 balance of the cycle of human respiration is almost neutral.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Now, I’m no eco freak, yes we have a Prius, but also have a CTS-V caddy, and had a Duramax C3500 dually.
However I’m convinced my “Impact” is a fraction of what it was living on land, and I think I’m typical, nothing special, just average Mom and Pop cruisers.

However Ken, I’m curious, how do you see yourself as having negative impact?

My impact is positive not negative, you have it bass-ackwards.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I don't think human breathing has much environmental impact.
Although Human beings exhale almost 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually; the carbon we exhale is the same carbon that was “inhaled” (sequestered) from the atmosphere by the plants (& animals than consume plants) we consume. The CO2 that we breathe out comes from what we eat, and what we eat has previously absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere. The overall CO2 balance of the cycle of human respiration is almost neutral.

GordMay, I think you missed the as it related to breathing. It was totally in jest. The OP was good given the specifics but only cited a very small sector of cruising scenarios.. What prompted picking at sailing as apposed many other polluting activities beats the hell out of me.

[TrentePieds]

Kindest thanx to grantmc for the PDF, it's on tonight's required reading :-)

TP

[inspectr]

Originally Posted by Bob Morane

I was arguing with a friend about this.

The average cruise boat has 5.000 cruisers on board.
If someone has an honest and comprehensive comparison of a cruise ship environmental impact vs 2500 outremer 45, I would be happy to finally have an answer to give my friend.

A Millenium class cruise ship say 120,000 tonnes burns around 150 tonnes of high sulfur HFO per day and is at sea for around 340 days a year.
Guessing there is 1200 liters per tonne of HFO, that means that the ship burns 180,000 litres of HFO per day or 36 litres per person per day.

My own boat uses around 100 litres per year between my wife and I and the occasional guests - IE we use in a year what a large cruise ship passenger / crewmember uses each day. And we burn diesel no high sulfur heavy fuel oil.

We wont even mention the environmental impact of 4000 passengers flying to meet their ship for a 10 day holiday and returning home. But again they would probably holiday elsewhere so where is the impact additional impactreally.

Having done a few large ship cruises, the food waste is extraordinary, and the amount of food that the passengers consume is amazing, not to mention the high proportion of 150 - 200KG persons in mobility scooters. What goes in has to come out!

The impact of mass cruising is more on the destination, Venice and Dubrovnik are two places that have been ruined in my opinion. 3000 visitors in a daily armada to Mystery Island have destroyed the coral reefs. We were horrified to watch snorkellers walking over shattered coral fields, and this happens every day. We worked out why it was called mystery island.

The OP's premise appears to be wrong, you need to compare what one would consume leading a normal life at home versus the "cruising life where constrained by small living spaces and distances cruisers are by definition limiting their consumption

[250224]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Mike,

What the ecofreaks fail to realize is that it’s possible to have an overall positive impact on an eco system as a cruiser. Not everything is evil and negative by being a human as many would like us to believe. On our 62 and living in our land-based “cave,” I’m convinved my wife and I actually have a positive eco footprint, not negative. And I base my findings on science rather than emotion.

Forget it. Flying as often between the States and Europe as you (likely) do, impacts your footprint a lot.

Btw, OP had nothing written of 'cave', 'evil', 'negative' etc. Hard to discuss when people like you are becoming emotional (despite telling otherwise).

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by blu3534

Forget it. Flying as often between the States and Europe as you (likely) do, impacts your footprint a lot.

Btw, OP had nothing written of 'cave', 'evil', 'negative' etc. Hard to discuss when people like you are becoming emotional (despite telling otherwise).

I never wrote that the OP said any of those things, and by the way.... that's news to me that our 62 is over in Europe; the last time I checked, it was in Maine. It's hard to have an intelligent discussion with someone like you who conjures up emotional assumptions rather than offering up scientific facts.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

My impact is positive not negative, you have it bass-ackwards.

Well a negative impact means your having a positive influence.
I assume that is what you meant, that as opposed to to adding to the “Problem” your existence is lessening it?
Just wondered how you came to that conclusion?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

No, not “live in balance,” I believe it’s possible to have a positive impact. Mike, you need to try harder, life doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game.

Well, as with most things, you claim to be exceptional. Who am I to suggest otherwise.

But you kinda miss my point. I don’t think we should apologize for having an impact on the environment. To live is to have an impact. What we should do is be cognizant of is how large an impact we have, and to look at ways of minimizing said impact, or in the exceptional cases, having a positive impact.

The best thing we can do in the rich countries is learn to live smaller. And that is what boat life lends itself to; small living.

[a64pilot]

Mike, you say smaller, I say more efficient, but assume it’s the same thing.
My belief is the way forward say individual transportation wise is small, lightweight efficient automobiles, many likely electric, not SUV’s.

However it’s my belief that mass transit is the way forward if you want to live in an Urban environment.