Environmental impact of sailing activities

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

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

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

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.

Let me give the two of you some simple examples of having a positive impact on the environment as opposed to being neutral:

Many people seem to enjoy claiming to have a neutral impact or lesser "footprint" but all they do is live modestly and sit around complain and wring their hands about how the environment's been ruined and preach about how others should live more like them. On the other hand.... there are those of us actually out there doing something about it, like... living on a boat which is completely self sufficient and doesn't need to be plugged into electricity every day, picking up trash when we see it (as opposed to expecting someone else to do it), living in nature and understanding the complex ecosystem around us, as opposed to those who sit around watching nature on TV in a well-heated or air conditioned house. And of course.... I walk to work each and every day as opposed to the complainers who mostly drive gas guzzling cars to work, then I come home at the end of the day to a home and business which is 100% solar powered, and has been for over twelve years. Just a few examples.... I can go on.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by 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.

When I say “small” I mean less, as in use less resources. Efficiency can be one way to achieve using less. Unfortunately, in practice added efficiency usually doesn’t lead to less resource usage. It most often leads to doing more with the same resources.

This effect even has a name: the Jevons paradox, and it’s well known in economics and environmental studies. It’s why almost nothing that we’ve done (societally speaking) has reduced humanity’s impact on the planetary ecosystem. We make a gain through efficiency, but we then use this gain to grow; to use more.

In the end, efficiency usually leads to more resource usage, not less. This is why I think honest environmentalist should stop telling people all they need to do is buy more efficient cars, or change to compact fluorescent bulbs … none of this has resulted in a net reduction in our impact on this planet, and it never will.

[cyan]

Jevons was right about so many things.
Probably had a sailboat.

[inspectr]

There is a wonderful caution in some Australian National parks

"Take only photographs, leave ONLY footprints"

What a fundamentally true statement about YOUR impact on this unique and fragile ball of dust in infinite space.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

When I say “small” I mean less, as in use less resources. Efficiency can be one way to achieve using less. Unfortunately, in practice added efficiency usually doesn’t lead to less resource usage. It most often leads to doing more with the same resources.

This effect even has a name: the Jevons paradox, and it’s well known in economics and environmental studies. It’s why almost nothing that we’ve done (societally speaking) has reduced humanity’s impact on the planetary ecosystem. We make a gain through efficiency, but we then use this gain to grow; to use more.

In the end, efficiency usually leads to more resource usage, not less. This is why I think honest environmentalist should stop telling people all they need to do is buy more efficient cars, or change to compact fluorescent bulbs … none of this has resulted in a net reduction in our impact on this planet, and it never will.

Originally Posted by cyan

Jevons was right about so many things.
Probably had a sailboat.

Wrong, Jevons ignored what would happen if efficiency had not taken place which would have resulted in even more resources being used by the masses and the increasing population. The environment and economics are NOT a zero-sum game. Socialists believe in the fixed-pot, zero-sum theories, but the planet and economies don't work that way.

[cyan]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Wrong, Jevons ignored what would happen if efficiency had not taken place which would have resulted in even more resources being used by the masses and the increasing population.

Can you provide any references or citations?
Your rebuttal feels a bit flimsy.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Wrong, Jevons ignored what would happen if efficiency had not taken place which would have resulted in even more resources being used by the masses and the increasing population. The environment and economics are NOT a zero-sum game. Socialists believe in the fixed-pot, zero-sum theories, but the planet and economies don't work that way.

Ken, I don’t really know what you’re on about…

The Jevons paradox recognizes a fact that has been supported by endless studies; that increased efficiency does not necessarily lead to reduced resource usage. In fact, increased efficiency often leads to MORE resource use as the efficiency savings are reinvested into a higher intensity of use.

Your whole "ignored what would happen if efficiency had not taken place which would have resulted in even more resources” is a straw man.

As for the zero-sum game comment, again, I don’t know what you’re on about here. I’m simply pointing out that if we want to make a positive impact on our eco-footprint, then we have to use less. Period. End of story. Efficiency can get us there, but only if we resist the paradox as identified by Jevons.

[seadago]

Concur with Mike. Well, mostly...

And that has always been the case in human history. From the ecological point of view, man has not lived in "balance" with nature since the late Pleistocene. The Clovis people probably numbered a few tens of thousands at the peak of their cultural expansion, spread over a continent. And they still managed to cause the extinction of the American megafauna, with a slightly better (efficiency-wise) version of old knapped flint technology that had been around for hundred thousand years already. In that context, we are a disruptive species, not an adaptive one.

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

In the end, efficiency usually leads to more resource usage, not less. This is why I think honest environmentalist should stop telling people all they need to do is buy more efficient cars, or change to compact fluorescent bulbs … none of this has resulted in a net reduction in our impact on this planet, and it never will.

Efficiency gains are important though, and can be far more so if directed, and not simply left to the dynamics of market economics. We are nearing the point where we will soon exceed the carrying capacity of many natural systems at global level; climate is only one of them. And the disruption we've created will exceed our own adaptive capacity.

In other words, we are shooting ourselves in the foot, evolutionarily speaking. The limits to our growth as a species will be determined as much or more by the collateral damage (damage read "disruption") we generate as a result, as by the availability of resources per se.

Whether we can achieve a cultural shift to manage that process before changes are irretrievable, is a different matter.

We need to change our definitions of "efficient" and "successful" to mean not only bigger, better, and more, but also, an perhaps mainly, "less disruptive". The change is cultural, not economic. It is not ideological or altruistic in any manner. It will be based strictly on self-interest; the realisation that the cost of mopping up the mess we make, is more than we can afford as a society.

At th moment though, I'm not very hopeful!

[a64pilot]

I think nature abhors a monoculture.
By that I mean grow millions of acres of corn, and every thing you can think of that eats corn of course shows up, bugs, fungus etc. It’s why pesticides etc has to be used.
There are so many people on this planet that I think there will be some form of Plague eventually, something will eventually overwhelm our health care.

[Kenomac]

Well I think most of the so called environmentalists need to get out more in the environment and actually see first hand how nature works in real life instead of parroting stuff they hear or read on the internet. Maybe even take a science course or two in college, or major in biology like I did, then travel the world.

But that might involve air travel... so I guess that idea's out.

One guy visits the Adriatic Sea for one week then writes up a totally flawed article and suddenly he's the expert because his thoughts echo many of the readers ideas. My wife and I spend three years in Italy and Croatia anchoring in isolated and crowded anchorages and we are somehow the cause of all the problems according to the OP.

[cyan]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Well I think most of the so called environmentalists need to get out more in the environment and actually see first hand how nature works in real life instead of parroting stuff they hear or read on the internet. Maybe even take a science course or two in college, or major in biology like I did, then travel the world.

But that might involve air travel... so I guess that idea's out.

Hmm. I was actually hoping to learn something, as Jevons seems widely accepted. The only counter-claim I found was written by some guy during the recession of 2008, who declared that this down-turn was the new norm. Oh well.

I completely agree that environmentalists need to get out into the environment. This seems self-evident, but I get your point there.

This forum does seem like an odd audience in which to declare one's self-sufficient solar virtue as an example for others. (admirable conviction, at least) This group, more than most of course, is comprised of people who are by necessity off-grid, and largely environment sensitive, first-hand. Most cruisers I know pick up trash they see, and attempt to minimize their footprints. Many of us have degrees in science- and use them.

[Hasbeen]

In 10 years time it will be virtually impossible to tell that most cruising yachties ever passed by.


As an ex navy pilot, I am interested in WW11 history, so when I spent 6 years sailing the Pacific islands I visited many of the bases used during the fighting, particularly in New Guinea & the Solomons. My findings of a few.


Rabaul, a small city before & after the war. By the 70s it was hard to find much trace of the 90,000 Jap force that held it, unless you looked 250 Ft down, for the sunken ships on the bottom of the harbour.


Green Island, [between the Solomons & New Guinea. A moderate atoll, it had 2 bomber strips & a fighter strip. There were up to 4 squadrons of Catalina "black Cats" flying boats, plus up to 5 squadrons of PT boats there at one time.


Today a small part of one strip is used by light aircraft but finding much trace of the 18,000 US New Zealand & Australian troops stationed there is really hard.


I could go on, but why bother. When tens of thousands of troops left such little trace of their passing, just what long tern effect are a few sailors going to have. About 1 tenth of 1 percent of sweet stuff all is about it.

[WingRyder]

We must also consider the footprint of the environmentalist, shopping for exotic fruits and veggies at Trader Joes... Those mangos, papayas, pineapples, ... even apples, oranges, kale, avocados, were all grown elsewhere, often in tropical regions. Much of the jungle deforestation is due to cash crops. So, everyone is contributing to the problem, but it is usually out of their field of vision. The only true way to minimalize your environmental footprint is to eat sustainable, indigenous flora and fauna... Probably not realistic. Here in Florida, cattail hearts, pine needles tea, and various wild plants, are readily available. But, this is the stuff that apocalypse preppers discuss, not "environmentalist".

We all want to do our part to reduce our footprint, but most people post their green ambitions, from the comfort of their leather couch, with the AC on, heavy electric consumption, refrigerator, lights, computers, ... not to mention the manufactured goods that we all rely on... cookware, dishes, silverware, glassware, clothing, vehicles, your dwelling! All of these things were manufactured and produced in facilities of unknown "green" tendencies. The tropical rainforests are being butchered at an alarming rate, not just for exotic wood, but to make way for farms, to support the first-world demand for exotic, or out of season fruits and veggies... Starbucks and the various other coffee houses, import vast quantities of coffee beans from the tropical belt. What is their environmental footprint on rainforest deforestation?

The most green among us, leave an untold environmental footprint... far beyond pooping in the ocean. A fiberglass hull is a toxic nightmare to produce, BUT, if it lasts for 50 years, or more, we have to amortize the eco-impact over that time frame. Yeah sure, sailors have boats with ablative chemicals that erode into the ocean, but considering the planet is 4/5 ocean, and that land dwellings are often times, constructed from clearing a forested area, to create a neighborhood... that will NEVER be returned to its natural state... at least not for centuries.

As I have said in my earlier post, the earth doesn't care which species consumes the most. It will continue to spin and do its thing, just like all the other planets. We pretend like we are in charge of the planet, only because we have a unique awareness of the universe. But within that awareness, is the reality that all dominate species on the planet have a shelf life. IMO, I think we are doomed. We will continue to procreate and ravage the planet, to a point where humans will suffer massive starvation and death... perhaps extinction. It is the law of the jungle. 99.999% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. We are merely smart primates. We have evolved the wisdom to understand what is happening around us, and in the universe... But as with all species, we are powerless to stop our own parasitic expansion! We would have to adopt measures that are considered too inhumane to consider, to stop the population explosion that is happening.

It's an ugly subject to consider. But it is coming.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I think nature abhors a monoculture.

Agree. Multihullture is far more natural!

[boatman61]

Its all very simple really..
Its down to the 2 G's.. gods.. and their mantra.. Growth.
Everything else is just side effects.