Environmental impact of sailing activities

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

The last time I took a deep breathe, O2 was a good thing. I think I’ll plant a tree.

You make a good point, the oceans are vast, much larger than most environmentalists realize while seated on front of their computers with their air conditioners running.

The forests are being decimated and are getting a lot of attention and rightly so, but to little avail. I'm not sure I have heard the environmentalists placing the emphases on the alga. Maybe I have just not been listening.

[helenroberts]

Great article. I live aboard and am currently cruising i the South Pacific. I would love to see a comparison to living in an house/ apartment vs living on a boat.

[jaromirj]

This is nice paper about influence of sailboat on environmental issue. I have two simple question (maybe it is answered, but i did not notice):
1) How many sailboats is needed for having negative influence on local environment (also simple question appeared - what is local environment).
2) what is the influence of marina on local environment.
all the best
jaromir

[secrabtree]

Most of the article and comments talk about the amount of pollution in the absolute - as if the alternative to cruising pollution was not polluting. If not cruising one is doing something else. Everythingis a trade-off. Would a person have more or less of a deliterious impact on the planet by a weekend 100 mile each way trip to Disneyland in the family sedan than a long term cruiser (like the Cates) has in a month? I suspect the Cates impact is miniscule in comparison.

[Exile]

Excluding small, localized, and environmentally sensitive areas warranting additional protections, I think this is otherwise one of the best posts I've read on the overall subject after countless related threads.

Originally Posted by Knapweed

The great thing about the environment is that it has been there a very long time. I live in the PNW, which is an area with outstanding wildlife: Humpback whales, dolphins, Orcas, Eagles etc. etc. The simple fact is, one humpback whale poops out as much fecal matter as 1,000 liveaboards.

Beware . . . that last, simple piece of reality may subject you to all sorts of scorn. To cite but a few of the more notable examples . . . that you personally don't care about the environment, are an "anti-environmentalist," and that you are all too willing to let "others" clean up your mess for you. Should you persist you may be accused of driving a gas guzzler, not properly sorting your trash & recycling, and . . . heaven forbid, not voting for the "correct" politicians & initiatives at the ballot box.

When you add up ALL the animals pooping into the sea, the amount liveaboards generate is insignificant. What isn't insignificant is the hundreds of thousands of gallons of raw sewage that is pumped into the sea off Victoria daily, generated, no doubt, by all the land-based eco-warriors in addition to everybody else who lives a land-based life.

I've read about this sewage dumping off Victoria before, and was assuming then as I do now that it's mostly treated vs. raw sewage being regularly dumped. If it is indeed raw sewage, are you aware of any measurable, recorded impacts? That the surrounding waters support abundant wildlife at the top of the food chain suggests otherwise.

It isn't so much about the quantity, it's more about the distribution. After all, apart from man made chemicals that didn't exist in the environment previously, everything else came from the Earth. Plastics are not currently biodegradable, however, Nature has only been faced with this problem for a very short time and indications are that microorganisms are already evolving to thrive on plastics and oil: https://www.popsci.com/bacteria-enzy...c-waste#page-2

I found it remarkable that, in the months & years following the infamous BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, scientists found large areas of seabed devoid of oil, and in its place zillions of corpses of tiny organisms that had consumed it. Turns out the huge reservoirs of oil underneath the seabed have been leaching oil up through the sea floor and into the gulf for millions of years, and these microorganisms have developed to consume it. This has to be contrasted, of course, with the devastation to fish stocks, birds & other wildlife (they're still finding oil under sandy beaches from the Exxon Valdez disaster). But your larger point about distribution -- which often means dilution -- is well taken.

I know it's the human condition to agonise over everything and we are encouraged to feel guilty about every area of our lives, however, we are products of Mother Nature. Like a good mum, she will let ourselves get dirty and be naughty but eventually she will step in and sort things out. I appreciate this might sound like a cop out, however, she's been taking care of things for the past four and a half billion years and had to cope with a lot worse than us.

She's lucky. All too many of the eco-warriors (as opposed to actual environmentalists) are themselves creating the same adverse impacts as anyone else, yet they rely on assuaging their own guilt and need for high-minded sanctimony when they accuse others. The worst are those, like the example cited in the recent post, who are wealthy enough to afford all the latest tech in "alternative energy" for their homes & vehicles, but fly off once per month for whatever reasons. Then they make themselves feel better by dictating or legislating to the rest of us. It's all the "environmentalism" one can afford, regardless of the cost to ordinary people.

Comets and asteroids crashing into the earth, volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, global warming, climate change et al she has taken in her stride. In fact, without these things it is highly unlikely we would even be here. Predators drive evolution and so do disasters.

And many of us wouldn't be here because modern energy development & technology have produced dramatically increased life expectancies, to say nothing of the computers we're all now using to share our opinions & ideas.

My advice is, enjoy sailing without guilt or remorse, your mum is taking care of any minor harm you may be doing to the environment just like she has been doing long before humans arrived. Guilt and self-torment is the only crap you need to keep off your boat but don't dump it into the sea, just leave it behind.

Guilt & self-torment are purely self-centered and thus selfish reasons for otherwise noble concerns about the environment. "Environmentalism" -- at least in developed countries -- has long since become very much mainstream. Unfortunately, the more extreme elements of the movement, and particularly those who use it to try & affect fundamental sociopolitical change, are alienating otherwise well-intentioned adherents.

[model 10]

[QUOTE=Exile;2
Guilt & self-torment are purely self-centered and thus selfish reasons for otherwise noble concerns about the environment.


Without a little guilt or self-torment, you get the Tragedy of the Commons
.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

.... otherwise well-intentioned adherents.

We need more of those, definitely, instead of people who never miss an opportunity to slag any advocacy, sneer at current efforts, and impugn the motives of any who have concerns.


Anyway... to the OP - the actual act of cruising on a sailboat is indeed low-impact compared to the average North American land-dweller. Who could dispute that? Some ancillary activities, like maintenance, painting/antifouling, hauling, and air travel have more impact, but net, it's still a fairly low-impact form of recreation.

[Knapweed]

[QUOTE=Ecos;2760489][QUOTE=Exile;2
Guilt & self-torment are purely self-centered and thus selfish reasons for otherwise noble concerns about the environment.


Without a little guilt or self-torment, you get the Tragedy of the Commons
.[/QUOTE]


I think concern and respect for the environment is constructive; however, I totally agree with Exile that guilt and self-torment are worse than useless. Concern and respect often lead to action, guilt and self-torment are just forms of emotional masturbation.

[Rob.Lovelace]

just had a quick read before i couldn’t believe someone has done such a study. Anyway although i didn’t make it to the end I couldn’t see where you offset the alleged environmental impact against the alternative. ie. if a cruising person uses 1lt of fuel per day verses a land dweller using 10lt of fuel per day making the cruiser although they are leaving a footprint it is remarkably smaller in all areas?

[Exile]

[QUOTE=Knapweed;2760495]

Originally Posted by Ecos

I think concern and respect for the environment is constructive; however, I totally agree with Exile that guilt and self-torment are worse than useless. Concern and respect often lead to action, guilt and self-torment are just forms of emotional masturbation.

And it's the emotional but misinformed reactions which often drive policy these days. We wind up with rules & regs which are not well thought out, hurt people unnecessarily, and so bring disdain for the environmental movement & environmentalists. Some of this is also an overreaction and thus undeserved, but also understandable given the ideological transformation of the environmental movement. Let's face it, if people have become concerned enough to start a thread about a (presumably negative) environmental impact of sailing, then it's no longer really about caring for the "environment."

[Exile]

[QUOTE=Ecos;2760489][QUOTE=Exile;2
Guilt & self-torment are purely self-centered and thus selfish reasons for otherwise noble concerns about the environment.


Without a little guilt or self-torment, you get the Tragedy of the Commons
.[/QUOTE]

Glad you brought that up. Another ideologically inspired rallying cry based on uninformed & misinformed, zero-sum assumptions. But it works because it feeds the guilt & self-torment!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

We need more of those [well-intentioned adherents], definitely, instead of people who never miss an opportunity to slag challenge any faux advocacy, sneer expose at current efforts designed for political expediency, and impugn call out the motives of any some who have emotionally driven concerns.

Seemed like it needed fixin'.

[Mike OReilly]

I’m not sure how we got off the rails with this discussion. Actually, I do know , but regardless…

I didn’t interpret the OP’s piece as saying cruising or sailing has a large environmental impact. The piece just points out there IS an impact, and it’s likely larger than many (most?) people believe.

I didn’t address the OP’s analysis specifically b/c it’s too specific, while having plenty of assumptions worthy of dispute. But it does illustrate a way of thinking about ALL our activities, not just sailing.

To live is to have an impact on the environment. I don’t think any of us should apologize for this. I think those of us in the rich, developed world can and should do much more to reduce the amount of the planet we do consume to support our lifestyles. But we all gotta live somewhere, somehow. It’s hard not to have a large impact while living in a developed country.

Living on a smallish boat lends itself to this kind of smaller lifestyle. It doesn’t have to go this way. There are plenty of ways to make boat life MORE impacting on the environment. But a cruising boat can, and often is, set up to have a lower impact than, say, the typical urban land dwelling.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Seemed like it needed fixin'.

Glad I could cheer you up.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Glad you brought that up. Another ideologically inspired rallying cry based on uninformed & misinformed, zero-sum assumptions. But it works because it feeds the guilt & self-torment!

It works because it fits. Cod fishery? Climate?