Environmental impact of sailing activities

[Buzzman]

I think it would be more helpful for the overall debate if people stopped name-calling and desisted from the passive-aggressive 'put down style' of comments.

Just because you disagree with someone's view - even if it is *demonstrably* incorrect - is no reason to be disparaging of that view, nor of that person. This is simply 'uncivil'.

Having said that, I was intrigued by the OP, read the comments and arguments and put my thinking cap on, and came up with many of the "what abouts" others have already pointed out.

On 'the tragedy of the commons' it's now well known that what Hardin (1968) was talking about was "the tragedy of the *unregulated* commons"... a very important distinction...

Ostrom and others have since pointed out - conclusively - that humanity (especially in small local groups) tends to 'manage' the "commons" reasonably well. In other words, they can foresee the 'tragedy' and take steps to prevent it. Not *always* with 100% success rate, but the attempt is there, thus negating the "tragedy" argument.

For example, water resources on the islands of Madeira, or Bali, where co-operative endeavours channel water from where it falls and/or is stored to where it's needed, and where "commons managers" actually manage and limit/allow access to the resource.

Clearly, this was less well managed in the case of the North Atlantic Cod Fishery, or the former "global whale fishery". Numbers of whales on the East Coast of Australia are increasing year on year. Slowly. But does this warrant re-opening that fishery...??? Personally, I think not, so remain opposed to all but "genuine indigenous" and very small-scale, localised whale fisheries, like the Faeroes, for example. North American and Greenland Inuit "subsistence hunting". That sort of 'fishery'...

However, the 'relatively unregulated' open-ocean *fishery* we know too little about, but anecdotal commentary and protest from indigenous peoples around the globe who rely on local inshore fisheries for sustenance, point out that since the advent of 'factory ships' coastal fisheries have declined dramatically. Again, anecdotal. No one measured them first, so measuring them now is problematic. But when grand-daddy used to fish one day a week and bring home a boatload, and today, grandson can't get more than a handful of fish and that only after a week, and then they are tiny...well, something's not right...

But back to the OP....

In terms of our individual (and/or) collective impact as *cruisers*, I suspect - but cannot prove - the *relative* impacts of our hobby / lifestyle / pastime - compared to any other average human pastime, is probably vanishingly small. The closest might be the poster who mentioned living in an RV for 5 years - but unless that RV was stationary, it would use more fuel than a sailboat, one would think..??

However I do accept the OPs point, and agree with MikeReilly, that no matter how careful we are, we do have *an* impact, and that if we truly care for our planetary ecosystem that we should attempt, as far as it is humanly possible (given every other factor impacting on our decisions) to live as close as possible to the "take nothing but photographs, leave nothing but footprints" objective.

Having said that, even *footprints* are an issue, as anyone who has ever walked or visited an area with high walking/hiking activity, as the very nature of "walking" has an impact, resulting in scarring of the land with visible 'tracks' that then become waterways causing increased run-off and erosion, and provide access for (other) invasive species....

And so called 'bushwalkers' tend to assume they are 'environmentalists'....

I know this because my Dad was one - very active - and HE raised the issue of 'tracks' and what that leads too, only to be howled down by the so-called 'greenies' in the bushwalking / hiking community, who wanted to prevent anyone preventing them from accessing their 'resource' - so-called wilderness.

Everything is fraught if you look hard enough!!!!!!

Even breathing probably kills something, somewhere!

But it is useful, for all/any of us, to contemplate what impact we might or might not be having, and allowing this thought process to influence our everyday consumption decisions.

The very best we can hope to achieve is "minimise". In other words, and relatively-speaking, do "better" than someone in the same circumstances who does not choose to minimise their impact.

To be fair, a 500 berth cruise ship is probably a less damaging way to see the blue planet - per capita - as all that massive consumption of resources is spread across a large number of people, and thus, relatively-speaking (consumption divided by people divided by miles of travel), a 'cruise ship passenger' probably impacts less than your average sailing yacht 'cruiser'.

BUT.....

I have no actual data to back up that premise......and would be keen to read any *actual* scientific data that contradicts this.

Like many here I'd like to hope that's not the case, and that sailboats, due to their mainly wind-propulsion, are inherently "better" for the environment than a diesel-powered cruise ship.

Having said that....a couple of nights ago I was watching a TV doco on 'The City In The Sky' that posited that more than a million people are in the air flying from A to B at any given moment. The airline industry consumes *millions* of gallons of fuel and produces *millions* of tons of CO2 per annum.....

Our "few hundred gallons per year" diesel consumption is a gnat's fart in the infinite vacuum of space by comparison!

But the *concept* of "the tragedy of the commons" is the assumption that no-one acts out of "collective consciousness", and that each of us acts individually, selfishly, in our own, individual, self-interest....

So *not* doing so is, ipso facto, good for the environment.

Therefore, like Kenomac, I count my research, understanding, small car, low miles, no air flights, limited packaging purchased, rooftop solar panels etc etc etc as "positive" steps and therefore beneficial to the environment.

[i.e. relative to someone who does NOT do any of those things...]

I choose to sail in order to enhance and increase that benefit.

YMMV, and good luck to you if they do!

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Plants consume CO2. Plants love airplanes because they “ inject tons of CO2” into the atmosphere. Plants are a part of the environment. Airplanes are good for the environment.

Plants turn CO2 into O2. O2 makes up a very small part of the atmosphere. Animals breathe O2. Without plants converting CO2 into O2, animals would die. People are animals. Without plants, People would die.

Earths atmosphere;

Nitrogen...………... 78%
Oxygen...………….. 21%
Trace gases...…….. 1%
......…....................Argon.. 0.93%
............................CO2..... 0.4%
…………….others at less than 0.001%

and water vapor which varies from .001 to 5%


In other words, the at-best-disingenuous post's unreasonable and illogical point is illustrated by the statement that the second-largest constituent is a 'small' part of the atmosphere. 'Small' in this case could only be considered accurate in that there's 4 times more nitrogen than oxygen.

The important point about these constituents is not their amounts, but their effects. Since nitrogen is inert in it's gaseous form (though hugely important in many other ways), it's 2000-times-more-prevalence in the atmosphere than CO2 is (at least on the surface) of less consequence than the (current) .4% CO2 level.


A little crap in the environment is a good and necessary thing; the 'problem' comes when the crap to assimilation/reconfiguration/absorption ratio is upset, and is largely context and time dependent.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

The 'great' thing about the 'environment' (I assume you mean the planetary area within 10 miles above and maybe 10 miles below the 'surface') is that it is not constant; it has been suitable and conducive to homo sapiens for perhaps 45 million years, or 1 percent of the 'environments' age, and any land-based life for only about 10 percent.

Regarding the accuracy of your 'humpback whale poop' strawmanish analogy, from memory an average humpback might be 50 tons, 100,000 lbs, so, imagining like-for-like among 'predator poopers' (hardly a valid assumption, but given the inanity of the idea...), 1000 humans at 200 lbs =200,000 lbs, or 100 tons. I.e. more like a big blue than a humpback...

The near-constant refrain for technological saviors from supposed conservative exconados (excessive consumption advocates [since labels are seemingly so popular among the propagandized]) is no longer interesting, and can be attributed to human nature, or perhaps even the nature of life itself (note your 'predators drive evolution' quip). The interesting thing is that it is espoused by those that seem to consider themselves the more 'sapient' of the group homo sapiens. Perhaps biologists might consider them a subspecies, maybe 'homo sapiens sapiens'. Though I might consider homo sapiens pseudo-sapiens more accurate.

It would seem to me that a true conservative homo sapiens would, Occam-like, prefer a simple solution to a complex problem over a solution that has an unknown outcome and adds complexity to the problem. The effects of unrestrained/unregulated technological capitalism are quite obvious; whether one takes them as negative or positive has much to do with ones (universal) perspective.

The (I assume) 'hope' that either evolution or technology (through who-knows-what genetic modifications) will come to the rescue (as regards the 'plastics problem') seems at best simplistic, or, somewhere in the middle, a form of honest arrogance-from-ignorance, or, at the far (right) end of the spectrum, a deliberate attempt to promote a specific agenda.

Not sure why you 'agonize and feel guilty', or why you think it's the 'human condition'. Perhaps it is part of your human condition, but in my limited
experience, most humans feel guilty when they feel they've done something wrong, and 'agonize' (whatever that means) over things that are important to them. Your assertion seems just a bit presumptuous...

Not to get into Ken's trap of 'big vs small', but based on my informal studies and observations, luck is the ultimate 'driver' of evolution.

To state the obvious, feel guilty when you've done something wrong (or, better yet, apologize, make amends or fix your mistake, as the case may require) and self-torment yourself if you're a masochist. For those who aren't caricatures of humanity, we should take responsibility for our choices and be aware (as much as possible, at any rate) of their effects...

Originally Posted by Cadence

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.

There have been plenty of studies done on the human effects on oceanic algae. Due to, among other things, the complexity of the systems involved, it is not easy to tease out the pertinent facts; you could easily read for days just by doing a google search for 'human effects on oceanic algae'.

Just because oxygen is 'exhaled' by algae doesn't mean that more algae, or more quickly or efficiently photosynthesizing algae, is a good thing. Algae, in one form or another are probably the oldest form of life, and as such should be expected to have one of the most secure positions in the ecosystem, one of the widest ranges and 'survival envelopes', as well as a quick 'evolution rate', and it seems they do.

This should, and probably does, give them an advantage over their microscopic animal (or animal-like)-kingdom brethren, and is a concern for anyone who has a vested interest in keeping the oceanic biosphere at least roughly in the state to which we've become accustomed.

Originally Posted by Ecos

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
.

In this context, in normal English usage, I think 'guilt' would read 'awareness' and 'self-torment' would read 'responsibility'.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It works because it fits. Cod fishery? Climate?

Have to disagree. It works because it is a fact. In this case the 'commons' are the entire finite planet, humans and their animal minions are the 'greedy neighbor', and the rest of the inhabitants of the biosphere are the unlucky and unwitting co-inhabitants and users of the 'commons'...

[Knapweed]

lol, what mathematical trickery is this?

"Regarding the accuracy of your 'humpback whale poop' strawmanish analogy, from memory an average humpback might be 50 tons, 100,000 lbs, so, imagining like-for-like among 'predator poopers' (hardly a valid assumption, but given the inanity of the idea...), 1000 humans at 200 lbs =200,000 lbs, or 100 tons. I.e. more like a big blue than a humpback..."

For some strange reason you have compared the weight of a whale with 1000 humans. The sum would actually be something like, "an average human produces approximately 2.2 lbs of poop a day. 2.2 x 1000 = roughly a ton. A Humpback Whale poops a ton a day, therefore one Humpback Whale poops as much as 1,000 liveaboards. QED."

"The near-constant refrain for technological saviors from supposed conservative exconados (excessive consumption advocates [since labels are seemingly so popular among the propagandized]) is no longer interesting, and can be attributed to human nature, or perhaps even the nature of life itself (note your 'predators drive evolution' quip). The interesting thing is that it is espoused by those that seem to consider themselves the more 'sapient' of the group homo sapiens. Perhaps biologists might consider them a subspecies, maybe 'homo sapiens sapiens'. Though I might consider homo sapiens pseudo-sapiens more accurate."

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you just said apart from your comment about 'Predators drive evolution'. Are you debating that?

"It would seem to me that a true conservative homo sapiens would, Occam-like, prefer a simple solution to a complex problem over a solution that has an unknown outcome and adds complexity to the problem. The effects of unrestrained/unregulated technological capitalism are quite obvious; whether one takes them as negative or positive has much to do with ones (universal) perspective.

The (I assume) 'hope' that either evolution or technology (through who-knows-what genetic modifications) will come to the rescue (as regards the 'plastics problem') seems at best simplistic, or, somewhere in the middle, a form of honest arrogance-from-ignorance, or, at the far (right) end of the spectrum, a deliberate attempt to promote a specific agenda.

Not sure why you 'agonize and feel guilty', or why you think it's the 'human condition'. Perhaps it is part of your human condition, but in my limited
experience, most humans feel guilty when they feel they've done something wrong, and 'agonize' (whatever that means) over things that are important to them. Your assertion seems just a bit presumptuous...

Not to get into Ken's trap of 'big vs small', but based on my informal studies and observations, luck is the ultimate 'driver' of evolution.

To state the obvious, feel guilty when you've done something wrong (or, better yet, apologize, make amends or fix your mistake, as the case may require) and self-torment yourself if you're a masochist. For those who aren't caricatures of humanity, we should take responsibility for our choices and be aware (as much as possible, at any rate) of their effects..."

I wouldn't know where to start, so I ... erm won't.

[boatman61]

If the average human poops a kilo a day.. its time average folks went on diets..

[Knapweed]

Originally Posted by boatman61

If the average human poops a kilo a day.. its time average folks went on diets..

Lol, it was just mathematically convenient and I think I erred on the side of 'at least' a 1000 liveaboards.

[GordMay]

... Like a good mum, she (Mother nature) will let ourselves get dirty and be naughty but eventually she will step in and sort things out ...

... Of course the planet (Nature) doesn’t care. It will go on just fine. We will be brought into balance one way or another ...

Exactly what some are concerned about.

[bgallinger]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

As far as our footprint, I don't even know how to assess it. Here's why:

Our boat was constructed of timber, epoxy, and fiberglass. I do not really know the impact of all the epoxy used in boats.

Our boat makes use of stainless steel: so we have mining, and smelting and manufacturing pollution.

Some of our cordage comes from petroleum, drilling, spill pollution, etc. And of course all the manufacturing and mining for the stuff to create the drill rigs.

Solar panels.

A diesel fired heater.

And this is just to HAVE the boat.

*************

Some cruisers have smaller footprints than others, just like people in general. Some are home owners of large homes with large boats that are used mainly on weekends.

In the overall picture of pollution and cruising, the few cruisers who live aboard and cruise full time is vanishingly small. As a result, our pollution is also small.

However, we still generate a lot of trash, only some of which is biodegradable. We own no real estate property at this time, and haven't owned a car for quite a while. So we don't have to support that superstructure.

Ann

AMEN. Let's just go sailing!

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

67kg of feces per week?? What are you people eating?

Originally Posted by boatman61

If the average human poops a kilo a day.. its time average folks went on diets..

We’ve come back around to what I wrote in post #20.

[Suijin]

I have not read the whole thread so am likely covering already tilled soil.

As a liveabiard I’m certain that my carbon and environmental footprint is vanishingly small compared to when I lived on land.

I use a fraction of the fuel and non renewable energy that I did when in a house. Sonar panels, sailing. I run the engine as little as possible. I probably use a tenth or less energy than I did commuting to work alone. And that does not include heating a house and running appliances.

I walk or bike far more than I ever did living on land. In general as a cruiser your ethic is conservation based out of necessity, regardless of your environmental conscientiousness.

I think pointing to cruisers when talking about the bacteria count in coastal harbors misses a much larger contributor, which is land-based sewage that makes its way into waterways. It’s way more than you think, pretty much everywhere, and dwarfs what cruisers contribute. And then there is agricultural runoff of nitrogen and animal waste, which is enormous.

Cruise ships. Don’t forget that for every two or three passengers there is probably one crew member. And cruises (from what I see, never been in one) are partly about excess, splurging. There’s no way, one for one, that a cruise ship passenger has a lower environmental impact than I do.

[Kenomac]

Most avid environmentalists fail to realize or understand just how much carbon-based fuel is required to produce the electricity to power up their household and the computer which they’re using to complain continuously online. Most people think it just comes out of the wall like magic. This also goes for those folks living aboard and plugged in at marinas.

By contrast, a self-contained cruiser is very aware of how much diesel is required each season and looks for ways to minimize the use.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Exactly what some are concerned about.

Agreed. That was, and always is, my not-so-subtle point. The main reason to care about environmental changes is because we are altering the ecosystem that supports humanity, and the far more fragile modern human civilization.

The environment doesn’t care. The planet doesn’t care. Only we (should) care.

Originally Posted by Suijin

...As a liveabiard I’m certain that my carbon and environmental footprint is vanishingly small compared to when I lived on land. ...

I’ve made the same comment a number of times. Living in a small independent space drives conservation. Small is beautiful (in regards to lower resource usage).

Small means less to heat, less to cool. It means less space to fill with useless crap. And when one is directly and intimately responsible and aware of the resources one needs, conservation and limited use becomes second nature.

A smallish sailboat lends itself to low-impact living. Of course there are opposite examples, but in general it is a good way to live smaller. And living smaller is the only thing that matters when considering humanity’s impact on our ecosystem. The rest is just moving deck chairs on the Titanic

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Most avid environmentalists fail to realize or understand just how much carbon-based fuel is required to produce the electricity to power up their household and the computer which they’re using to complain continuously online.

You're just pulling that out of thin air. Thin, warming air.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You're just pulling that out of thin air. Thin, warming air.

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.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Agreed. That was, and always is, my not-so-subtle point. The main reason to care about environmental changes is because we are altering the ecosystem that supports humanity, and the far more fragile modern human civilization.

The environment doesn’t care. The planet doesn’t care. Only we (should) care.



I’ve made the same comment a number of times. Living in a small independent space drives conservation. Small is beautiful (in regards to lower resource usage).

Small means less to heat, less to cool. It means less space to fill with useless crap. And when one is directly and intimately responsible and aware of the resources one needs, conservation and limited use becomes second nature.

A smallish sailboat lends itself to low-impact living. Of course there are opposite examples, but in general it is a good way to live smaller. And living smaller is the only thing that matters when considering humanity’s impact on our ecosystem. The rest is just moving deck chairs on the Titanic

Size and scale can also drive efficiency and prices, resulting in a lower over all impact. Many times, larger is better... where does your electricity come from?

[Lake-Effect]

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.

I agree that the general public mostly takes all that for granted. And aren't keen on cutting back their own use (see "tragedy of the..." Wait, never mind)


But you said "Most avid environmentalists". T'aint so.