Steve & Linda Dashew retire

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

. . I appreciate your comments.

I keep hearing about "methane" being so much more potent than CO2, but considering methane breaks down from UV (sunlight) I don't see how it is much of a concern since it can only have temporary effects as opposed to CO2.

It doesn't break down from sunlight -- it oxidizes. But the effect is still huge. Here's a general introduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane; and https://www.scitechnol.com/peer-revi...rticle_id=6097. The gist: even corrected for the shorter half-life of methane (, the effect per gram is something like 28 times greater than CO2. The INITIAL global warming potential is 120x more than CO2! So, yes, methane is a really, really big problem. Furthermore, reducing methane has a disproportionately big immediate effect because of the huge initial greenhouse effect. If we are concerned about feedback loops, like melting icecap, then the speed of the beneficial effect is really important, more important than the average over 100 years.

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

This is true, but not because cow fart. I do not buy meat, but if it is given to me, I do not refuse it, do you? It's a difficult to face negative social interactions by refusing someone's hospitality.

Yes, I do refuse it in social situations. I was afraid of negative social effects, but they did not materialize. On the contrary, I would say. People are curious why and it starts conversations. I was afraid of putting people to trouble, but all you have to do is ask for a salad or whatever vegetables they are having on the side. It is surprisingly easy. I have refused meat in all kinds of situations including a formal dinner with an ambassador!

I don't eat meat at all not just or even primarily for environmental reasons -- there's also the question of cruelty -- a very big question to my mind -- and lastly, I simply feel better without it. My body no longer regards meat as food. It's gross.

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

It also depends on which meat. If you catch a fish or hunt something wild, vs industrialized meat production which produces low quality product anyway.

Yes, definitely true. Also, among even industrialized meats there are huge differences. Beef is for some reason many times worse than chicken or pork. But there's the question of cruelty . .

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

Eating meat or not is not absolute. So eating some meat 2-3 times a month, is not so unhealthy, and the effects are well below the average american diet, although maybe still not acceptable.

Well, some meat 2 or 3 times a month qualifies as a vegetarian diet I think. What you say is all true, but on the other hand, why eat any at all?

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

It is more than a drop in the ocean (ocean has lots of drops), but maybe well below 1%. This is because there are few people doing it, instead they are doing other stuff we (boaters) aren't.

Well, it's a rounding error, actually. Consider the INCREMENTAL consumption, in any case -- that's probably zero in many cases. Power boat cruising compared to sitting at home in a big suburban house and driving a car is not obviously more harmful. It's not Ethiopians who are buying FPB's. Also consider that most days cruising one of Dashew's boats will be sitting at anchor consuming power generated by solar. In any case, there is a huge moral hazard in telling other people how they should live their lives, and telling other people that such and such is acceptable (say, flying on a plane for vacation) and other people that something else is not (once in a lifetime trip across the Atlantic in a power boat). Everyone has different circumstances and reasons to do this or that -- it is arrogant to decide for other people. I think the only way to deal with it is to tax it and let the market sort it out, while being sure that you're not hurting poorer people (tax rebates).

The 1.6 ton per month CO2 figure is averaged over all USA citizens, and includes services like police, fire, and most notably military use. Burning a liter of diesel, or cooking gas, emits more than that in the transportion and refining of the fuel.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=boat_alexandra;2597839]OK, that's true, but don't mix up general criticism of the American Way of Life with criticism of a certain kind of cruising. If the certain kind of cruising doesn't add to the existing problem, then it's not worthwhile and is possibly even really unfair to concentrate on it. And that's the case here in my opinion.

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

This is 0.06 barrels per person per day. Each barrel yields 11 gallons of diesel fuel. This is .66 gallons or 2.5 liters per person per day.

Now I am obviously not considering the cost to transport the fuel which is substantial. I'm not counting the quota already consumed to produce and transport goods to the people in the boat.

After they stock their boat with hand-grown organic vegan food, with 2 people in the boat, 5 liters per day, it is 150 liters per month.

This is to be on par with average american, and american lifestyle is already completely unacceptable. American consume more than 20 times more than persons in africa.

To be fair to those nearby on a "world tour" the consumption should be no more than 30 liters per month for 2 people, and that is at current unsustainable levels.

How many hours per month can the boat run? How far can it travel? Is this suitable for ocean crossing?

Please show this calculation.

Calling a power boat "efficient" is only in relation to other power boats. No engine is even 50% efficient which is pathetic, and reason enough they should not be used unless perhaps in emergency.

In any case, you are mostly right, and thank you for your points.

OK, well, I think by this time we've thoroughly mixed up the general problem with the specific question. I'm aware of your position that we shouldn't be using internal combustion engines at (except perhaps in an emergency). I respect your opinion, although I think that it would take something like totalitarianism to force people completely out of their lifestyles, take away all their cars, etc. so even if it's right and even if it's desirable (which I'm not sure about), I don't think it's practical. My own hope is pretty much all on technological progress. All we actually need is a decent electrical storage battery to end the use of fossil fuels without disrupting anyone's lifestyle. Nuclear fusion would just be icing on the cake, if we only had a decent battery with power density on par with petroleum. And more enlightened diets, but you can't force people to do that.

[Bigmarv]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Excuse me, but this is nonsense. Re-read the post. Sundeer 64's (the only kind I have sailed) go well upwind, similar, I said, to a Swan 90 I spent weeks on, not the 60. The early Frers 90 is more of a cruising boat, as is the Sundeer. The Swan 60 is a powerful racer/cruiser with SA/D of over 30 and almost 4 meters of draft. Obviously it goes upwind better than the Sundeer. But you wouldn't want to be on it in a blow or a long ocean passage. It's built for a completely different purpose.

And by the way, I have sailed all of these boats hundreds or thousands of miles, and not just read about them on internet forums.

No, that's not what you said. You said it was:

"... one of the best upwind boats I've ever been on, much better than the Swan 90 I used to crew on, and ... Maybe not quite as fast as some full on racer-cruisers of similar length and with much bigger rigs, like the Swan 60, but is faster over a wider range of conditions..."

So "much better" than a Swan 90 upwind, and "maybe not quite" as fast upwind as the 60. These are zero credibility claims.

[Bigmarv]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I did say, actually, that the Sundeer 64's I sailed (especially the water-ballasted one, which I crossed the North Sea on) were really good UPWIND. And yes -- you are right that the short keels limit their upwind ability -- there's no substitute for draft. But the 64's are extremely light -- D/L of only 80, similar to TJ's "Rocket Science" -- and extremely low drag with the low rig -- and besides that, they have super efficient big roach mainsails because of the B&R rig -- so they go like scalded cats in a good breeze. Because of the keel, they make a fair amount of leeway, but because of the speed, the VMG to windward is really good. We cracked off a bit and tacked through about 100 degrees, but the boat speed hardly fell below 10 and was often 11 and 12 even hard on the wind. It was the same trip exactly I had done a couple of years previously on my own boat, which was agony with my former dacron sails. With the water ballast set, the Sundeer was stiff as hell too and we carried full sail up to 20 knots true and more. The bat wing main was a joy to use. It did pound quite a bit, but I don't think sailing upwind against 25 knots of wind in the North Sea you could ask any boat for comfort. I did a long trip upwind in similar conditions on my friend's Swan 90 (n.b. this is an early '90s boat, a pure cruiser, not the current 90) and it was not as fast and vastly more difficult to handle. Cracked off of course nothing could catch that Swan (there's no substitute for waterline length) -- the same boat regularly did 300 mile days crossing the Pacific soon after.

I'm looking at this from a higher latitude perspective where a really big SA/D is a liability, and so up here, this is a good formula. I will want more draft and possibly even less SA/D for the new boat. I'm curious about the Sundeer 64 ketch -- never sailed one. I'm tempted by a ketch rig like this with the masts far apart and the big mainsails.

You tacked through 100 degrees hard on the wind into 25 knots true in the open North Sea in a Sundeer and averaged above 10 knots? I guess if anybody can...

It's just so weird then that even the Dashews themselves couldn't do this sort of thing. In their own book they acknowledge that they would flick on the donk upwind and in the light. It's there in the book. It's one thing to believe marketing patter, but another to double down on it and exceed it. Other designers are open about their shapes (small keel, lack of rig, pounding fore, a deliberately dragging submerged stern!) and the impact on windward work. I think Paine is even quoted in the book on it.

I haven't sailed on them and I know if I did I'd never match your amazing abilities upwind. But I've sailed beside them, watched them motor a lot, had friends build sails for them, done deliveries etc. I heard one sailmaker marvel at how slow they were in lighter airs. Good sailor, too. Most of the world has light winds. Modern sails make sailing in them wonderful in a good boat, but not a Dashew. Add to this the many anecdotal reports of the Dashews own passages being engine supplemented to keep up their averages (including from Estar in your other thread). Add to this the industry wide decision not to copy key features of their designs. Add to this the lack of actual passage data in which engine contribution is backed out. And so on.

They were tradewind boats that achieved reaching speed through length and that relied upon large engines and extensive tankage and much motoring to fill gaps in their performance abilities. They might figure large in the minds of people who spend a lot of time reading their books and fantasizing about gear or massive engine rooms. But the actual yacht designs are not fundamentally innovative. The design philosophies of the yachts are plainly not being followed now, and with hindsight they will be seen in the history of yacht design as a brief side-road made possible by cheap oil and obliviousness to the environment.

Still, great boats to do a wrong way round the world solo record attempt with Mr Dockhead on the helm!

[contrail]

I think it is very bold to comment on another person's sailing experiences and ability, without having been there. Arrogant, actually, as well as ignorant. Sometimes, it's the arrow, and sometimes it's the archer and sometimes it's the combination.

I sail a cruising cat and routinely do stuff that folks on this board state cannot be done. Some of these folks have probably never set foot on an equivalent boat, but others certainly have, and still others are buried in theory. Either way, they are certain that they know what's possible and what isn't. I consider myself a good sailor, but certainly not a world beater, by any stretch, yet, in races, we have knocked off three sailors that were top ten in the world at the respective times. Do I compare myself to them? NO. But, my boat has excellent sails, always has a clean bottom, has folding props, is kept light (for her design), and I have averaged a good 120 days of hard sailing, per year, for fourteen years. In other words, I know her very well (and way better than the competition), have practiced endlessly, and try to sail fast. Put me on another boat, and I am pretty sure I would be just a bit above average. Put me on mine, and we are dangerous and have the record to show for it!

All of which is to say that when you say something can't be done, what you are really saying is that YOU can't do it. Doesn't mean someone else can't. It might be a good idea to respect what they are saying and maybe try to learn something from it, rather than dismiss it out of hand. It is no surprise that, on this board, there are a few folks whose positions on a myriad of issues can be predicted, before they even chime in!

The most interesting thing I am getting from this discussion is the number of people who really care - although each in a different way - for our environment. None of us do it perfectly.....I remember being berated by a land lubber in a big house, driving a big SUV, who bitterly criticized me for living as an anchor -out, which meant I didn't pump out. Supposedly, I was ruining the environment, and, in a small way, perhaps I was guilty. But, I also powered my boat with solar, made my own water, rowed my dinghy and used a bicycle and usually sailed rather than motored. I thought I was doing pretty well, environmentally, but apparently he thought he was doing well, too, with his 10 gallon a flush toilet and his guzzler. We make our contributions in different ways, I guess, and need to respect that fact.

And, thanks for inspiring me to give some thought to my meat eating ways!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

You tacked through 100 degrees hard on the wind into 25 knots true in the open North Sea in a Sundeer and averaged above 10 knots? I guess if anybody can...

It's just so weird then that even the Dashews themselves couldn't do this sort of thing. In their own book they acknowledge that they would flick on the donk upwind and in the light. It's there in the book. It's one thing to believe marketing patter, but another to double down on it and exceed it. Other designers are open about their shapes (small keel, lack of rig, pounding fore, a deliberately dragging submerged stern!) and the impact on windward work. I think Paine is even quoted in the book on it.

I haven't sailed on them and I know if I did I'd never match your amazing abilities upwind. But I've sailed beside them, watched them motor a lot, had friends build sails for them, done deliveries etc. I heard one sailmaker marvel at how slow they were in lighter airs. Good sailor, too. Most of the world has light winds. Modern sails make sailing in them wonderful in a good boat, but not a Dashew. Add to this the many anecdotal reports of the Dashews own passages being engine supplemented to keep up their averages (including from Estar in your other thread). Add to this the industry wide decision not to copy key features of their designs. Add to this the lack of actual passage data in which engine contribution is backed out. And so on.

They were tradewind boats that achieved reaching speed through length and that relied upon large engines and extensive tankage and much motoring to fill gaps in their performance abilities. They might figure large in the minds of people who spend a lot of time reading their books and fantasizing about gear or massive engine rooms. But the actual yacht designs are not fundamentally innovative. The design philosophies of the yachts are plainly not being followed now, and with hindsight they will be seen in the history of yacht design as a brief side-road made possible by cheap oil and obliviousness to the environment.

Still, great boats to do a wrong way round the world solo record attempt with Mr Dockhead on the helm!

This is really rude and displays deep lack of knowledge. How you handle getting upwind in a lot of wind and what you do in light conditions are totally different jobs which bring out different qualities in different boats. Of course you put on the engine getting right upwind in light conditions -- in any boat with a smaller rig. That has nothing to do with how the boat in strong conditions.

I was (mostly) not at the helm and not in charge of the boat (the owner was), and the boat was not mine. I am not a fanboy (of this or any other boat) and so have no dog in the hunt. I am merely reporting real observations from real experience -- not just something I read about online or heard second or third hand. If it's useful for someone, then I am glad. If it's not -- that's fine; move on.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by contrail

I think it is very bold to comment on another person's sailing experiences and ability, without having been there. Arrogant, actually, as well as ignorant. Sometimes, it's the arrow, and sometimes it's the archer and sometimes it's the combination.

I sail a cruising cat and routinely do stuff that folks on this board state cannot be done. Some of these folks have probably never set foot on an equivalent boat, but others certainly have, and still others are buried in theory. Either way, they are certain that they know what's possible and what isn't. I consider myself a good sailor, but certainly not a world beater, by any stretch, yet, in races, we have knocked off three sailors that were top ten in the world at the respective times. Do I compare myself to them? NO. But, my boat has excellent sails, always has a clean bottom, has folding props, is kept light (for her design), and I have averaged a good 120 days of hard sailing, per year, for fourteen years. In other words, I know her very well (and way better than the competition), have practiced endlessly, and try to sail fast. Put me on another boat, and I am pretty sure I would be just a bit above average. Put me on mine, and we are dangerous and have the record to show for it!

All of which is to say that when you say something can't be done, what you are really saying is that YOU can't do it. Doesn't mean someone else can't. It might be a good idea to respect what they are saying and maybe try to learn something from it, rather than dismiss it out of hand. It is no surprise that, on this board, there are a few folks whose positions on a myriad of issues can be predicted, before they even chime in!

Indeed! But the problem is not that people are stuck in theory, it's that they are stuck in incorrect or inadequate theory, have no experience, and arrogantly insist on their own incorrect theoretical ideas.

If draft and best possible AWA were the only factors in getting upwind, then catamarans would be absolutely hopeless, even ones with boards, which are puny compared to the keel of a performance mono. And -- guess what -- some people actually think that!!

In fact, catamarans get upwind just fine, notwithstanding the legions of people who insist it can't be done. Overloaded condocats need to be motored upwind, but they are not actually any worse than overloaded cruising monos with dacron sails.

A more or less performance-oriented and not overloaded cat gets upwind the same way the Sundeer does -- by being light and fast. Not from the power of underwater foils. People forget the role of speed in getting upwind -- the faster you go, the more powerful a given foil can be, and the less leeway you have for a given speed of sideways drift.

The Sundeer 64 is exceptionally light for a cruising boat -- D/L 80 (less than half of my boat, and for comparison the Swan 60 is 121) -- and it gets upwind very much like a performance cat does.

Similar principles apply to boats like Pogos, an extreme wedgie which some people also think can't go upwind. Well, that's just people stuck in the preconception that the only way to get upwind is by sailing at a very narrow AWA, with powerful underwater foils. Well, it's not. The little Pogo, if you crack off a bit, goes so fast -- it will even plane even well on the wind -- that the keel generates huge power, and the amount of sideways drift is spread over so much forward motion, that there's almost no leeway. So you're rather wide AWA is nevertheless a quite respectable tacking angle over ground, and VMG to windward is excellent. Warning Disclaimer -- unlike everything else I have posted in this thread about boats, this is not first hand information, so take it with a grain of salt, but I've seen a lot of evidence of the truth of this.

Originally Posted by contrail

The most interesting thing I am getting from this discussion is the number of people who really care - although each in a different way - for our environment. None of us do it perfectly.....I remember being berated by a land lubber in a big house, driving a big SUV, who bitterly criticized me for living as an anchor -out, which meant I didn't pump out. Supposedly, I was ruining the environment, and, in a small way, perhaps I was guilty. But, I also powered my boat with solar, made my own water, rowed my dinghy and used a bicycle and usually sailed rather than motored. I thought I was doing pretty well, environmentally, but apparently he thought he was doing well, too, with his 10 gallon a flush toilet and his guzzler. We make our contributions in different ways, I guess, and need to respect that fact.

And, thanks for inspiring me to give some thought to my meat eating ways!

Well, everybody does more or does less according to his own conscience, knowledge, and circumstances. It is deeply wrong, in my opinion, to judge other people's lives and lifestyles. Who appointed us? I would never attempt to shame a meat-eater, or power boater, or anyone else, and I would certainly never set myself up as some kind of paragon, because I certainly am not (I fly a huge number of miles, for example), and I abhor hypocrisy.

It's all the more complicated because you must consider what people get out of whatever they are doing which produces CO2 or methane or some kind of pollution -- since we all produce CO2, methane and other kinds of pollution, it's the BALANCE of this versus whatever good things they get out of this activity, which is important, since we want to minimize sacrifices required (that's simple rationalization and efficiency -- you then get the most benefit from a given amount of sacrifice or the least sacrifice for the given amount of benefit, which is highly desirable). The best way to do this is with a tax, which leaves this balancing up to each person, who will know better what he's getting out of any given activity of his own and what the cost of any given sacrifice is. Yes, that puts wealthier people in a better position, but they are in a better position in any case -- there is inequality to some degree or another in every society on the face of the earth. If you insist on solving this problem as a precondition to solving climate and other environmental problems you will simply never get there -- you'll end up with a Cultural Revolution and totalitarianism, and even that won't make everyone equal.


But meat (and dairy) is really worth thinking about, for those who care and are curious. The main thing people don't realize is the vast damage which comes from these industries -- in the first world, it's equal to all of the damage which comes from vehicles, and it is a hell of a lot easier to give up animal-based food than to eliminate motorized transportation; in fact it requires no sacrifice at all unless you are just hard core addicted to the taste of meat. It even makes sense for skeptics about AGW (and you have to deal with them as well, and with respect, and with kindness, and not by calling them "stupid" and using them as a means to satisfy your own feelings of moral and intellectual superiority) because the damage goes far beyond global warming -- it takes up to a tonne of grain, grass and or forage to produce just 1 kg of meat protein, and the volume of fertilizer used (and run off to create algae blooms in bodies of water), fresh water used up, water polluted, and so forth, is staggering.

In my opinion, environmental damage from vehicles will solve itself faster with technology than we could ever solve it with social engineering, and so this is not the right thing to put the main focus on (and certainly not a miniscule number of rich guys in power boats ). The damage from meat and dairy can be solved without any technological change whatsoever and without any real sacrifice, and with a huge beneficial effect.

[Bigmarv]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This is really rude and displays deep lack of knowledge. How you handle getting upwind in a lot of wind and what you do in light conditions are totally different jobs which bring out different qualities in different boats. Of course you put on the engine getting right upwind in light conditions -- in any boat with a smaller rig. That has nothing to do with how the boat in strong conditions.

I was (mostly) not at the helm and not in charge of the boat (the owner was), and the boat was not mine. I am not a fanboy (of this or any other boat) and so have no dog in the hunt. I am merely reporting real observations from real experience -- not just something I read about online or heard second or third hand. If it's useful for someone, then I am glad. If it's not -- that's fine; move on.

Please don't be offended Dock. I wasn't meaning to be rude, or display my lack of knowledge. i'm just impressed that in open water fetch, in a Sundeer, you can go better upwind not only than a Swan 60 but better than an Imoca 60.

Really, say and think what you want. It's the internet!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

. i'm just impressed that in open water fetch, in a Sundeer, you can go better upwind not only than a Swan 60 but better than an Imoca 60.

This is a waste of time. No one said a Sundeer goes better upwind than a Swan 60, and someone clearly doesn't understand how an Imoca 60 performs.

I'm done with this silly conversation, which is just arguing for arguing's sake, and which already has nothing whatsoever to do with honouring the Dashews upon their retirement.

[rgleason]

Sean, I like the perspective and I share your concerns. I do what I can to save fossil fuel, but I am afraid that really isn't enough. It's frightening to think how large the tanks of some of those huge white "pleasure craft" are. I believe a 100' twin diesel takes about 60 gals to change the oil and the fuel from one fill would heat two leaky houses for a year.
We should be living in net zero houses or net zero boats. Alexandra comes very very close to that I believe and that's an exemplary achievement.

[boatman61]

I have to laugh at the way this thread has gone..
We have the purist against fossil fuel in boats.. the middle of the road guy who appreciates a donk, and an admirer of extreme fossil boating design.. as percieved by the average sailor.
One condems cow farts.. the others diesel consumption.
Water usage by livestock is quoted by a vegan who ignores the water needed for rice and other heavily dependant crops..
Even funnier is they all come from a country that consumes more meat and subsidised fossil fuel than many sub continents..
What an average American consume in meat per day will last me a week.. and many Asians a month.
As for water wasteage.. for me thats the 20+ minute shower by many here when 5 minutes is more than sufficent.
But please.. dont stop..

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

But meat (and dairy) is really worth thinking about, for those who care and are curious. The main thing people don't realize is the vast damage which comes from these industries -- in the first world, it's equal to all of the damage which comes from vehicles, and it is a hell of a lot easier to give up animal-based food than to eliminate motorized transportation; in fact it requires no sacrifice at all unless you are just hard core addicted to the taste of meat. It even makes sense for skeptics about AGW (and you have to deal with them as well, and with respect, and with kindness, and not by calling them "stupid" and using them as a means to satisfy your own feelings of moral and intellectual superiority) because the damage goes far beyond global warming -- it takes up to a tonne of grain, grass and or forage to produce just 1 kg of meat protein, and the volume of fertilizer used (and run off to create algae blooms in bodies of water), fresh water used up, water polluted, and so forth, is staggering.

In my opinion, environmental damage from vehicles will solve itself faster with technology than we could ever solve it with social engineering, and so this is not the right thing to put the main focus on (and certainly not a miniscule number of rich guys in power boats ). The damage from meat and dairy can be solved without any technological change whatsoever and without any real sacrifice, and with a huge beneficial effect.

There is another big impact on the planet to producing meat and dairy that I haven't seen mentioned here (but could have missed it). Due to the large amounts of land needed to raise cattle, millions of acres, much of it virgin rain forest is being clear cut to make the room for the cattle and to grow the feed they need. This doubles the impact since not only are you adding cows that contribute methane to the environment but you are losing the trees that absorb CO2.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I have to laugh at the way this thread has gone..
We have the purist against fossil fuel in boats.. the middle of the road guy who appreciates a donk, and an admirer of extreme fossil boating design.. as percieved by the average sailor.
One condems cow farts.. the others diesel consumption.
Water usage by livestock is quoted by a vegan who ignores the water needed for rice and other heavily dependant crops..
Even funnier is they all come from a country that consumes more meat and subsidised fossil fuel than many sub continents..
What an average American consume in meat per day will last me a week.. and many Asians a month.
As for water wasteage.. for me thats the 20+ minute shower by many here when 5 minutes is more than sufficent.
But please.. dont stop..

This is just an excellent post. This is an excellent representation of what happens when different people with concerns about the environment "count each other's cookies" -- condemning this thing which one does, while expecting others to overlook something else which they do themselves. It's called hypocrisy. Good on you, Phil.

[Bill Seal]

The famous Argument Clinic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwsGuZg9EP4

(subtitles included)

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by skipmac

There is another big impact on the planet to producing meat and dairy that I haven't seen mentioned here (but could have missed it). Due to the large amounts of land needed to raise cattle, millions of acres, much of it virgin rain forest is being clear cut to make the room for the cattle and to grow the feed they need. This doubles the impact since not only are you adding cows that contribute methane to the environment but you are losing the trees that absorb CO2.

Let's heed Phil's warning and not get preachy about it. There's no intention here anywhere to shame meat-eaters or anything. It's up to everyone to make up his own mind about all of this stuff and make his own choices.

But for anyone who happens to be curious about it --

Here is some good reading, from the U.N.: http://www.all-creatures.org/article...longshadow.pdf

This study is somewhat controversial, and not surprisingly, the meat industry claims exaggeration, but they could be partially right.

But in any case, even if you take the United Nations with a grain of salt, even allowing for some possible exaggeration, in direct effect, raising livestock has a roughly equal impact with all the vehicle use combined -- planes, trains, cars, trucks, buses, ships, boats. But the indirect effects are also huge -- as you mentioned, the destruction of forests which have complicated secondary effects, none of them good.


Phil is exactly right (and how does he even know this?? I'm impressed) that rice culture is quite destructive, so eliminating meat and dairy is not a one for one gain, especially if you substitute something like rice. But rice culture, as harmful as it is, is far less harmful than livestock, where you need up to a tonne of feed (and at least a few hundred kilos) to produce every kilo of meat protein, not speaking of the land and water. I believe it's not saying too much to say that raising livestock is the single most environmentally harmful human activity, and the least necessary.

[atmartin]

I found some of Steve's musings on building custom boats and dealing with yards/"the industry" both entertaining and informative. Many of his ideas made sense to me on a theoretical level, but I don't have the budget to put most of them into practice. Perhaps someday.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

there is inequality to some degree or another in every society on the face of the earth. If you insist on solving this problem as a precondition to solving climate and other environmental problems you will simply never get there -- you'll end up with a Cultural Revolution and totalitarianism, and even that won't make everyone equal.

It is sad how deep our cultural cynicism runs that all roads to equality must end in totalitarianism. This has been a contentious thread and I don't mean any offense, Dockhead. You're expressing a commonly held position, but it's one that gives me little hope for the future.