IanD

Which is why I said "some boaters" -- who only have a solid-fuel stove, can't easily fit a gas or diesel boiler, or simply can't afford to both fit and run one. Electricity used for heating is *very* expensive unless it runs a heat pump, just like for houses -- unfortunately right now there doesn't seem to be a good heat-pump solution that can be easily fitted to narrowboats. So it's not always easy for everyone to switch, even if it would be desirable from the emissions/smoke point of view. However the "vanity" pollution emitters -- which includes "lifestyle" woodburners in CH houses and Chelsea Tractor drivers, very often the same people -- have no such excuse, they're adding to the problem purely out of choice. (farmers or people who live in the middle of nowhere and *need* a 4x4 are excused, but don't forget that something like 90% of them are in towns and cities and never go offroad -- unless you count parking on the pavement outside Tarquin's school...)

That's true, but as CART admitted beforehand the survey was to try and find the least unacceptable way to increase license fees, since it's obvious that most people don't want to pay more. The percentage voting for each option was as follows: 1. Flat fee increase -- 14% 2. CC surcharge -- 40% 3. Area-based charging -- 22% 4. Increased widebeam surcharge -- 24% It was also pointed out that home moorers -- about 75% of boaters -- were most strongly in favour of option 2 (49%), and CCers were almost entirely not (3%). Which shouldn't come as any surprise, should it? So given these results, what would you have CART do to increase their license fee income other than what they actually did?

I agree 🙂 Hypocrisy would be (for example) claiming to care about the climate and pollution while sitting in your centrally-heated house warming your hands at a woodburning stove that's there just because it's "cosy". Or claiming to care about the environment and CO2 emissions while driving your children a short distance to school in a massive SUV -- worst of all if it's diesel, petrol is better for PM2.5 but worse for CO2, but even such an EV is much more energy-consuming than a small runabout. And all are worse than using public transport, or cycling, or walking -- if those are safe and possible, which they aren't always. However I'm pretty sure few posters on CWDF fall into either of these categories... 😉

If they genuinely haven't got an alternative -- say, some boaters -- then there's nothing hypocritical about having a stove and also being concerned about the climate and pollution. If the stove is a "lifestyle choice" -- and that is the reason for the big increase in woodburners in recent years, having a "cosy wood fire" in a town house or flat -- then it is rather hypocritical for them to carry on using it while claiming to be concerned about pollution and the environment.

I read that as a complaint about people having a go at CCers -- if that's not what you meant, it wasn't very clearly put... 😉 If you meant that CCers should stop complaining about being victimised then I completely agree. The same applies to wideboat owners, for the same reason... 😉

Go on, where is this mythical horde of "CC-haters" on CWDF then? Unless you mean people who dislike "CCers in name only" (CMers) who bend/break the rules about mooring and overstaying, there are plenty of them -- including me. "Proper CCers" who actually cruise round the system instead of doing their best to stay in one place without paying -- love 'em, they keep the canals going. But even they contribute less to the CART coffers than boaters with a home mooring, so -- even ignoring CARTs "CCers make much more use of the canals and cost us more" reasoning -- don't you think this is unfair?

Thanks, that's useful information even if it's bad news, it means they've changed their policy recently 😞 Did you try entering "Australia" instead of "USA"? It's possible their policy is different for the two countries -- or not... Does anyone have up-to-date confirmation of insurers who are currently still willing to insure non-UK-residents?

Since what I posted was two links (for people to read if they wanted to) and half a dozen lines quoting the main findings (if they didn't), that's pretty much exactly what I did... 😉 Oh I think you are -- or do you agree with his comment but don't want to admit it? Alternative view to what? That pollution is bad for people? That woodburners emit a lot of PM2.5 particles? That the earth is round? That ain't my view, that's facts. Unlike you seem to be doing, I didn't try to tell people what they should or shouldn't do as a result, that's entirely up to them... 😉

Yes 🙂 (and it was Tim Tyler who built the hull, not JW...)

Nobody is "having a go" at CCers, except perhaps in your head. As Nick pointed out, it's all about CART trying to raise more money, and CCers contribute considerably less to the CART coffers than HMers (and use the canals more, according to CART), so the surcharge is an attempt to correct this. The higher surcharge for wideboats is similarly to get more money from them to make up for the fact that they occupy more space and get more "value" from their boat. And it's still smaller than most places outside CART waters which use area-based charging, only 50% surcharge for a 14' instead of 100%...

Sorry, but you're the one spoiling for an argument here -- all I said was that pulling the boat so the stern was next to the ladder only works if that can be done, which is not always possible, and if not then walking along the roof is safer in a narrow lock than walking along the gunwale. What's your beef with that?

On a magic carpet, of course... 😉 Attacking me isn't going to change the facts though, because I'm not claiming to be perfect, like most people there are undoubtedly more things I could do to reduce my CO2/pollution burden -- but at least I recognise that, and that pollution does have a negative impact on people's health. Which is exactly what the first post said... 😉

So I guess you didn't read the original article I posted or the 86-page detailed analysis, then? PM2.5 are now recognised as one of the biggest pollution health hazards, and woodburners are the biggest source of these -- 3x bigger than road traffic (almost entirely from diesel vehicles). https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/09/eco-wood-stoves-emit-pollution-hgv-ecodesign No I don't drive a diesel car, and I mostly use public transport to get around.

You're missing the point -- I'm not demonising anybody for burning wood, just pointing out the facts -- you know, those horrible things that people don't like facing sometimes... 😉 What I was calling him out for was his crass insensitive comment which was basically "If they're sick, let 'em die, it'll improve the race".

Which obviously works if that's where the ladder is, but not if it isn't...

That's why there's the cross-rail to catch the water as it flows towards the stern (so it doesn't end up on the rear deck), with recesses down the cabin sides to drain the water down to the gunwale so it doesn't stain them 🙂

Your crass comment was: "If all the weak specimens died and the ones who can tolerate a bit of pollution survived then the world would consist of strong and durable people." Easy to say, big man. Now go and face up to somebody who has suffered as a result, and let's see you repeat it... 😞

Like I said, it's not something I'd do as a matter of course, only occasionally when there's no other option -- like in a narrow lock where you need to get to the lock ladder.

Ask Baldrick... 😉 ("Cappucino, sir?")