Environmental Impact of Boating

[hughc]

This sounds very much as if it originates within one of the more extreme environmental organisations. I'm sure any report she might have produced would have included a sentence containing,'' even boaters themselves say'' or boaters I have spoken to say''. If the lady can't put her cards on the table then she deserves no help and nor does anyone else who posts on a similar dubious 'research' remit. Regards, HughC.

[PaulG]

I think my boat is pretty environmentally friendly, and would always like cash for having it that way... I think most people would.

 

But Bones, but unless your boat's electric powered, you're not environmentally friendly enough for "Helenv".

You haven't splashed out £4 to £5K for solar panels? Tsk Tsk!

Does your boat make a wash when it moves? It does? Oh dear!

 

So, sorry, no "green spondulicks" for you!

[fuzzyduck]

Aren't we going just a bit overboard here.

 

We don't know what institution she works for, some like the Leicestershire Wildlife Trust are pretty easy going about such things. they don't even mind my 2 week jaunts to canada to go seal clubbing.

[Tusses]

When we move on to the boat full time, I'll be giving up the use of my 2.6 pertol mercedes, that alone would reduce my carbon footprint.

 

 

We intend on 1kw supply from solar panels,

 

we're seriously thinking of using vegi oil to power the boat, as this will be much cheaper than Red Diesel, and more envionmentally friendly.

 

J

 

do you know the carbon foot print for that merc engine ?

 

do you know the carbon and toxic foorprint for the PV panels ?

 

do you know how many acres of environmentally rich grass/woodland it takes to produce your veg oil per litre /per year?

 

everything can be argued both ways

 

as for global warming ... pah !!! I dont believe for a minute 'we' did it !

[PaulG]

do you know the carbon foot print for that merc engine ?

 

Merc engines are the very work of Beelzebub. Especially when powered by Pertol.

[Tusses]

Merc engines are the very work of Beelzebub. Especially when powered by Pertol.

 

maybe so - but the point is , how does anyone know that they will reduce their carbon foot print - if they dont know what it is ? or what their solution is ?

 

and - does it make a difference anyway !

[Bones]

But Bones, but unless your boat's electric powered, you're not environmentally friendly enough for "Helenv".

You haven't splashed out £4 to £5K for solar panels? Tsk Tsk!

Does your boat make a wash when it moves? It does? Oh dear!

 

So, sorry, no "green spondulicks" for you!

 

 

I punted it once - does that count?

[Ex- Member]

do you know the carbon foot print for that merc engine ?

I really don't care It's a lovely car

 

do you know the carbon and toxic foorprint for the PV panels ?

Haven't a clue

 

do you know how many acres of environmentally rich grass/woodland it takes to produce your veg oil per litre /per year?

Quite a lot I would imagine, could do with some chip shops on the cut to usetheir waste oil

 

everything can be argued both ways

as for global warming ... pah !!! I dont believe for a minute 'we' did it !

[PaulG]

maybe so - but the point is , how does anyone know that they will reduce their carbon foot print - if they dont know what it is ? or what their solution is ?

 

and - does it make a difference anyway !

 

Dunno, mate. But what I do know is that the bigger and better liars among us generally rise to become senior politicians. Most of them went to Oxbridge to study Greek or Law, or some other non-technical subject, so when they start to lecture me about climateology, I am somehow always reminded of Mr. Blairs' elusive "Weapons of Mass Distruction".

 

It doesn't matter if you employ "two and a half thousand scientists" so that you can claim a "scientific consensus" (which is, of course an oxymoron in itself, as "consensus" is not, and never will be, part of the scientific method. There was only one Einstein, and it did not stop him from being correct!)

 

I was also fortunate enough to be at college during the 1970's, when, of course, we were in the middle of the "ice age" scare. Unfortunately for Schneider and the other architects of this con, the global thermometer suddenly went in the wrong direction. Seeming undaunted by this small inconvenience, the very same people are now trying to sell us the "global warming" scare.

 

Well, they conned me once.

 

Paul

[Tony Brooks]

Hi, I'll send you a PM. I was aware this might be an issue posting on forums - I'm just really interested to hear what people have to say as these forums have been useful sources of information. I'd rather not post it on the forum, but I'll send you the link via PM if you like!

 

Rest assured - we're not trying to stop boating in anyway. I'm just interested to find out if there's any exciting research going on, new innovations, people who've tried things out and found they do/don't work. There's nothing sinster about me! But I just thought I should be honest rather than posing a student or something.

 

 

Sorry Helenv

 

That is simply not good enough. You have been told that boaters are not likely to be willing to help you dig their graves yet you refuse to name the organisation to ALL of those you asked for help.

 

From my point of view you are definitely on a "lets hit the boaters" crusade because you do not appear to have done much (if any) research in to energy density and cost effectiveness - statements about solar cells and electric boating fill me with dread.

 

Ordinary working people who want to cover reasonable distances during their leisure time at a cost they can afford are, for the next few years, stuck with some form of hydrocarbon fuel and this does not even start to address the safety issues of underpowered electric boats with limited range using rivers that are libel to suddenly go into flood.

 

My observations are that the majority of inland boaters do try to limit the environmental impact of their boating where it is cost effective and sensible - most love the "great outdoors" and would not wish to damage it. We are also being taxed to provide the recreational opportunities far more than boaters enjoy.

 

You need to turn your attentions and energies elsewhere - try Heathrow, inadequate civic recycling, refuses collection etc. - silly me - those are well financed "hard" targets, not nice soft ones like individual boaters.

 

Sorry to be so negative, but I do not trust you and those of your persuasion who have gone before.

[dor]

Well, they conned me once.

 

Remember, governments WANT a global warming scare - it's an excuse to "help reduce the impact" by increasing taxes on essential energy sources etc. And virtually all the scientists who pronounce on global warming are funded one way or another by governments. If you are dependent on the government for funding for your post or project, you don't generally disagree with them.

 

We hear about "most scientists now agree that global warming is man made" but listen to independent scientists who actually understand the ins and outs of climatic variation and it certainly isn't "most".

[drunkensailor]

I punted it once - does that count?

The other day someone who was fishing called me a punt. At least I think he said punt.

[andywatson]

Hello,

 

I'm currently writing a report on the environmental impact of boating, and looking into various ways of mitigating this impact - from alternative fuels and different methods of propulsion to encouraging energy saving measures on board the boat.

 

I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts on the following areas:

 

- What are the most important issues to be addressing? e.g. wash, water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions associated with boating etc

 

- Research/new innovations that can help reduce the environmental impact of boating.

 

I'm specifically concerned with inland recreational boating, but it's always useful to hear about areas too.

 

Thanks!

 

 

My input as a canal boater of only 2 years but many years as an engineer in the offshore industry is briefly as follows:

 

1 The environmental impact of boating is negligible on the following counts:

 

1.1 Fuel use is less than living in a house/hotel, using a car or flying.

1.2 Toxicity and quanity of discharges is less than most of the above and certainly less than other polluters of the canal which are less obvious eg farm runoff and even urban drainage runoff.

(I would rather drink my own grey water than even the supposedly clean drains which tip into canals.

1.3 The embedded energy in a boat might be high due to the mass of steel but it's less than a house.

 

Since each boat has to carry it's own water and a proportion of it's waste, generate and store it's own domestic power such resources are carefully managed to use the minimum. eg note how boaters carefully use a few (12V) lights etc to "stretch" battery capacity

In short, even if boating were banned completely (or more likely made financially punitive) removing boats would make little difference.

 

2 I note your comments on giving reductions for environment friendly modifications and equipment such as solar panels or alternative fuel systems. However, given that the authorities need to raise a certain amount of money this will effectively result in an increase in costs for those boaters who do not commit their own capital to such measures.

(as my boat has a 74 year old engine which is very frugal I do not object to a discount paid for by the solar powered electric boaters)

 

 

3 I note that you are unwilling to divulge who you are working for whilst still requesting information yourself, however:

-Can you please state your experience and professional qualifications relavent to your study.

 

If I appear sceptical this is based on my professional experience where the environmental "help" was only to be found when those giving it were not themselves responsible for cost overuns or other incidents.

Edited April 10, 2008 by andywatson

[dizzyknits]

I punted it once - does that count?

 

no

[Greybeard]

Hi

 

Don't do computers but this came up when I was mooching around.

 

helenv

 

http://spywarefiles.prevx.com/RRCJGJ34169953/HELENV.EXE.html

 

Not my field - not an accusation - just an observation.

[Tusses]

Hi

 

Don't do computers but this came up when I was mooching around.

 

helenv

 

http://spywarefiles.prevx.com/RRCJGJ34169953/HELENV.EXE.html

 

Not my field - not an accusation - just an observation.

 

 

 

ooooh - I Like

[jelunga]

My thoughts as well. When I give up the house next year to live on a boat then :-

1) We will sell our two cars and 2 motorcycles

2) We will not be heating a large 4 bed house

3) We will not be illuminating a large four bed house

4) We will be conscious of our fresh water useage since everything we use will have to be physically put into the tank, rather than just turning on the tap

5) We will be conscious of the amount of human waste we produce since the cassette / tank will have to be emptied so minimal curries etc.

6) To go to the pub we will just walk

7) To get shopping we will just walk

 

Overall, our environmental impact will be greatly reduced.

 

As I see it, the grey water waste can be mitigated by using enviro friendly washing materials, no great discomfort. Diesel and pump-out fluid spills are negligable. The greatest damage is done by non boaters using canals as a rubbish dump, cows farting, etc.

 

I totally agree with others that if there were no boaters there would be no canals. My energy will I admit be from mainly diesel, but power and heat generation will be as a by product of propulsion, and supplemented by a wind turbine.

 

K

 

 

When we move on to the boat full time, I'll be giving up the use of my 2.6 pertol mercedes, that alone would reduce my carbon footprint. We intend on 1kw supply from solar panels, and with the current fuel situation being what it is, we're seriously thinking of using vegi oil to power the boat, as this will be much cheaper than Red Diesel, and more envionmentally friendly.

 

Just by choosing to live on a boat is more environmentally friendly, epsecially if giving up cars and centrally heated houses with all mod cons.

 

However we're not doing this to be environmentally friendly, Im really not that bothered about "global warming" it's just that many products like solar equipment are now more viable cost wise especially for boats, due to their current high energy costs for heat and power, likely to rise more in the future.

Edited April 10, 2008 by jelunga

[stort_mark]

She's probably gone away now so won't read this but ....

 

I, for one, would have been interested to learn how I could reduce my environmental impact on the cut.

 

Jim, I'm with you on this and I am disappointed that Helen has been chased away; some of the comments (admittedly after her departure) were fairly shameful as well.

 

It would have been interesting to discuss the environmental impacts and get some different perspectives.

 

I happen to agree with the general sentiment of many observations (especially the general uselessness of solar panels) but it seems a missed opportunity to maybe put some of the boating views across. As to what organisation...who cares...she could have just asked lots of questions and started threads and not even said she was writing a report or working for an NGO and everyone would have been belting out their opinions.

[Ex- Member]

My thoughts as well. When I give up the house next year to live on a boat then :-

1) We will sell our two cars and 2 motorcycles

2) We will not be heating a large 4 bed house

3) We will not be illuminating a large four bed house

4) We will be conscious of our fresh water useage since everything we use will have to be physically put into the tank, rather than just turning on the tap

5) We will be conscious of the amount of human waste we produce since we cassette / tank will have to be emptied so minimal curries etc.

6) To go to the pub we will just walk

7) To get shopping we will just walk

 

Overall, our environmental impact will be greatly reduced.

 

As I see it, the grey water waste can be mitigated by using enviro friendly washing materials, no great discomfort. Diesel and pump-out fluid spills are negligable. The greatest damage is done by non boaters using canals as a rubbish dump, cows farting, etc.

 

I totally agree with others that if there were no boaters there would be no canals. My energy will I admit be from mainly diesel, but power and heat generation will be as a by product of propulsion, and supplemented by a wind turbine.

 

K

 

We have a compost loo also, so actually fertilising the canal side too That's if we don't use it on our herb roof garden

[Tusses]

Jim, I'm with you on this and I am disappointed that Helen has been chased away; some of the comments (admittedly after her departure) were fairly shameful as well.

 

It would have been interesting to discuss the environmental impacts and get some different perspectives.

 

I happen to agree with the general sentiment of many observations (especially the general uselessness of solar panels) but it seems a missed opportunity to maybe put some of the boating views across. As to what organisation...who cares...she could have just asked lots of questions and started threads and not even said she was writing a report or working for an NGO and everyone would have been belting out their opinions.

 

Have a think about it .... decided what you would like to be discussed ... and start a thread !

 

tiz easy

[5thHorseman]

I'm sorry I thought global warming was solved in 2007.

 

This time last year we were all made to feel ashamed of ourselves on two counts, good weather was caused by our negligent attitude to pollution and the sunshine was going to make us all die of skin cancer (and cost the NHS a fortune because of our irresponsible actions). Great fuss QED - Global warming

This year the beaches were covered in snow and no sunshine. No comment from global warming lobby so QED - global warming solved.

 

Or is it that environmental and health issues are involved only when we are enjoying ourselves?

 

edit :- missing word

Edited April 10, 2008 by 5thHorseman

[carlt]

Hi

 

Don't do computers but this came up when I was mooching around.

 

helenv

 

http://spywarefiles.prevx.com/RRCJGJ34169953/HELENV.EXE.html

 

Not my field - not an accusation - just an observation.

Helenv pmed me with the name of her employer, and their website address. I'll respect her, rather puzzling, desire for privacy, and not publicise it but I'll make a few comments.

 

The organisation seems to be a moderate, professional outfit with some sound objectives and sensible ideas for achieving them. Their website is equally professionally laid out and easy to navigate.

 

I can't say that I agree with everything on the site but there isn't any hint of extremism or an over the top agenda.

 

It contains information about how businesses, schools, local authorities and individuals could improve their "greenness" and some interesting projects and links are there.

 

My spyware detectors saw no threat, btw!

 

I don't think it is in any way controversial and, if Helen decides to let everyone else in on the secret, I know there would be many forum members who would find the site interesting.

[stort_mark]

I'm sorry I thought global warming was solved in 2007.

 

This time last year we were all made to feel ashamed of ourselves on two counts, good weather was caused by our negligent attitude to pollution and the sunshine was going to make us all die of skin cancer (and cost the NHS a fortune because of our irresponsible actions). Great fuss QED - Global warming

This year the beaches were covered in snow and no sunshine. No comment from global warming lobby so QED - global warming solved.

 

Or is it that environmental and health issues involved only when we are enjoying ourselves?

 

 

Ha ha ha. Brilliant. Individual weather events used as example that global warming is "over" or "solved".

Where on earth did you get the idea there is no comment from the global warming lobby?

[Keeping Up]

Ha ha ha. Brilliant. Individual weather events used as example that global warming is "over" or "solved".

And why not? The global warming lobby has never been slow to use indivdual weather events as "proof" that global warming exists.

[stort_mark]

And why not? The global warming lobby has never been slow to use indivdual weather events as "proof" that global warming exists.

 

Rubbish. Sorry. Don't like being so emphatically blunt as this normally, but that is simply rubbish. There has been substantial research conducted in many countries (in various disciplines) over many years; it is noticeable that most of the people who rubbish global warming are not climatologists (such as Lomborg at one end of the scale and the pub bore at the other end).