Environmental Impact of Boating

[stort_mark]

....."house and swimming pool in Nashville used nearly 221,000 kWh in 2006, compared with a yearly [national] average of 10,656."

 

...inconveniently forgetting to mention that his house uses renewable energy only (either in situ or paid as a premium to the local utilities for renewably-sourced energy).

 

Yawn.

Edited April 13, 2008 by stort_mark

[Tusses]

My question would be this; who ever said the World needs saving? It doesn`t - WE do maybe , and those other species we find attractive do as well ( but how many of us would grieve if the common or garden slug was uniquely threatened ). No - the world will do fine without our help , we are neither big enough nor important enough to destroy it ,it`ll save itself , although it may have to destroy us and several other life forms to do so. That`s what we mean - not "Save the Planet" , it`s more a case of save the human race and all that it relies on.

Phil

 

WOW !!!! I thought it was just me that thought like that.

 

How can we humans be so arrogant that we think we can change the world for bad or better. I'm talking about the big long term (like millions of years)picture, as that is what the earth is about. we aren't even a speck on the time scale !

 

As I see it - the earth is like a living thing - and we are just like a cold virus spreading. One day the earth will sneeze and we'll be gone - just like the dinosaurs. Something else will come to fill our place.

 

global warming , IMHO is a load of bull and would have (and has in the past) happend if we were here or not.

 

I know I will be disagreed with as most people like to be told what to believe on the TV or Papers etc, but there you go - each to their own

[gazza]

I love the way 'environmentalists' is used as a (somewhat derogatory) term as if people concerned about the environment (or any aspect of the environment) were all totally homogenous. Love also the way the word 'environmentalists' is often put between quotation marks, presumably as some form of suggestion that environmentalists are worse than ordinary folk (and reading the rest of your post, that obviously is the way you feel).

 

fwiw the tragedy of former railway lines is one that many 'environmentalists' would agree with you. (I assume now that the 'quotation marks' are mandatory, so that we don't confuse 'environmentalists' with people who deny globeal warming and who are the true environmental saviours of our planet). Having just been along the A120 between Stortford and Braintree - a former railway line - it still saddens me that we are happy to build new roads and not reopen or build new railway lines and canals.

 

One of the funniest aspects of these kinds of threads (on environmental issues) is that the most reactionary anti-

'environmentalist' types actually present their distaste of environmental issues by forcefully expressing how much MORE environmentally-friendly they are personally than the wicked, hypocritical 'environmentalists'.

 

 

oh dear! a quote mark is a convinent punctuation mark used to highlight a particular word, i could put it in capital letters and change the font to bright red, but thats frowned upon.

 

cut thru the bulls**t, our impact on the enviroment is multi faceted, if all who claimed to be worried about the impact of a particular past time, mode of transport, manufacturing method had a look at the true impact of their lifestyle, the word hypocrite wouldnt get used quite so much (see al gore post.....)

 

i am heavily involved in the world of motocross and enduro, if i had a penny for every time i have been accused of ruining the enviroment i would be a rich man. the acceptable enviromental distruction for most people are things like, out of town shopping developments, major house construction projects, road building/widening etc. our ocasional sunday meetings pale into insignificance dont they? but as with the intention of the OP on this thread, those that object to people enjoying themselves in a way they do not agree with, usally get bashed with the enviromental stick.

 

i notice you would not coment on the rest of my post - do you agree or disagree with common sense as a good starting point.

 

please also let me know what you think of my boating enviromental impact?????

[stort_mark]

i notice you would not coment on the rest of my post - do you agree or disagree with common sense as a good starting point.

Moreorless agree with most of it.

 

cut thru the bulls**t, our impact on the enviroment is multi faceted, if all who claimed to be worried about the impact of a particular past time, mode of transport, manufacturing method had a look at the true impact of their lifestyle, the word hypocrite wouldnt get used quite so much (see al gore post.....)

Agree.

 

i am heavily involved in the world of motocross and enduro, if i had a penny for every time i have been accused of ruining the enviroment i would be a rich man. the acceptable enviromental distruction for most people are things like, out of town shopping developments, major house construction projects, road building/widening etc. our ocasional sunday meetings pale into insignificance dont they? but as with the intention of the OP on this thread, those that object to people enjoying themselves in a way they do not agree with, usally get bashed with the enviromental stick.

I have a lot if sympathy: there are a lot of people who simply use an environmental agenda for simply objecting to anything motorised....then jet off on eco-holidays in Costa Rica or Vietnam. I am the first to agree that there is considerable hypocrisy, but it's not just from the 'environmentalists'. Environmental impacts (not just climate change but things like litter, water pollution, air pollution) are affected by many things and action is needed on many issues. However, it's also worth remembering that an awful lot has been achieved over many years.

 

please also let me know what you think of my boating enviromental impact?????

No idea. The reality is that almost be definition a boating holiday is environmentally friendly. I remember being very smug with myself a few years back when we travelled both ways to the hire base on a train as well.

[gazza]

cool, we are both aiming at the same thing but from different directions!

 

it always makes me chuckle when you think back to the amount of air bourne pollutants there must have been up to say the 1960's, when was the last pea souper in london? we have made giant leaps forward in pollution control over the last 30 years, but still its not enough.

 

me personally, by nature and as a result of my job. I cant bear to replace something that needs repair with something new for the sake of convinence. if you look at my scrap pile, its exactly that. nothing more can be done with it! the same goes for my vehicles, they always end up finsihing their useful life being cubed.....

 

i dont drive quickly or eraticly, making sure that my tyres and fuel last as long as possible (too damned expensive to waste these days!) we dont wast gas and electrical energy at home or work (more in the intrest of economy rather than eco guilt)

 

we compost or waste paper and kitchen waste, again, saves buying a bag from the garden centre!

 

so, to sum up, in these supposed liberal times, why the hell should i feel guilty for my past times? answer? cos its the correct stance to take (but only if you have the eco blinkers on!)

 

happy boating!

 

gaz

[Tusses]

I marvel at the amount of fuel on the road when I am on the motorway. more obvious at night when you can see all the lights on the cars stretching for miles in each direction. Each with a full tank of fuel that will be gone in anything from a day to a week !

 

I tend to stick to 60 in the 'lorry lane' as I get MUCH better fuel economy. I do this for economic reasons I must admit - there is no need to rush if you plan properly !. But I often wonder how much less fuel would be used if the speed limit was DECREASED to 60 rather than the possibility of it being increased to 80 or whatever , because modern cars can go faster 'safer'

[stort_mark]

cool, we are both aiming at the same thing but from different directions!

 

Indeed. As many others are.

 

when was the last pea souper in london?

52, I think

 

I cant bear to replace something that needs repair with something new for the sake of convinence.

A lot of people feel the same way. However, sometimes it becomes difficult: we 'inherited' a microwave when we bought our house - it is very old, in fairly poor condition and we don't know how efficient it is. Should we keep it until it packs up or replace it with a more efficient one. Similar argument with the car.

 

i dont drive quickly or eraticly, making sure that my tyres and fuel last as long as possible (too damned expensive to waste these days!) we dont wast gas and electrical energy at home or work (more in the intrest of economy rather than eco guilt)

To be honest, the vast majority of eco-friendly activities can be justified on cost grounds alone (you gave a few good examples of this) and there are many eco-friendly activities that are probably the kind of thrifty things that many who hate environmentalists have been doing for a long time: composting, allotments, reusing and recycling, cycling, walking, etc.

 

why the hell should i feel guilty for my past times? answer? cos its the correct stance to take (but only if you have the eco blinkers on!)

Not sure there is any correct stance, and who is telling you to take it anyway? None of us can change our past, and I don't think anyone can expect us to feel guilty for it.

Edited April 13, 2008 by stort_mark

[Ex- Member]

Indeed. As many others are.

 

 

52, I think

 

 

I think that many have this attitude. However, sometimes it becomes difficult. We 'inherited' a mirowave when we bought our house: it is very old, in fairly poor condition and we don't know how efficient it is. Should we keep it until it packs up or replace it with a more efficient one. Similar argument with the car.

 

 

To be honest, the vast majority of eco-friendly activities can be justified on cost grounds alone (you gave a few good examples of this) and there are many eco-friendly activities that are probably the kind of thrifty things that many who hate environmentalists have been doing for a long time: composting, allotments, reusing and recycling, cycling, walking, etc.

 

 

Not sure there is any correct stance, and who is telling you to take it anyway? None of us can change our past, and I don't think anyone can expect us to feel guilty for it.

 

That's a good point, we have many environmental gadgets that are useful and not purchased because their environmentally friendly but because their a better alternative.

For one we have a composting toilet on the boat. This has a long term cost saving on pump out fees.

We plan on solar panels for the boat as they're cheaper than the current methods of charging, again on a long term basis.

We take all empty bottles to the bottle bank. Basically it's easier than bottles breaking in your rubbish bag and leaking dregs of beer and wine everywhere. We bought Morrison eco shopping bags 30p each, they are just better than floppy plastic bags, and you can get more in them safely.

 

I really don't give 2 hoots about global warming, but will chose products on their merit and not on their ecological claims.

Edited April 13, 2008 by Julynian

[Malarky]

More wooden boats, more convoys on tow. Punting, well it's punter mad out there!

 

Incidently I find punting or pulling boats very relaxing, concidering; something about the quiet.

[stort_mark]

I really don't give 2 hoots about global warming, but will chose products on their merit and not on their ecological claims.

What about organic food at the supermarket?

 

Many would suggest that part of the "merit", as you say, of many products and services is that they cause less ecological harm. I remember being at a conference in London when someone pointed out that the bottled water came from Fiji. The ecological footprint of shipping water from the Pacific to London is enormous. A few years ago, one company was proposing bottling groundwater from Sidcup and selling it, so why are people prepared to buy water shipped across the world.

 

Oh..and anothing thing......(knowing this will drive a lot of people really nuts)...is that a lot of our better environmental legislation comes from implementation of EU directives.

[Ex- Member]

What about organic food at the supermarket?

 

Many would suggest that part of the "merit", as you say, of many products and services is that they cause less ecological harm. I remember being at a conference in London when someone pointed out that the bottled water came from Fiji. The ecological footprint of shipping water from the Pacific to London is enormous. A few years ago, one company was proposing bottling groundwater from Sidcup and selling it, so why are people prepared to buy water shipped across the world.

 

Oh..and anothing thing......(knowing this will drive a lot of people really nuts)...is that a lot of our better environmental legislation comes from implementation of EU directives.

 

We do buy some organic products, basically because they taste much better. Tomatos especially, your average supermarket tomato is grown in Rock wool BTW We also buy some of our meat from the local farm shop, the tenderness and flavour is superior, although I will say Morrisons beef is pretty good in comparison to most cheap supermarket rubbish. We will also only buy chicken that's organic or reared to RSPCA guidlines, again the taste of organic chicken is superior, but at about twice the price. Bottled water well people must be pretty brain dead to pay for bottled water. Although on a boat we do occasionally buy bottled water but at a quid for 3 litres and mainly for the containers to refill not over a quid for a fancy name and label

[The Toad in the Hole]

After reading this topic, I've felt I really should de-lurk. Not so much to respond to the detail of the subjects, (though I could get into a long and frankly tedious discussion about global climate change if you want) but to post some thoughts about the frankly sometimes schitzophrenic attitude to the environment I've enountered amongst boaters.

 

I've long ago learned not to mention too early to other boaters that I'm an ecologist by profession, and one with an interest in hydrology to boot. Similarly when I've met people working for the EA, BW or whoever, they have got a distinctly hunted look if they think they are talking to a boater. There is a pre-supposition of conflict on both sides. Fine, except most people who work in the watery environment are fascinated by boats. I mean really fascinated. Engines, sailing boats, narrowboats the lot. And as for boaters, try and get them to shut up about what they've seen from the kitchen this morning. Now, maybe dumping half a cubic metre of stale bread into the canal isn't desperately good for the environment, but the ducks round our marina aren't going to starve this winter, that's for certain.

 

So why the hostility? Boating has an impact on the environment. So does rock climbing, so does gardening, or going out for half a dozen beers and a curry. Some species are rare and need protecting - from accidental or unintentional damage in the main, so some protection is needed. And yep, I'll stick my head up and say maybe not every canal restoration should plough ahead without some thought given to the plants and animals which will be displaced.

 

Similarly (and no offence to the OP) but there isn't any need for the dramatics and the cloak and dagger - I've worked for conservation groups in the past and pretty much the first thing I've done in any sort of consultation is say who I am, who I work for and what I intend to use the data for. Fact is, since I moved into the ivory towers of academia, I'm obliged to do this to comply with ethics policies.

 

A bit less suspicion, a little more openness and cooperation would go a long way to making the inland waterways a much more pleasant place to be be, not least for the odd little floating plantains and the harrassed boater/ecologists of the world.

[stort_mark]

Bottled water well people must be pretty brain dead to pay for bottled water.

 

Read recently that tap water is actually better for you than bottled water.

[StoneHenge]

The poster who mentioned boaters leaving stuff on the towpath, overflowing rubbish etc. I agree with you. There are a lot of idiots out there who seem to think its their right to dump a bag of rubbish whereever they moor up. I spent an awful lot of time last year disposing of other peoples rubbish that they dumped int he bushes. Anything from domestic stuff, to old chimneys, bits of furniture, old batteries, tyres etc. Not one other person would have done it.

 

Now a lot of the considerate boaters would probably say 'whats the point, we didn't put it there, its nt our job to keep it clean'. And you are right, why should we clean up after the scum who see fit to make a mess of things because if you talk environmental which covers more than green issues, then they don't give a stuff. But I care about that rubbish, so I cleared it. I bet if I went back there now, it would be a mess again, because there are a lot of boaters who don't care where they dump their trash, and they are lazy, selfish and downright inconsiderate. Thankfully however, they seem to be a minority, which is a good thing as I get really fed up when moors up knowing full well they are going to leave crap behind.

 

However, we can only but try, and I think most of us do that pretty well. I take my rubbish (domestic non recyclable rubbsh) to a proper rubbish point, anything non domestic goes to the tip, old clothes etc when in good nick go to charity shops or clothes banks. We try not to throw anything away if we don't have to.

 

I don't think ultimately we can change the course of the huge rock we are on, but we can help try and minimise the impact it will have on us as human beings and the fellow animals we share the planet with. At the end of the day humans are selfish and greedy, and we have evolved to be the smartest speicies on the planet. Nothing wrong we that apart from not taking responsibility for when it all goes pear shaped. But then I think the world is nuts anyway. Scary knowing you are never far away froma nuclear bomb, and what the heck do we think we would achieve with those. Maybe we are actually the most stupid, as we will probably cause our own demise, which will have nothing to do with wha you put down your toilet, but more so what idiot choses to press that red button and blow everyone up.

 

Or get hit by a nice big rock from outer space, or wiped out by some nasty disease. Possibilities are endless!

[magnetman]

The spring is kicking in properly now, a time for optimism and primroses and cows-lips and sunshine. And boating.

 

.. And flooding

[PaulG]

...inconveniently forgetting to mention that his house uses renewable energy only (either in situ or paid as a premium to the local utilities for renewably-sourced energy).

 

Yawn.

 

Yeah, right.

 

From what I could see his renewable energy "in situ" comes from solar panels. Not green, and even if they were, you'd need acres of them to put much of a dent in his 221,000 kWh consumption.

 

Let's say that 5% of the electricity sourced by his local utility is from "renewables". Mr. Gore pays a premium to "only" recieve this energy. Which simply means that there is less of it to go around the general populace.

 

It's a rich man's way of being "green" - just pay more money! "I'll have all the "green" energy, thank you, and then I'll lecture the rest of you poor people for destroying the planet."

 

It's exactly the kind of pseudo-environmental bullsh*t that makes people put quotes around the world "environmentalist".

 

Whoops! Sorry, I just did.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

[blackelle123]

If each of us does a little bit - think a bit more about our environment and the impact that we have on it - then thats all we can do. We are such little fish in a big pond and as individuals we don't make a great deal of difference, but as a collective we can do a bit.

 

I just worry about all the plastic, I wish it wasn't even produced!!!

[fender]

i wonder how many 'enviromentalists' really study their impact on the world? you dont often see them walking about in fig leafs shunning the modern marvels of electronic comunication (which needs a fair bit of power to keep running)

 

Recently a documentary was shown on BBC about a anti-roads campaign. It failed to tell us that 99% of the campaigners had arrived by car - for a demonstration against cars! I was just one of a handful of people in that famous campaign who came on the train...

 

Anyway we're not going to get very far with our environmental concerns considering we have (thats at 10.53am today) 6,698,841,418 people living on the earth! Its over 6.6 billion and rising fast

[Phil Speight]

Recently a documentary was shown on BBC about a anti-roads campaign. It failed to tell us that 99% of the campaigners had arrived by car - for a demonstration against cars! I was just one of a handful of people in that famous campaign who came on the train...

 

Anyway we're not going to get very far with our environmental concerns considering we have (thats at 10.53am today) 6,698,841,418 people living on the earth! Its over 6.6 billion and rising fast

6.6 billion and rising fast - my point exactly.

As to the inverted commas issue - I have a thought based on much observation. Speaking in non-forum specific terms- an environmentalist is , perhaps, a person with genuine concerns about the environment, someone willing to join in a reasoned debate who may ultimately help us all to reach a positive and universally attainable and acceptable solution by dint of an intelligent exchange of views and mutual respect. An "environmentalist" on the other hand is , again perhaps, someone who is of course ENTIRELY INFALLIBLE and therefore sees no need to enter a debate with anyone of divergent opinion, politics, or aspirations.

Phil

 

The spring is kicking in properly now, a time for optimism and primroses and cows-lips and sunshine. And boating.

 

.. And flooding

And motorcycling.......................

Phil

[PaulG]

6.6 billion and rising fast - my point exactly.

As to the inverted commas issue - I have a thought based on much observation. Speaking in non-forum specific terms- an environmentalist is , perhaps, a person with genuine concerns about the environment, someone willing to join in a reasoned debate who may ultimately help us all to reach a positive and universally attainable and acceptable solution by dint of an intelligent exchange of views and mutual respect. An "environmentalist" on the other hand is , again perhaps, someone who is of course ENTIRELY INFALLIBLE and therefore sees no need to enter a debate with anyone of divergent opinion, politics, or aspirations.

Phil

 

Nice definition.

 

However, I'd also add some requirement for anyone describing themselves as an environmentalist to practise what they preach in some demonstrable fashion. I don't mean that they have to live in a Yurt in the middle of Dartmoor, knit their own meusli, or fuel their central heating with cattle dung, but at least they should be able to show that they have some kind of sincerity in their own lifestyle choices.

 

Otherwise, in my view, they're back in the "quotes"!

[magnetman]

Nice definition.

 

However, I'd also add some requirement for anyone describing themselves as an environmentalist to practise what they preach in some demonstrable fashion. I don't mean that they have to live in a Yurt in the middle of Dartmoor, knit their own meusli, or fuel their central heating with cattle dung, but at least they should be able to show that they have some kind of sincerity in their own lifestyle choices.

 

Otherwise, in my view, they're back in the "quotes"!

[StoneHenge]

I'd definitely call myself a tryer if nothing else.

 

We use windfall wood whenever possible, we walk if we don't have to drive. I don't use chemicals wherever practical, we use recycled products, re-use shopping bags (the ones you pay for and they replace for free when worn out), we are very conserative with water, recycle everything we can possibly recycle, by clothes from charity shops and give clothes to charity shops when we can too as you get some great bargains, help the clothes have a longer life span and give to charity at the same time.

 

We don't throw much away if we can use it. For example, we had some new units for the kitchen. The old ones wee rotten and it needed doing, but we had loads of spare wood left over which has gone into interesting projects round the boat such as support housing for our snails, a display panel for some plaques we have, and the like.

 

I think there are a lot of people like that about. We would love to grow more of our own stuff, but we do try with some grow bags for toms and lettuces etc in the summer.

 

I would be quite happy in teepee valley me.

[Alistair]

Sounds like a good place to plug http://www.liloontheweb.org.uk/

 

[PaulG]

Sounds like a good place to plug http://www.liloontheweb.org.uk/

 

 

Strewth! Looks like several days reading!

 

I noticed a lot of "biofuel" information.

 

Am I the only one who thinks that "bio" fuels are a bad idea in principle?

 

It seems to me to be a way for rich people (who can easily afford to buy mineral fuels) to use food (which many poor people in the world cannot afford enough of) as fuel, thereby increasing the cost of food, which poor people could not afford enough of in the first place.

 

I'm sure that someone will point out the flaw in my logic!

Edited April 14, 2008 by PaulG

[Chris Pink]

Am I the only one who thinks that "bio" fuels are a bad idea in principle?

 

 

No, i am completely against the use of bio-diesel, both on the land should be used for food argument but i think the worst part of it is the assumption that (western) civilisation can continue to use energy in such a wasteful way.

 

I don't think you have to 'knit meusli' to have a low-impact lifestyle. it's more a question of need and greed. I live better than most kings in history without feeling the need to have the shallow status symbols that waste so much of human society's collective resources.