Environmental Impact of Boating

[The Toad in the Hole]

And what happens if 3 who reckon it'll blow up are really engine salesmen?

 

Good point I didn't even go near the "everyone has an angle, you're only saying that because you have a vested interest" argument.

 

There's a process called peer review which can be a problem in the "political" arena. All proper scientific research is subject to review by others who have expertise in the field. To an extent it's a very political business, with boffins scoring constant points off each other to demonstrate their own extreme cleveryness What it means is that the finished paper tends to be very cautious, and perhaps understates whatever conclusions it has drawn. This is the problem for commentators and politicians - no definite answers, and extremes of conclusion get rubbed off before publication, but, it should make these final conclusions very robust. Political or business self interest gets highlighted early on.

 

to go back to the engine analogy, the engine salesmen can only sell you a competitors engine, and they still know rather more about that funny knocking noise than the guy who thinks it'll be fine if only you install a dishwasher.

[tomsk]

thank god theres someone else that realized that fact

I'm sick of people saying that we should all be "greener" and use solar panels and electric cars/boats etc etc

do these people ever research the impact of these "alternatives" before they condemn the internal combustion engine

 

the only true green/ environmentally friendly way is to all go back to living in caves and clubbing your dinner to death ( with a Eco friendly wooden club obviously )

 

This post is 'Highly Commended'...... Anyone with a great hulking steel NB with a filthy desiel engine, huge banks of polluting batteries and solar panels needs to take a good hard look at themselves before playing the green card. Go get a coracle if green's your scene.

 

 

I did a lot of research on hemp a few years ago after visiting the eden project. The link below is very interesting and informative. There has been a conspiracy by many governments ignoring the value of this plant in favour of petrolium and the powerful companies that produce it.

 

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/...biofuel_me.html

 

There is only one acceptable use for this most wonderful of sacramental substances.

[PaulG]

Good point I didn't even go near the "everyone has an angle, you're only saying that because you have a vested interest" argument.

 

There's a process called peer review which can be a problem in the "political" arena. All proper scientific research is subject to review by others who have expertise in the field. To an extent it's a very political business, with boffins scoring constant points off each other to demonstrate their own extreme cleveryness What it means is that the finished paper tends to be very cautious, and perhaps understates whatever conclusions it has drawn. This is the problem for commentators and politicians - no definite answers, and extremes of conclusion get rubbed off before publication, but, it should make these final conclusions very robust. Political or business self interest gets highlighted early on.

 

That's an excellent description of how peer review is intended to work. However, there has been a lot of (justified, IMHO) criticism of how this process is actually applied, for example, in the IPCC.

 

You can see the actual comments of sixty-nine of their Review Editors here. (big file, 1.4M)

 

Please remember that these people are supposed to be reviewing THE most carefully prepared scientific document ever, one where "thousands" of scientists have pondered over every word.

 

For those of you that can't be bothered to download the .pdf file, 64 of 69 Review Editor Comments consisted of standard forms with the words "yes", "yes", and "yes" inserted in replies to standard questions.

 

Not too much "point scoring" going on here. Looks suspiciously like a "rubber stamping" process from where I'm standing.

[The Toad in the Hole]

That's an excellent description of how peer review is intended to work. However, there has been a lot of (justified, IMHO) criticism of how this process is actually applied, for example, in the IPCC.

 

You can see the actual comments of sixty-nine of their Review Editors here. (big file, 1.4M)

 

Please remember that these people are supposed to be reviewing THE most carefully prepared scientific document ever, one where "thousands" of scientists have pondered over every word.

 

For those of you that can't be bothered to download the .pdf file, 64 of 69 Review Editor Comments consisted of standard forms with the words "yes", "yes", and "yes" inserted in replies to standard questions.

 

Not too much "point scoring" going on here. Looks suspiciously like a "rubber stamping" process from where I'm standing.

 

Ok, I don't want to get pigoenholed this early into what I hope is a long and illustrious posting history along the lines of "the best bacon sarnie within an hours cruising of hawksbury junction" or "the best improvised device for removing frogspawn from my water tank" but...

 

Ad hominem criticism is the refuge of the bounder, but Steve McIntyre (of climateaudit) isn't entirely free of Engine Salesman Syndrome. He's worked in mineral exploitation (go Wikipedia) which is an industry generally with a vested interest in downplaying man induced global warming, but I'd heard of him because he was one of the people who attempted to discredit the "hockey stick" graphs of recent climate change. I'm on a little safer ground here, as working with peat, I've come across a lot of work on paleoclimatic reconstruction from peat cores (peat is an excellent record of historic vegetation, and therefore what the climate was like). He found some errors in the way NASA had been calculating temperature averages, which he then used to cast doubt on the whole process (ironic, given that incorrect extrapolation of data from two sources was his main criticism of NASA). However, in the UK, we don't just have to take the word of NASA, as we have some of the best historical continuous temperature recording in the world, so we can look at our own data, from places like the Ratcliffe Observatory or Durham University, and we can draw our own graphs. Plus, I've got 20m of peat core that will give you a fair indication back to the last ice age.

 

Guess what? It's getting hotter

 

Which isn't to say it's man induced. The evidence for that is a whole lot thinner. But Warming itself? that's real enough. And Steve McIntyre wasn't wrong. He correctly identified an error and brought it to wider attention. That's how it's supposed to work.

 

And the IPCC report(s) were peer reviewed by practically the whole US government. Most of it's findings were toned down under pressure from them. The published findings of the IPCC were the least worst scenarios.

 

Anyway, I've got a big diesel car, a slightly bigger diesel boat and I know what the inside of an aeroplane looks like, but I'm not convinced that hairshirts are the way forward, either. Buy locally, at least read the energy efficiency stats on your next fridge/ cooker before you buy it, and turn the PC off if you're going out. Speaking of which....

[magnetman]

Am i bovvered? Do i look bovvered? Ain't bovvered...

[PaulG]

Ok, I don't want to get pigoenholed this early into what I hope is a long and illustrious posting history along the lines of "the best bacon sarnie within an hours cruising of hawksbury junction" or "the best improvised device for removing frogspawn from my water tank" but...

 

Ad hominem criticism is the refuge of the bounder, but Steve McIntyre (of climateaudit) isn't entirely free of Engine Salesman Syndrome. He's worked in mineral exploitation (go Wikipedia) which is an industry generally with a vested interest in downplaying man induced global warming, but I'd heard of him because he was one of the people who attempted to discredit the "hockey stick" graphs of recent climate change. I'm on a little safer ground here, as working with peat, I've come across a lot of work on paleoclimatic reconstruction from peat cores (peat is an excellent record of historic vegetation, and therefore what the climate was like). He found some errors in the way NASA had been calculating temperature averages, which he then used to cast doubt on the whole process (ironic, given that incorrect extrapolation of data from two sources was his main criticism of NASA). However, in the UK, we don't just have to take the word of NASA, as we have some of the best historical continuous temperature recording in the world, so we can look at our own data, from places like the Ratcliffe Observatory or Durham University, and we can draw our own graphs. Plus, I've got 20m of peat core that will give you a fair indication back to the last ice age.

 

Guess what? It's getting hotter

 

Which isn't to say it's man induced. The evidence for that is a whole lot thinner. But Warming itself? that's real enough. And Steve McIntyre wasn't wrong. He correctly identified an error and brought it to wider attention. That's how it's supposed to work.

"

And the IPCC report(s) were peer reviewed by practically the whole US government. Most of it's findings were toned down under pressure from them. The published findings of the IPCC were the least worst scenarios.

 

Anyway, I've got a big diesel car, a slightly bigger diesel boat and I know what the inside of an aeroplane looks like, but I'm not convinced that hairshirts are the way forward, either. Buy locally, at least read the energy efficiency stats on your next fridge/ cooker before you buy it, and turn the PC off if you're going out. Speaking of which....

 

Hi Toad (Mr. Toad? Toady?) I'm pretty new here myself. I'm no expert on the bacon sarnie issue, so you're safe there!

 

I'm very aware of Steve McIntyre. I've taken an interest in his work for many years. I'm not naive enough to think that he's right on every subject, but I think he did a bit more than "try" to discredit the Hockey Stick. He shot the whole thing down in flames, to the point where he showed that you could enter random data into the mathematical algorithms that the reconstruction used, and still get the distinctive "hockey stick" shape.

 

Just playing devil's advocate here, does your peat core represent the whole world? Any sign of the Maunder Minimum or Little Ice Age in it? Any hint of Medieval Warm Period? I only ask because these phenomenae had mysteriously vanished from the Hockey Stick reconstruction.

 

"..the IPCC report(s) were peer reviewed by practically the whole US government." What??

 

Lastly, are you trying to say that Steve M. in some way faked these documents? That they are somehow not genuine because they were posted by Steve M?

[carlt]

there is a whole world of scams out there and if this had been one of them then "serves you right you fool" would have been the only sympathy I would have felt able to extend.

Could you elaborate?

 

Who do you believe has been scammed and who are you referring to as a fool?

[Malarky]

I've got 20m of peat core that will give you a fair indication back to the last ice age.

 

Guess what? It's getting hotter

Someone been smoking near it? Check it hasn't caught alight!

[GRPCruiserman]

I'm fairly green-minded (have lived using no power source apart from solar panels, no car, etc), but I agree with Carl. You need to be open about who you are working for, as many 'green' organisations are very anti leisure or livaboard boating.

 

Frankly, if you are working for the Green party, get lost. They are no friend of boaters in Yorkshire. Ignorant and obstructive. Ditto the Environment Agency. Sorry if that seems harsh, but I have a poor opinion of those two organisations (and I worked for the EA!).

 

TBH, the main environmental impacts are from fuel spillages. These can be mitigated by using electric power, or switching to biodiesel (which I believe breaks down faster and with fewer toxic byproducts).

 

Alternative, tow your boat with a horse.

 

Or run a petrol boat.

 

If you spill petrol (four stroke) on to the surface of the canal, it evaporates within a very short space of time (minutes) and has basically no detramental effect on the canal/waterway; unlike diesel which sits on the surface forever and can cause no end of environmental issues.

 

Petrol may not be as intrinsically safe from an explosion point of view, and there may be further reaching atmospheric issues, but from a purely waterway orientated view, it's far more environmentally friendly.

 

If you can convert your petrol boat to LPG this effect is even more marked emmision wise as well.

 

I understand that on Windermere some of the Police/Warden launches recently had their diesel engines removed and petrol ones re-fitted and converted to LPG for this very reason.

 

Also with the ban on Red Deisel coming in soon, petrol is considerabley cheaper these days, and LPG even more so.

 

Edit: Don't forget on wider waterways, without bridges, sail is an even more economic and environmentally friendly option. The number of boats using canals from an emmision point of view is very very small compared to the number of cars on the road, so I don't really think it's a problem.

Edited April 19, 2008 by GRPCruiserman

[RobinR]

When considering the impact of boating, can account also be taken re what we would all do should boating no longer be available. There was certainly a time when the future for canals was more likely to fill them in and build over them. What alternatives can be used eg camper vans. How can an evaluation fo the impact of boating be undertaken without considering alternatives most likely to be adopted by boaters should their first choice become unavauiable?

[seaspray]

I would be interested to know how boaters can measure their environmental footprint accurately, since all the (free) sites to do so on the web assume you live in a house. Maybe someone else who's been in this conversation knows?

[debbifiggy]

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.

 

 

snip

 

 

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

 

 

Tony as ever, a sensible voice. I worry enormously when these sort of questions get asked as it strikes me that they really don't know at all how caring of the environment the majority of boaters are. Yes, we could all be better but if the technologies not there or it costs an arm and a leg beyond any sensible cost/benefits well what are you going to do? I wouldn't burn coal in the winter if I could work out how to keep a wood fire into without human interaction for more than 5 hours. I need 8 hours sleep a night and coal is the onlu fuel that let's me do this without wearing thermals and pyjamas, big socks and then resorting to lpg to boost the shower temperature in the morrning.

Debbi

[fender]

Took a walk along the canal yersteday - anyone seen the long slick of diesel stretching between Westbourne Park bridge and Little Venice, then the long oil slick between Little Venice and Marylebone? Apparently someone cares enough to ensure the wildlife is well oiled and ready to fire on all four cyclinders!! Very environmentally conscious too!

Edited April 20, 2008 by fender

[Malarky]

I lived a low impact life on the canal scince the mid eighties, and would like to pass this on as what replaced my community claims to be "low impact" but is not. Recent trends of aspirations to be seen to be "environmentaly friendly" have made most genuine lifestyles of that nature extinct. I found that showing by example, on any grand scale, now days, makes you vunerable to being shoved out of the way. I conclude that the internet is a way to pass the information on without having to loose everything for the effort.

 

Being away from the concrete jungle helps, as you can plant trees and shrubs, even those that provide food and fuel, to save future generations going to the shops so often, I've planted hundreds. Being in a community helps by being able to prevent people having their lives ruined or ruining themselves(I feel I've poluted the environment running vehicles to work and to get tools more than in I have in my whole life scince having to leave my living on the canal). It is possible to travel a circuit to return to places and look out for the environment and people when allowed.

 

Preserving your steel boat, and asociated parts, saves on having to build more, which must help reduce necessity for radiation needed to produce the vast amounts of electricity. Being able to go without material trappings, for relief, and enjoying the environment and challenges when harsh, as part of social living for fun and enlightenment, is a bonus.

 

If wooden boats were more popular then fundamentaly they can be grown useing air producing products, and for accommodation purposes don't need to take up as much wood to build as in the past. The by products can be used to keep an open fire for meeting cooking and boiling water.

 

Don't support things that could blow up parts, or all, of the planet leaving irreversable radioactivity.

 

Share.

[Sir Nibble]

Could you elaborate?

 

Who do you believe has been scammed and who are you referring to as a fool?

I don't call anyone a fool Carl, I just point out that there are an awful lot of them out there, (scams, not fools, although....) and anyone who falls victim having helpfully followed the agenda of somone they have met on the internet who is clearly keeping secrets, is a fool. I do not suggest that there is a scam in progress, only that our awareness of all those scams means witholding information about who you are acting for SHOULD ring all sorts of alarms from that point of view if no other.

[carlt]

I don't call anyone a fool Carl, I just point out that there are an awful lot of them out there, (scams, not fools, although....) and anyone who falls victim having helpfully followed the agenda of somone they have met on the internet who is clearly keeping secrets, is a fool. I do not suggest that there is a scam in progress, only that our awareness of all those scams means witholding information about who you are acting for SHOULD ring all sorts of alarms from that point of view if no other.

Thank you. That's much clearer, now