What is the carbon footprint for the US MSD program?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

.. .

Dumping straight overboard in all places would reduce the power cost of moving crap around to zero. BUT as we both agree, this produces far greater environmental impacts in local areas compared to the carbon cost associated with hauling our poop around.

… or maybe I’m not really understanding what we’re really discussing .

I guess we'll have to ask the OP "what we are discussing", but I would use his argument like this:

* Forcing us to carry our crap all over creation from pumpout to pumpout has an environmental cost. Small but a lot more than zero.

* Allowing us to dump our tanks one mile or more offshore has a demonstrably ZERO environmental cost.

* Therefore, your law which prohibits discharge all the way to 12 miles out (or whatever) is causing an environmental cost, with zero environmental benefit -- putting aside the cost and inconvenience to boaters.

I think that's a pretty strong argument, and the way politics work, it may be all some publicity-slurping politician may need to get behind such an initiative.

if someone says -- yeah the environmental cost of hauling that crap around is not zero, but it's awfully small -- the answer is ay that the same applies to our discharges altogether -- they are chump change compared to municipal sewer overflows -- yet you regulate us. At least apply some moderate reason to these regulations, and let us discharge a mile or more offshore.


We should study what happened in the UK -- rabid environmentalists try to get discharge laws passed here some time ago. The RYA kicked their posteriors -- politically. By demonstrating that there is no environmental impact of our discharges.

As a result, there are no discharge regulations at all in the UK, a country which otherwise has very strict environmental regulation, stronger than the U.S., and sailors are free of the ridiculous burden of these rules.

I guess we can't hope for that degree of freedom -- and maybe it's not even desirable in the U.S. with our lower level of boating culture (we Americans would start dumping right onto beaches, probably, if it were not prohibited) -- but one mile out would be really great, eliminating the need for any pumpouts at all for many cruisers.

[Panope]

Perhaps the requirement to not discharge waste is a sufficient burden to "tip the scales" enough for a small but meaningful number of people to not engage in recreational boating.

Steve

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Panope

Perhaps the requirement to not discharge waste is a sufficient burden to "tip the scales" enough for a small but meaningful number of people to not engage in recreational boating.

Steve

I think it is!

I don't know exactly what point you're making with that, but the burden is very significant. Pumping out may be reasonably convenient for some boaters -- say weekenders who always return after a couple of days to a marina which has a good pumpout facility. But can be extremely inconvenient for long term and more adventurous cruisers who like to anchor out and stay far from civilization. To such an extent that cruise plans can even revolve around how to get pumped out.

When I was cruising Florida, we had a Lectra San treatment system, so didn't really have a problem, but not all cruisers can afford such a device, or have room for it, or make enough electricity to run it. I also don't think this system makes the slightest difference in pollution except in places where we wouldn't discharge anyway (beaches, coves, anchorages) -- so I think it's an expensive waste of money and space, frankly. All it does is kill bacteria which would be killed anyway after dispersion in the open sea for a short period of time.

[Panope]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I think it is!

I don't know exactly what point you're making with that.......

My comment was directed ONLY to the numerical calculation of "What is the carbon footprint for the US MSD program".

Specifically, that perhaps the MSD program results in a LOWER carbon footprint due to people being turned off from boating.

Then again, those fed-up boaters may turn to a more carbon intense hobby as a result.

Steve

[SecondBase]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

if someone says -- yeah the environmental cost of hauling that crap around is not zero, but it's awfully small -- the answer is ay that the same applies to our discharges altogether -- they are chump change compared to municipal sewer overflows.

As the OP I'll say the thread has gone in useful, and perhaps new, directions. IMO many of these valuable comments should have been included in the EIS. I particularly support the comments of every boat have a tank and the reg can be improved.

Given that a thousand people have now looked at the thread and we don't have an EIS link I'll make an assertion than an EIS may not have been put together for US MSD.

As we can see from the thread, the trade offs are difficult to quantify. In lieu of an EIS, I would equally accept a policy endorsement from a knowledgeable NGO with a known pro-environmental bias (NRDC, Sierra Club, etc).

A statement from one of them as simple as the below would put the question to rest for me.

"We recognize the trade offs inherent within the US MSD policy and, on the balance, fully support this additional fossil fuel burn into the air we breathe in order to gain a greater environmental benefit."

[a64pilot]

Reason I do not think you would have a chance in heck of getting a reasonable law passed on discharge is emotional.
Real easy for those that oppose it to simply bring up those boaters are wanting you and your children to swim in their poo so they can save 50c in fuel.

I had a conversation, briefly with the very nice dock master here in Stuart Fl, Britt Point marina. Started out with discussing the extreme aggressiveness of marine growth here and me saying that discharge fro lake Okechobee as it's a run off area for a huge agricultural area is likely full of fertilizers etc. very quickly it turned into sailboaters are the worst, they think they should be allowed to discharge cause fish do, can you believe that? And trawler people, they are almost as bad. This from a person that is not economically well off and ought to know better, if anyone should be educated about boats and boaters, it ought to be her.

Now take the average South Floridian who's moved down from New Jersey, Michigan or whatever, do you think you have a chance of educating them?

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Reason I do not think you would have a chance in heck of getting a reasonable law passed on discharge is emotional.
Real easy for those that oppose it to simply bring up those boaters are wanting you and your children to swim in their poo so they can save 50c in fuel.

I had a conversation, briefly with the very nice dock master here in Stuart Fl, Britt Point marina. Started out with discussing the extreme aggressiveness of marine growth here and me saying that discharge fro lake Okechobee as it's a run off area for a huge agricultural area is likely full of fertilizers etc. very quickly it turned into sailboaters are the worst, they think they should be allowed to discharge cause fish do, can you believe that? And trawler people, they are almost as bad. This from a person that is not economically well off and ought to know better, if anyone should be educated about boats and boaters, it ought to be her.

Now take the average South Floridian who's moved down from New Jersey, Michigan or whatever, do you think you have a chance of educating them?

I have experienced a similar thing here in NYC, and I'm sure other places have their own local version. There are some fifteen sailboats tied up in the Newtown Creek. One member of the Newtown Creek Alliance, an organization dedicated to the clean up of the creek, is opposed to these few boats because she is concerned that they MIGHT pump their waste directly into the creek. Keep in mind that the Newtown Creek is a superfund site and is polluted with sewage. There are some 17 CSOs (combined sewer overflows) on the creek. A CSO is basically a storm drain which also discharges raw sewage. Large sections of Queens and Brooklyn are discharging into the creek and she's worried about some fifteen boats that MIGHT pump a few ounces into the creek!

I guess it is easier to whine about something small that can actually be seen than do something productive about a real issue that can't be directly observed.

[SecondBase]

a64 & ArmyDave - thanks for your candor and we may be getting to the type of thinking behind the reg now... Stuart and NY are both great harbors I've enjoyed.

Do "Emotional" and no EIS dovetail?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I guess we'll have to ask the OP "what we are discussing", but I would use his argument like this:

* Forcing us to carry our crap all over creation from pumpout to pumpout has an environmental cost. Small but a lot more than zero.

* Allowing us to dump our tanks one mile or more offshore has a demonstrably ZERO environmental cost.

* Therefore, your law which prohibits discharge all the way to 12 miles out (or whatever) is causing an environmental cost, with zero environmental benefit -- putting aside the cost and inconvenience to boaters.

I think that's a pretty strong argument, and the way politics work, it may be all some publicity-slurping politician may need to get behind such an initiative.

if someone says -- yeah the environmental cost of hauling that crap around is not zero, but it's awfully small -- the answer is ay that the same applies to our discharges altogether -- they are chump change compared to municipal sewer overflows -- yet you regulate us. At least apply some moderate reason to these regulations, and let us discharge a mile or more offshore.


We should study what happened in the UK -- rabid environmentalists try to get discharge laws passed here some time ago. The RYA kicked their posteriors -- politically. By demonstrating that there is no environmental impact of our discharges.

As a result, there are no discharge regulations at all in the UK, a country which otherwise has very strict environmental regulation, stronger than the U.S., and sailors are free of the ridiculous burden of these rules.

I guess we can't hope for that degree of freedom -- and maybe it's not even desirable in the U.S. with our lower level of boating culture (we Americans would start dumping right onto beaches, probably, if it were not prohibited) -- but one mile out would be really great, eliminating the need for any pumpouts at all for many cruisers.

I agree on all counts. Offshore dumping is not only benign environmentally, in many cases it is superior to the onshore alternatives. No argument there. I still would characterize the boater-related fuel/environmental costs of hauling around our poop as negligible. I think the other associated costs of the pump out infrastructure would actually be where you’d find significant environmental negatives. But I agree, pumping out off shore should be encouraged.

I’m pretty sure the Canadian law is you can pump out when three miles off shore. I thought the US had the same.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I guess we'll have to ask the OP "what we are discussing", but I would use his argument like this:

* Forcing us to carry our crap all over creation from pumpout to pumpout has an environmental cost. Small but a lot more than zero.

* Allowing us to dump our tanks one mile or more offshore has a demonstrably ZERO environmental cost.

* Therefore, your law which prohibits discharge all the way to 12 miles out (or whatever) is causing an environmental cost, with zero environmental benefit -- putting aside the cost and inconvenience to boaters.

I think that's a pretty strong argument, and the way politics work, it may be all some publicity-slurping politician may need to get behind such an initiative.

if someone says -- yeah the environmental cost of hauling that crap around is not zero, but it's awfully small -- the answer is ay that the same applies to our discharges altogether -- they are chump change compared to municipal sewer overflows -- yet you regulate us. At least apply some moderate reason to these regulations, and let us discharge a mile or more offshore.


We should study what happened in the UK -- rabid environmentalists try to get discharge laws passed here some time ago. The RYA kicked their posteriors -- politically. By demonstrating that there is no environmental impact of our discharges.

As a result, there are no discharge regulations at all in the UK, a country which otherwise has very strict environmental regulation, stronger than the U.S., and sailors are free of the ridiculous burden of these rules.

I guess we can't hope for that degree of freedom -- and maybe it's not even desirable in the U.S. with our lower level of boating culture (we Americans would start dumping right onto beaches, probably, if it were not prohibited) -- but one mile out would be really great, eliminating the need for any pumpouts at all for many cruisers.

I would have to agree other than one mile. The three mile limit would make more sense. Anyone not going that far is probably tied to the dock, for the most part. Pump out is available. For my way of thinking it isn't carbon footprint but what fecal coliforms would do that close to shore.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I agree on all counts. Offshore dumping is not only benign environmentally, in many cases it is superior to the onshore alternatives. No argument there. I still would characterize the boater-related fuel/environmental costs of hauling around our poop as negligible. I think the other associated costs of the pump out infrastructure would actually be where you’d find significant environmental negatives. But I agree, pumping out off shore should be encouraged.

I’m pretty sure the Canadian law is you can pump out when three miles off shore. I thought the US had the same.

Yes Mike 3 miles off shore for sewage.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

.. . I guess it is easier to whine about something small that can actually be seen than do something productive about a real issue that can't be directly observed.

Indeed.

And easier to step on some spoiled apparently rich boaters -- it just feels good! -- then do something about the real problem -- which is municipal sewage systems.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Cadence

I would have to agree other than one mile. The three mile limit would make more sense. Anyone not going that far is probably tied to the dock, for the most part. Pump out is available. For my way of thinking it isn't carbon footprint but what fecal coliforms would do that close to shore.

I agree that no one actually cares about the carbon, and what we all care about (or should care about) is not causing harm with bacteria, hormones, etc. in our discharges.

How far out you have to go to cause zero harm is a question for science, isn't it?

I am guessing that small boat discharges one mile out, and even half a mile out affects fecal coliform levels at the shore and near shore water where people might swim 0.000000000%. I am guessing, but I'm strongly convinced.

The RYA study showed that boat discharges don't cause any harm ANYWHERE, except in the immediate vicinity of beaches and swimming areas. But that is UK waters with strong tidal flushing, so we might want to be more conservative.

Just because someone is "tied to the dock" doesn't necessarily mean they have easy access to pump out. They might be tied to an anchorage, too. A mile vs 3 miles can make a big difference for someone heading out especially to dump a tank, so I wouldn't give that up unless there were some science showing that it makes a difference.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

No. Talk to some boat designers and you'll find out that it doesn't work that way. What happens is that, after building a new design, they find out that there is some imbalance, so they move water, fuel, and waste tanks around to solve it.

You aren't talking to a designer if that's how they are doing it.

But there are always things they can move around if necessary.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by thinwater

And so is fuel consumption, boating, and most things, compared to celestial cycles, and yet they all, cumulatively, matter.

While the question is interesting, "rounding error" arguments are irrelevant. It is about risk (infection) and damage (COD, nutrients) per unit cost to avoid. Cost is that of installed equipment, labor, and maintenance. Different people weigh each of these factors differently.

Since the risk and damage impact more people than sailors, and the cost is born only by sailors, what do you think the chance is of a well-rounded discussion? How would you feel if all harbor-side homes and marinas were allowed to route their sewer out under your slip? On the other hand, the "whale poop" argument is sound well at sea. The "land based organism" argument less so; we installed sewage treatment to fix that.

On one hand, combined sewers do result in large overflows during heavy rains in some areas, and salt water does disinfect most germs. On-board treatments systems do sanitize, but do they treat (nutrients, TSS, COD), and are there chlorination residuals (POTWs cannot chlorinate high COD waste)?

It's complicated, and like many rules, right or wrong, I think it is locked in a stable compromise position. That is the reality. Anything perceived as backsliding just aint' happening.

That's the point. Per unit costs are orders of magnitude higher for boaters for very negligible improvement(ie: rounding error) in risk and reduced Bio Oxygen Demand (BOD not Chemical Oxygen Demand - COD).

NO, it doesn't add up if you discharge in open waters. The system processes the waste before it can concentrate eliminating the issues. Sewage differs from other pollutants like heavy metals where tiny amounts can concentrate over years till they reach problematic levels. As long as you don't discharge so much in a short time that it overwhelms the system, it will process it with no ill effects.

Large outflows from city sewage systems are really the problem. That's where you overload an area it goes anaerobic and you get fish kills, red tides and the like. You can also get problems from farms, lawns and industrial runoff but again, this is when you are talking about a scale that the boating community is no where close to reaching.

A rule that was more reasonable (say no discharge within a marina, within 1/4mile of shore or 3 miles of a designated swimming beach), I think the debate would largely go away. But dumping 20gal of sewage 10 miles offshore on Lake Michigan has ZERO negative impact on the environment.