What is the carbon footprint for the US MSD program?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SecondBase

Fair enough - you did. Let's try to model it your way. Can you help me turn your 1% number into an annual, national, carbon tonnage number?

You're missing my point. I'm asserting that MSD usage to satisfy the CWA has negligible, statistically insignificant effect on boaters' carbon footprints.

If you think otherwise... let's hear your rationale.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You're missing my point. I'm asserting that MSD usage to satisfy the CWA has negligible, statistically insignificant effect on boaters' carbon footprints.

If you think otherwise... let's hear your rationale.

LE he is wanting someone to do the math for him .
For the sake of argument I use a total of about 15 gallons of biodiesel per year reguardless of how much sewage im hauling. Im sure he can do the math figuring .15 gallons of diesel would be.saved per year using the 1% that some suggested. I will start the formula .15 gal biodiesel releases x ammount of co2 into the atmosphere. But then some of that carbon is caught instantly via the waterlift muffler that the.exhaust passes thru so that reduction would cut the carbon released by about 75% right off the bat. ( locked in the seawater) .
Have fun .



Edit: the answer is about .04 pound of extra co2 added per year on my boat.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

LE he is wanting someone to do the math for him .
For the sake of argument I use a total of about 15 gallons of biodiesel per year reguardless of how much sewage im hauling. Im sure he can do the math figuring .15 gallons of diesel would be.saved per year using the 1% that some suggested. I will start the formula .15 gal biodiesel releases x ammount of co2 into the atmosphere. But then some of that carbon is caught instantly via the waterlift muffler that the.exhaust passes thru so that reduction would cut the carbon released by about 75% right off the bat. ( locked in the seawater) .
Have fun .



Edit: the answer is about .04 pound of extra co2 added per year on my boat.

In other words, trivial. Negligible. Hardly worth the effort, was it? I don't know about everyone else, but if common sense indicates that something isn't really worth the effort, I tend not to make the effort.

And I still think 2nd Base should tell us what's really bugging him.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

In other words, trivial. Negligible. Hardly worth the effort, was it? I don't know about everyone else, but if common sense indicates that something isn't really worth the effort, I tend not to make the effort.

And I still think 2nd Base should tell us what's really bugging him.

What can I say I didnt want to reglue the trnsom on my free rib ( to much like work)

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Dang auto correct supposed to be "for the most part direct discharge" when underway.

I have a new question.

Is it legal to pee or dump urine from a boat within 3 miles from shore? (In a no-discharge zone.)

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

I have a new question.

Is it legal to pee or dump urine from a boat within 3 miles from shore? (In a no-discharge zone.)

Technically its even legal to take a poo directly from the body into the water even in no discharge zones.
However as soon as you put it into anything .

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Technically its even legal to take a poo directly from the body into the water even in no discharge zones.
However as soon as you put it into anything .

My interpretation was that the words, "discharge from a vessel" meant that if your in the water it was OK to pee and poop but if you were onboard it wasn't.

Thoughts?

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Technically its even legal to take a poo directly from the body into the water even in no discharge zones.
However as soon as you put it into anything .

My interpretation was that the words, "discharge from a vessel" meant that if your in the water it was OK to pee and poop but if you were onboard it wasn't.

Thoughts?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It is not too much trouble to make sure my s**t is properly handled, and from a brief consideration of how having an MSD and tank might increase my own production of air pollution, I am convinced that the worst case increase is still well under a percent or two, and that is acceptable to me. Especially when I consider that I can easily offset several times that amount by motoring more efficiently, keeping my engine tuned, using good gas, minimizing spillage when fueling, etc.

I am convinced that compliance with the Clean Water Act causes a negligable contribution to air pollution, and that the benefits of the CWA greatly outweigh the ignorably small contribution to air pollution that it might contribute.

Not yet mentioned - all boats having a MSD and tank makes it possible for so many of us to travel around and use and enjoy waterways, anchorages and moorings that would otherwise quickly become disgusting if everyone was simply dumping overboard with every flush.

[edit] It should be noted that simply forcing boat owners to meet more modern emissions standards would improve the air quality by a few orders of magnitude more than any emissions saved by eliminating the CWA. Be careful what you wish for.

I don't think anyone has argued that the actual carbon emissions from shipping ***** make any real difference.

Nor has anyone argued in favor of removing holding tanks or discharging near people.

I think you and many others have missed the nuance of the OP's idea, which I think is impressive and possibly useful.

If I could try to formulate it myself, in a slightly different way --

1. We are regulated as if the burden of the regulations don't matter -- as if there is not cost to comply.

2. And we are regulated without any consideration of the actual harmfulness of discharges offshore -- say 5 cables offshore, or in any case, 1 mile offshore, which I think everyone agrees about.

3. The rationale is the really stupid "every little bit helps".

4. The OP's idea basically turns the "every little bit helps" argument against the regulators -- if "every little bit helps" with sewage (even if "little bit" in this case is absolutely zero!!), then how about with carbon emissions? Sure it's a small number, but IT'S NOT ZERO.


This might shake the intellectually lazy "every little bit helps crowd" out of their lazy complacency, because now they are forced to actually think about the actual harm of discharging a mile offshore vs. carbon emissions, both very small, but in one case, zero, and in the other, NOT ZERO. And the OP found an instrument -- the Environmental Impact Statement process -- to push it forward.

In reality -- discharging one mile offshore is ZERO harm, but hauling sewage to three miles out has more than zero ecological harm, so it's a damned strong argument.


As to making it 3 miles vs 1 (or 0.5) just to make it easier to enforce . . . yikes. That's the logic of real oppression. "You are doing something absolutely harmless, objectively speaking, but I am going to fine you or apply criminal sanctions, because by criminalizing a broad swatch of harmless activity, it makes me easier to whack you." Really. Even more so when you put it in the context of the U.S. and Turkey being the only countries I know of which actually enforce discharge rules on small private vessels. Everywhere else it is an honor system, as it should be. But our culture has become quite similar to Turkey's, and very different from Europe's, in how aggressively controlled we are.


Anyway, 3 miles versus 1 (or 0.5) mile can make a big difference to someone living at anchor or on a small dock without pumpout facilities. To get three miles out, pump out, then return, will be more than an hour and maybe a couple of hours with the reanchoring, negotiating channels, etc., which may be required. Let me state a counterargument why this is a bad idea -- such a policy makes it much more likely that the person at anchor will just dump his tank on the spot, where it is really harmful to do so, rather than pulling up the anchor and going a bit offshore, where it is completely harmless.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

My interpretation was that the words, "discharge from a vessel" meant that if your in the water it was OK to pee and poop but if you were onboard it wasn't.

Thoughts?

I was tied up in Copenhagen Harbor in May, in the middle of the city, in broad daylight, when a guy on the boat next to me whipped it out and took a giant fountain of a pee over the side.

AFAIK it is legal anywhere to do this.

I think it is also legal to dispose of any waste over the side in a bucket, anywhere.

You can't legislate this to the nth degree. You can't force people to consider swimmers and other water users -- they will find ways to be pigs, whatever you do. How hard is it to snip a zip tie, open a valve, and dump your tank right in the middle of a no discharge zone, then clip it back again? Therefore the rules need to be reasonable, need to be inculcated culturally more than anything, and should not be aggressively, oppressively enforced -- by "potty police" or whatever. It's a waste of time and wrong approach. It creates a society which is not free or responsible.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Cottontop

Here's a quote from the study above:

"Worldwide, recreational use of coastal waters alone has been implicated in 120 million gastrointestinal infections and 50 million acute respiratory infections each year (Viau et al. 2011)." Is this right? Wrong? Relevant? Doesn't matter.

Expect more regulation, not less.

Perfect use of statistics that appear to support an argument. In reality this is little more than SWAG (scientific wild *** guess) but worse they are in no way tied to boating other than boats use coastal waters.

I do agree with the last statement in terms of what to expect but do not agree that it is right.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I think it is also legal to dispose of any waste over the side in a bucket, anywhere.

In the US "bucket and chuck it" is illegal. The bucket counts as a boat system (i.e. MSD).

The law is the law. It doesn't have to make sense.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Cottontop

LakeEffect's excellent post brings to mind another beneficial effect of the three-mile rule: it's enough of a pain that many will chose to use pump out facilities, which results in more pump out facilities, which results in less dumping, a salubrious feed-back loop. Pump out facilities are becoming common in the US; I understand they're hard to find in Europe.

I see it as the opposite. Let's say you are on a 10mile wide bay (a common situation). If you make it difficult to do the right thing, the majority of people will do the wrong thing (Do you have any idea the percentage of drivers who violate a 25mph speed limit on a major arterial? I give you a clue, it's a lot easier to count the drivers following the limit.)

- If it's a no discharge zone (most large bays are), it may be 4-5hrs round trip to get out to the open ocean and 3 mile limit. Reality is most won't do a 4-5hr run once a week just to dump. That leaves the choice of 5 mins late night and let the tide wash it away from the marina or spend an hour getting the boat ready, motoring over to the pump out, hoping it is actually working properly, than motoring back. Not surprising that a lot of people choose the late night option in an actually problematic area.

- On the other hand if it's a more realistic 1mile rule and large bodies of water are fair game, I suspect you will get much better compliance as people can take the boat out once a week for a short 1hr sunset cruise and dump.

As someone else said, it really is a political decision not a fact based decision.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You're missing my point. I'm asserting that MSD usage to satisfy the CWA has negligible, statistically insignificant effect on boaters' carbon footprints.

If you think otherwise... let's hear your rationale.

I think that was what the original post was doing and he was asking for feedback. The original calculations had some serious issues and it's not an easy calculation. Someone made a good point about starting the engine and running it for 1/2 hr just to go over to the pump out and back. That's 100% burn only for dumping.

Your response on the other hand is just a blanket statement that it is negligible and therefore we should take your word for it. If you don't have the numbers to back it up, logically we must discount your comment.

To my thinking, this is more of a thought experiment in my mind showing the flaw in the "every little bit helps argument". I believe both pollutant sources are negligible. Getting to the true numbers is near impossible but when considered in isolation a true eco-warrior will swear they would never increase engine emissions and at the same time would never increase water pollution but short of simply going on hunger strike you don't have that option. You can bury your head in the sand and pretend or you can face the fact that every action has both positive and negative results.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Perfect use of statistics that appear to support an argument. In reality this is little more than SWAG (scientific wild *** guess) but worse they are in no way tied to boating other than boats use coastal waters.

I do agree with the last statement in terms of what to expect but do not agree that it is right.

I actually read the study -- it does NOT say that these infections are caused by boaters. The "recreational use" referred to means recreational SWIMMERS who GET infected while swimming in water polluted predominantly by municipal sewage systems and, interestingly, other swimmers.

That study has exactly zero to do with what we are discussing.