Sustainable Sailing

[TigerPaws]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Just on the off chance you really want to know.

A way of life that can be* indefinitely maintained.

Many would insert

*shared by all humans and also be

Others may add

within the context of being stewards of our Mother Earth

not involving destroying our health, depleting valuable resources and wiping out whole ecosystems.

Generally, in contrast with a civilization that self-destructs in just a few hundred years.

I was being sarcastic in my question, my definition, your definition and someone else's definition can all be correct because there is no real answer.

People say that the collective "we" must do the questionable "something" without specifying who the we are and what the something is. The world is a big place made up of 195 different countries and an equal number of different agenda's. No one is going to wrangle them into one cohesive policy with force of law and a means to enforce those laws.

So I will go about my life living the way I want to, I do my best to leave others alone and all I ask is to be left alone. I do not poop and or dump my garbage where I eat, sleep and live but I cannot stop someone else from doing that. All I can do is to move on when things turn nasty.

Nothing that you or I do will matter in regards to sustainability or our carbon footprint, there a much bigger forces at work. Simply saying that "I" am doing my part by reducing my insignificant use of diesel fuel is a meaningless feel good gesture.

[john61ct]

And we will be in the Dark Ages most of humanity suffering terribly.

Obviously We means our species.

Yes we can prevent or at least ameliorate the disasters.

But you are right, will not happen from individual choices.

Coordinated collective action, radical changes to not just our lifestyles but all our social, political, economic **systems** is required.

I agree the odds are slim we can do that, but sure seems irresponsible to not even try.

Just 4-5% of the population making it clear this is their #1 priority, willing to devote lots of time & energy, I think would really get the ball rolling, solutions showing results within a decade.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

...Cruisers, most often cruise in plastic boats, true, but our environmental impact when compared to the average SUV, PickUp driving person living in a McMansion is extremely small, almost non existent.

Exactly. As I say, that’s one of the reasons we decided to go cruising. It’s not the only reason, but it certainly makes the list.

Originally Posted by a64pilot

All the Hollywood stars crying about Global Warming as they climb into their personal jet to fly down to the Cayman’s, can you spell hypocrite?

I don’t get all bent out of shape over this. Many of these people are hypocrites. But you know what? Everyone is a hypocrite at some level. No one is pure, or perfect. I try not to worry about what others do. I know I can only change my own behaviour, so that’s what I focus on.

Originally Posted by a64pilot

The answer seems obvious to me, reduce consumption, consumption of everything as whatever it is, fuel was burned to manufacturer, or transport it.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by hpeer

...Nothing is going to change until we have either a change of attitude OR a major systemic collapse. Just dealing with attitude the “problem” it is that we have been led to believe that a constantly growing economy is absolutely required for our happiness. Never mind that it’s impossible for anything to grow infinitely, we have been told if we don’t grow we die. I’ve yet to hear a Dr. tell a obese person that their growth rate is sustainable. This has led to the excesses of Consumerisim we see including the concentration of wealth, deteriorating health, political divide, resource depletion, pollution, etc. our “leaders” those that speak to us about how we should behave, have led us down a destructive path.

Completely agree Howard. It’s what I was trying to say with my more, More, MORE! comment. We in the developed countries have built an economy and a culture of consumption without limits.It wasn’t always like this. As you point out, it’s a relatively recent development.

I’ve become convinced human civilization will not change course until it absolutely has to. So in this way we are behaving just like any other animal. We will continue to exploit our ecosystem until we hit hard limits, at which point we will be brought back into balance. If we were smarter we’d try and make this transition run smoothly, but evidence shows we’re not, so the transition will be harsh.

[GordMay]

‘Sustainable Economic Growth’ is an Oxymoron

Herman E. Daly and Dr. Kenneth N. Townsend have proven that we can’t grow our way out of poverty and environmental degradation. Sustainable economic growth is impossible, since the economy is an open subsystem of the Earth’s ecosystem, which is finite, non-growing, and materially closed. As the economic subsystem grows, it engulfs more and more of the ecosystem in which it exists, and is bound to reach a limit, when it incorporates 100 percent of the ecosystem, if not before. Thus, the economy’s infinite growth is, by nature, not sustainable.

A fascinating (short) read:

“VALUING THE EARTH: Economics, Ecology, Ethics” ~ by Herman E. Daly and Kenneth N. Townsend
➥ Sustainable Growth: An Impossibility Theorem by Herman E. Daly

[StuM]

‘Sustainable Economic Growth’ is an Oxymoron


You can prove that "sustainable" anything is impossible if you extend it to infinity.


The link discounts innovation and "doing more with less".


It draws an invalid distinction between "growth" and "development" through a very narrow definition of "growth".



What scale of "resources" would be required to provide today's total computing power with the technology of the 1960s?
How much more land would need to be in agricultural production to provide today's global grain production using the technology of the 1800s?

[hpeer]

To quote Al Bartlett (very roughly) “given our current population there is no problem made better by adding more people.”

[hpeer]

Its the lack of stewardship, no sense of responsibility for the future, that’s what constantly surprises me.

I have a very liberal Jewish friend who’s “personal crusade” is the plight of under privileged black inmates. He devotes his working life to this cause and it’s his passion. He also gets that the world is over populated and AGW will likely. Quad great misery. But his personal response to not more actively pursuing the matter is “I have no children, so I have no stake in the future.” It’s a common attitude, even among those with children. “Meh, it’s their problem.”

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by StuM

‘Sustainable Economic Growth’ is an Oxymoron


You can prove that "sustainable" anything is impossible if you extend it to infinity.


The link discounts innovation and "doing more with less".


It draws an invalid distinction between "growth" and "development" through a very narrow definition of "growth".



What scale of "resources" would be required to provide today's total computing power with the technology of the 1960s?
How much more land would need to be in agricultural production to provide today's global grain production using the technology of the 1800s?

Stu,

Those are great questions. And they are questions we seem destined to answer in the concret example.

[john61ct]

It is not only our current model of economics that needs to be replaced.

But yes it's a good place to start.

Human progress has been too focused on the material, comfort and convenience above everything.

Except maybe power, that is even more fundamental to the problem. Selfish greed run amok, a small privileged group striving to maintain their grip on control over society's systems.

"Those who make peaceful*revolution*impossible will make violent*revolution*inevitable."
— JFK

[thinwater]

(This is NOT about full time cruisers--this is about dock-bound boats)

For most sailors (since most boat almost never leave the dock), the impact of building and maintaining (or barely maintaining) per mile traveled is the big hit. When you don't go out, your environmental cost per mile traveled is huge.

I think if you asked the average man on the street, as he walked through a large marina, he would say that the obvious impact is right in front of you. All the plastic (boats) on hard stands, sanding dust (even if tented) and bottom paint soaking in the water. He would say the whole practice is inherently wasteful for what is achieved. He would not think bottles where a major factor.

True enthusiasts use their boats. I minimize the footprint by buying used, never letting one run down, and stretching equipment life as far as is practical... and then using second hand where practical... and a lot more is practical than you'd think, without letting the boat run down. I've sold each boat for what I paid for it, and none were project boats when purchased.

An older plastic AWB near mine in the marina was scrapped a few days ago. it weighed as much as 4.4 million disposable water bottles, and I'm sure most of that was landfilled, not recycled.

If I go sailing 30 days each year and drink 4 bottles each day, it will take me 37,000 years to use that many bottles. And that is before we count recycling.

Just a few scrapped boats probably account for all of the disposable bottles drunk by boaters in a year.

My suggestions?
* Maintain your boat.
* Ride share. I am currently in a partnership with 3 other guys. I never thought I would do that, but it was the boat I wanted and it wasn't a lot of money. It's worked out great, and we are at least 2 times lower impact than otherwise.
* Don't buy new. Or at least feel very, very guilty about it. You've just undone a lifetime of recycling and more.


The best recycling will always be reuse.

[john61ct]

Yes, if you are living a normal American lifestyle in a S&B home, owning a boat **as well** is just additional consumption and this whole discussion is just abstract.

It is only those living on their boat **instead of** in a S&B home, that should then be discussing "how can I further reduce my impact?"

Miles traveled is not IMO relevant, other than mostly sailing is better than motoring a lot.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Yes, if you are living a normal American lifestyle in a S&B home, owning a boat **as well** is just additional consumption and this whole discussion is just abstract....

True enough. Or at least my point was that it is easy to focus on minutia and miss the big items. Cruisers are inherently low footprint.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by hpeer

...But his personal response to not more actively pursuing the matter is “I have no children, so I have no stake in the future.” It’s a common attitude, even among those with children. “Meh, it’s their problem.”

It’s interesting b/c while most people state they care about their childrens’ futures, there are so many ways most of us show we really don’t. Not just from the environmental perspective, but also looking at the fiscal or even social legacies we are dumping on them. In so many ways we are robbing the future to pay for our own living.

Originally Posted by john61ct

Yes, if you are living a normal American lifestyle in a S&B home, owning a boat **as well** is just additional consumption and this whole discussion is just abstract.

Agreed (in general). Living on a smallish cruising boat only reduces total impact if it replaces a more resource-hungry home. If it’s a recreational add-on, then of course it actually ADDS to your use of resources.

Stu, you raise the fact of increased efficiency of resource use — “innovation.” This is absolutely true, we can and do use some resources far more efficiently today than in the past. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that we do the same thing with a lot less. But this has shown to be false.

Paradoxically, progress in efficiency usually leads MORE resource use, not less. It’s a well studied economic and sociological phenomena: the Jevons paradox. Time and time again history shows us that as the relative cost per unit of whatever resource goes down, what people ACTUALLY do is use more. So we end up with the counter-intuitive outcome of making the per-unit cost a lot lower, which then results in us all to using or doing a whole lot more.

This is why I don’t believe we can innovate our way out of the various limits we face on this planet. Increased efficiency can push the day of reckoning back, but evidence shows it doesn’t alter the overall trajectory.

The only way we can really do that is by using less; by living smaller. But again, this is something our societies can not even conceive of doing.

[a64pilot]

What is an S&B home?

[john61ct]

Note that increasingly "economic activity" does not involve much moving atoms around, just bits of data.

The point of **energy** resources is the urgent need of focus, but that's a relatively minor issue to most humans.

The more critically scarce resources include nutgrition & clothing, basic shelter, education, medical care

Learning to deliver **those** both efficiently, without poisoning each other nor harming our ecosystems, and doing so fairly, should be another high priority,

likely doing just this would generate enough "economic activity" to keep us all busy for a long time.

Just not make a tiny percentage of humans super- wealthy or in control of our power systems.