Should Large Power Boats be Banned?

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by markpierce

Please explain why the two Canadian families I've met on vacation in the USA told me they needed to obtain medical care for chronic diseases in the states?

I can't explain it because it's BS maybe they were hypochondriac's what do I know. I do know this Canada health care system is certainly not the best in the world, that belongs to France, we are 7th but that still puts us along way ahead of the USA.

[jmschmidt]

We basically did this once, it was called the "luxury tax". It destroyed the jobs of tens of thousands of workers in the boating, general aviation (small aircraft) and luxury vehicle industries. The government collected a fraction of the tax money it had projected, but had to pay out millions more in unemployment compensation and forego millions of lost taxes on the business incomes of these industries. Real brilliant. Hell of an idea.

[robert sailor]

Yup that luxury tax was a bummer. If you raised your gasoline taxes you might be able to afford to improve your infrastructure which you badly need. Increasing your gas prices a bit would also encourage people to use less fuel, which many people might think is a good thing. Certainly would not hurt your large boat market.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by thruska

Of course you must have that list handy for us.
And the list of proven scientific references proving those reasons would follow of course. Right ?

When I first read the rather megalomaniacal-on-multiple-levels first post this morning there were three replies.

Rather than stating that which is obvious to anyone that is actually following this (there is a large, and rapidly growing academic literature on it) , apparently so crucial-to-the 'haves' that are crying so loudly about 'freedom', issue (whether they realize it or not), I decided to wait and see what the response would be...

Well, obviously, the catastrophic intensification cannot even be rivaled by those of the AGW-enhanced cyclonic storms of recent years...

So, rather than making the logical argument, let's just look at the selfish, narcissistic 'what I want is most important' view that it seems a large percentage seem to be espousing.

Since the Earth doesn't appear to be expanding, and it's inhabitants don't seem to be shrinking, we must postulate that resources are finite.

If that is true, then, unless one harbors an 'extinction wish', it would behoove any 'inhabitants' of said finite world to marshal those resources that are critical to their survival in a manner that sustains both of them.

The problem is not 'large powerboats', but the bastardization of the concept of 'profit', and the ignoring of the externalities generated by this bastardization...along with several other things of various importance.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Bingo. If you get that right (which is far easier said than done, but still), then this eliminates the moral hazard of letting the state choose whose hobbies to shut down.

Targeted taxation is just a way for the govt to choose whose hobbies they shut down, while pretending they aren't.

Of course, the logical end to "carbon taxes" and other such silliness is we will all be forced to live and work in a single 10'x10' room where the HVAC is kept at 62F in the winter and 80F in the summer (if it's deemed you are worthy of heat and air/com). Anyone else is just anti-planet.

And if you really want to get extreme: a China 1 Child policy will get you further.

[sailpower]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Not as far as I know..We are so deep in bed with you guys on automobile manufacturing that it's pretty much all the same. We are also completely self sufficient in oil and have been exporting to your country for many many years but Canada has taken the view of keeping fuel prices high to promote conservation. Right now in my home town we are paying $1.55 a liter and it's going to $1.60 next month so it's way above you guys. By the way we live 5 minutes from the border and I'll admit that when we visit your lovely country, we do it often when we are home we always fill up..so slightly hypocritical on our behalf but hey it saves us a few bucks, lol.

Deep in bed with us? All the same?

Is that code for we don't actually have the capability to invent and manufacture our own stuff so we use yours but reserve the right to sniff at us while doing so?

The US could have been energy independent years ago but chose not to be. Dumb.

Fortunately that has now changed.

Enjoy your new fuel tax and I will enjoy my new Tahoe.

You win. LOL

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by LLizzard

A walk around any marina will tell you most boats, regardless of size, rarely leave the dock. Therefore their largest carbon footprint is the electricity being generated to supply their shore power.

Excellent point.

We used to have a power boat with twin V8 engines.
Then we switched to a sail catamaran with a 25hp outboard.

We burnt far more fuel per year on the catamaran...because the power boat was only used on weekends in the summer and usually to get to a nice anchorage 3-4miles from the marina.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

This needs to be addressed at the production side. If all signatories to the Paris treaty would for example decide no longer to produce any oil and coal, now that would do something.
But that is of course not politically viable, because politics is not about solving problems, but about having your tribe win and having everybody else pay tribute.

I suggest you do a little research into how the "war on drugs" has turned out. They tried your approach.

All it did was drive up prices, increase smuggling and in the end make a total mess of things.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Deltasailor

Is that true? I use about 70 gallons a season in my 50hp yacht. About 10 mpg. My Audi TT does 52 mpg. What MPG dose a pick up truck do?

Funny, I got berated by a prius idiot outside a grocery store one time for driving my V10 F250.

I asked her how much gas she used in a year and the proceeded to explain how we use less than 1/4 what the supposed earth lover did.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Well, obviously, the catastrophic intensification cannot even be rivaled by those of the AGW-enhanced cyclonic storms of recent years...

There were a couple of good storms this past year but the last 10yrs most years have been at or below the historical average going back to the 1800's. This is both the number of hurricanes and the number of major hurricanes.

Of course, back before satellites, if a hurricane didn't hit land, it didn't get labeled as a named storm, so early years may be under reporting the hurricane levels.

Of course anyone who doesn't tow the live with man-made global warming is branded a heretic, so hardly surprising there is "consensus" among those that get paid to study the issue. No doubt climate changes but once you get to how much is caused by man and how much can we change the future...the numbers get really fuzzy. No we shouldn't be wasteful but hamstringing our economy and lifestyle if there is no benefit to be gained is foolish.

[thruska]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

When I first read the rather megalomaniacal-on-multiple-levels first post this morning there were three replies.

Rather than stating that which is obvious to anyone that is actually following this (there is a large, and rapidly growing academic literature on it) , apparently so crucial-to-the 'haves' that are crying so loudly about 'freedom', issue (whether they realize it or not), I decided to wait and see what the response would be...

Well, obviously, the catastrophic intensification cannot even be rivaled by those of the AGW-enhanced cyclonic storms of recent years...

So, rather than making the logical argument, let's just look at the selfish, narcissistic 'what I want is most important' view that it seems a large percentage seem to be espousing.

Since the Earth doesn't appear to be expanding, and it's inhabitants don't seem to be shrinking, we must postulate that resources are finite.

If that is true, then, unless one harbors an 'extinction wish', it would behoove any 'inhabitants' of said finite world to marshal those resources that are critical to their survival in a manner that sustains both of them.

The problem is not 'large powerboats', but the bastardization of the concept of 'profit', and the ignoring of the externalities generated by this bastardization...along with several other things of various importance.

Well Jim, I have to say that you didn’t answer my question.
Perhaps you’d like to extrapolate on your bastardized concept...along with several other things of various importance.
I’m sure all the inhabitants of third world countries are behooved.
Obviously you are hot and bothered by some whom choose not to totally agree with you. Cmon some people drink organic unpasteurized whole milk, others drink koolaide. That’s life.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by thruska

Boatman, please take note also to the fact that your reference to who owns BP.
The post is 5 years old. The second on list of directors is dead since 2015, was chief at BOC which is now owned by Linde of Germany.
Some of the info in the post is as old as 10 years old .
If you want me to believe American entities own BP, you will have to do better than that rubbish. Perhaps a search for who owns American entities would be a good start. But remember Americans are in north and South America.. You might find some rich and shady Argentinians with German ties involved.

[rgleason]

I hope power boats develop big kites that get deployed to help reduce their fuel use.

The Dashew concept of an efficient sipping powerboat could be extended to include a short deployment mast for kites of several sizes and desigs to increase efficiency.
There is a german company I believe that was doing this for freighters. I've lost track of them however. Incremental improvements add up. Imagine the savings of 10% from a massive freighter or wasteful cruise ship.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by rgleason

I hope power boats develop big kites that get deployed to help reduce their fuel use.

The Dashew concept of an efficient sipping powerboat could be extended to include a short deployment mast for kites of several sizes and desigs to increase efficiency.
There is a german company I believe that was doing this for freighters. I've lost track of them however. Incremental improvements add up. Imagine the savings of 10% from a massive freighter or wasteful cruise ship.

Frieghters are incredibly efficient (cruise ships too if you are only considering propulsion).

Also with cruise speeds of around 20kts a downwind kite is going to need storm force tail winds to develop any significant thrust.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by rgleason

I hope power boats develop big kites that get deployed to help reduce their fuel use.

The Dashew concept of an efficient sipping powerboat could be extended to include a short deployment mast for kites of several sizes and desigs to increase efficiency.
There is a german company I believe that was doing this for freighters. I've lost track of them however. Incremental improvements add up. Imagine the savings of 10% from a massive freighter or wasteful cruise ship.

Wonder how big and expensive that kite would be.. and how durable in the wind needed to move even a cruise ship.. never mind a laden tanker or freighter..
Spinnakers blow out on small boats easy enough when pushed..