Should Large Power Boats be Banned?

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

While we're at it, we should ban elephants, hippos, and all animals since they also disturb the environment and create dust and silt while moving around.

t

Don't forget Starlings, Blue Herons, Pelicans and River Otters !
What they can do to a boat or dock is almost unbelievable.

[boatman61]

How can you say that when taxes for fuel in the USA have gone down from 30% in 2000 to just 12% in 2012..
Your oil suppliers/politicians are screwing you over.

Whereas in the UK/EU..
Since fuel duty is charged at a fixed price per litre, the lower the cost of fuel per litre, the smaller percentage of profit for the retailer and supplier. So, if petrol cost 80 pence per litre, duty and VAT would represent 89% of the cost with less than 9 pence (11%) going to the retailer.

[sailorchic34]

In the SF Bay area, Ferry's are advertised as the "Green" way to commute. I once looked into it. The ferry's which travel 20-24 knots, burn a ton of fuel. I figured that they could give every rider a 1955 chevy and that would burn less fuel, and be "greener" then the ferrys.

They are adding new Ferry's and new routes, even today. Though mainly as the road are truly bollixed up.

As most recreational vessels tend to sit for the vast majority of their life, I don't see the whole emissions thingy as being that big a deal (in the big picture).

While sailboats are considered to be green, Sails now a days are not cotton, but dacron, which is derived from oil as well.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

Fuel is not subsidized in America, except to the extent that the full cost of pollution remediation is not built into it. But that's true for almost all countries.

yes, not all countries have fully priced-in all the consequences of fossil fuel use. Still, the price for fossil fuels in the US is absurdly low. Most economists have said as much. There are some rational reasons for this; the most reasonable reason being that a low energy price has helped the US weather an extended period of otherwise weak economic growth. So, mission accomplished, and maybe the coming inflation will see a rebalancing of price.

The problem, of course, is determining how, and to what extent, the cost of pollution clean-up should be added. If 2big2small is right, and the cost is infinite, then EVERYBODY is subsidizing it to an unacceptably low extent. If the cost is something less than infinite, then it's a matter of determining how much that is and how to deal with it.

We're never going to get that number exactly right, of course.

Additional problem is that -- and I really don't want to start this argument, but it is relevant -- "global warming" has become more of a political issue than a scientific one in the last 10 years. Just try to get a grant to look into what percentage of climate change is caused by human activity versus natural causes and I guarantee you that you'll be shouted down, accused of being a heretic, and called a Luddite. But if you want a grant to look into what we should do to stop human-caused climate change, all kinds of support and money will come raining down on you.

I'm sorry, these are industry-fuelled myths. The kind of ones that start the argument, which I thought you didn't want to have...?

It is frankly just stupid to imagine that there is one and only one cause for climate change. Even if we accept that human activity is the primary cause, we still need to understand what else is going on before we can effectively deal with it. But in today's political climate that is simply not a possibility. Science has been sacrificed to the Gods of a political agenda.

More mythology. Disagree with a scientific conclusion? Fabricate some crap about those making it. If a building is burning, you put out the fire; you don't sit around trying to figure out 100% what caused it first.

Meanwhile, my wife and I have been diligently practicing "reduce, reuse, recycle" for 40+ years now. All the while observing that the people who shout the loudest about what the government should be doing to "fix" our environment, strikingly often do virtually nothing themselves to try to make any difference.

Yeah yeah, the "Al Gore syndrome". Also pretty threadbare.

For a guy who didn't want to start an argument... you started an argument. I replied; let's consider the global warming debate done for this thread, ok?

[senormechanico]

For someone who doesn't want to start an argument, you are doing a pretty bad job of it !
I smell a thread closure on the way...

[Dayo]

Absolutely, band large power boats. Lets dictate what is worn boating also. To hell with education, suppress and enforce.

[DMCantor]

The best solution by far to all issues of carbon footprint is to institute a global tax on carbon of about US$25 to US$30/ton of CO2, with offsetting rebates or cuts in other taxes. That solves all kinds of problems without distorting markets. Unfortunately, the best solution is 100% not feasible politically.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by boatman61

How can you say that when taxes for fuel in the USA have gone down from 30% in 2000 to just 12% in 2012..
Your oil suppliers/politicians are screwing you over.

Trust me boaty, taxes NEVER go down in the USA. The chart shows the percentage dropping only as the cost of oil has risen, faster then the US government can tax it. The US gas tax is tied to the measured gallon, not to the cost of the gallon. So when the cost does down on a gallon of gas, the tax stays the same.

BTW, the California government is doing it's best to raise the taxes on fuel as fast as they can. YEP, there is a federal tax AND a state tax.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

For someone who doesn't want to start an argument, you are doing a pretty bad job of it !
I smell a thread closure on the way...

Naah. we're bigger than that. Maybe.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Trust me boaty, taxes NEVER go down in the USA.

They do for some... US taxes on the top tier of business and personal income have been at historic lows for approx the last 20 years... and they just went down again, right?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by DMCantor

The best solution by far to all issues of carbon footprint is to institute a global tax on carbon of about US$25 to US$30/ton of CO2, with offsetting rebates or cuts in other taxes. That solves all kinds of problems without distorting markets. Unfortunately, the best solution is 100% not feasible politically.

And who's going to manage this tax and.. what will its funds be used for.. apart from the skimming.

[DocHolliday]

I'd rather ban government, and the nanny-state do-gooders, and the authoritarian control freaks....

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by DMCantor

That solves all kinds of problems without distorting markets.

Actually this distorts the markets the most. Why a tax on carbon? Carbon is the least effective of the so-called global warming gasses. Methane is hundreds of times more effective and water vapor is thousands of times more effective. Also, man made carbon is an exceptionally small amount of the total amount of carbon produced. A great example of the government making things worse is with ethanol. Another great example is the incandescent bulb going away and having the mercury filled CFL bulb replace it.

What is more polluting? Carbon or plastic? Is it worse to have a boat that produces a very small amount of carbon but leaks oil and generates a lot of trash or a boat that produces an average amount of carbon but recycles everything? Is a large boat that only moves eight times a year worse or is a boat that moves every day worse? Is an old small engine worse or is a new large engine worse?

The air has become so much cleaner over the past fifty years that it raises the question of whether we even need to worry about it. This is due to improvements in efficiency.

[Caliber40]

Surprised this is even a serious discussion. Care to compare the carbon footprint if thousands of mega yachts ( mist of which sit in their births) vs the millions of all the “other boats”

[Comix Bay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

We've had a lively discussion in another thread devoted to the retirement of Steve & Linda Dashew, about whether it's morally acceptable to design large power yachts in view of the possible environmental damage they might cause.

I'm starting this thread to move the discussion to a separate place, as it distracts from discussion of the Dashews and their career.

My opinion on the matter, for whatever little it may be worth (opinions are like . . . . and so forth) is that there is no justifiable reason whatsoever to single out power boats, when so many recreational activities have some carbon footprint or another.

Discuss! Please be polite and respectful to each other.

Large is a figure of speech, 42' is large to me but my neighbour's 100' is small to him. Perspective.