What is the carbon footprint for the US MSD program?

[SecondBase]

Originally Posted by buzzstar

Oh really? Gee, I actually thought (and think) it was/is one of the better trolls I've seen recently.



I am in my 70's and it is not to much trouble to make sure my s**t is properly handled and damn the few extra miles I might need to sail or motor to do it. BTW, "carbon footprint" is an inane term popularized to take advantage of the guilt ridden while providing income for those with spare trees. The calculations and formulas presented are likewise so meaningless as to belong in a third rate Comedy Club when even the stand-ins are on summer recess.

Buzzstar

If you read through the responses you'll see consensus around the point there is minimal burden to the individual boater (convenience, cost, however you measure it is minimal). The only issue is at the policy aggregate level when we began permanently shipping (about) 5,000,000 - 40,000,000 gallons of liquid around years with no end.

I understand you are in the "yuck-aesthetic" group of responders and your point of view is genuine. What none of the yuck-aesthetic group has said is "it is not to much trouble to make sure my s**t is properly handled" AND "I accept the resulting air pollution."

With an acknowledgment to Jason I add the following. No one has stepped up and simply said "I support the dirty air pollution caused by the clean water act."

Would you be the first to step forward and say that? If not do you see at least the possibility of a conundrum?

[newhaul]

You know the more I think on this the more it brings to mind that someone is attempting to collect info so they can write a grant proposal for funds to study the issue for a few years.

[SecondBase]

Originally Posted by newhaul

You know the more I think on this the more it brings to mind that someone is attempting to collect info so they can write a grant proposal for funds to study the issue for a few years.

Newhaul, No. I would *never want to see further tax dollars into this program beyond the current annual run rate.

Keep in mind if US MSD management represents only 0.3% (?) of the USCG annual operational effort that is still a significant tax spend. You pick your percentage. If we go with that cost basis, the program cost is $30,000,000 of our tax dollars--year after year. We need some facts, no?

There are plenty of well-funded environmental non-profits who can decide their view independently on this issue without growing the $30,000,000 annual tax dollar number.

If the Sierra Club looks at this and then supports the fossil fuel burn that would decide this issue for me. Or maybe they redraw reduced discharge zones based on air pollution science and not emotion.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by newhaul

You know the more I think on this the more it brings to mind that someone is attempting to collect info so they can write a grant proposal for funds to study the issue for a few years.

You and I are thinking along the same lines. About what I said on post 17.

Looking for tax dollars for a useless study.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SecondBase

Newhaul, No. I would *never want to see further tax dollars into this program beyond the current annual run rate.

Keep in mind if US MSD management represents only 0.3% (?) of the USCG annual operational effort that is still a significant tax spend. You pick your percentage. If we go with that cost basis, the program cost is $30,000,000 of our tax dollars--year after year. We need some facts, no?

There are plenty of well-funded environmental non-profits who can decide their view independently on this issue without growing the $30,000,000 annual tax dollar number.

If the Sierra Club looks at this and then supports the fossil fuel burn that would decide this issue for me. Or maybe they redraw reduced discharge zones based on air pollution science and not emotion.

Second base if your not thinking that do you mind if I do consider doing it possibly even collaboration between us in doing the study? ( should be worth a couple hundred k )

(Would be an environmental grant not out of uscg optar.)

[SecondBase]

No study here.

Feel free to proceed and I'll help you a little for free. I recuse myself from any financial benefit on this topic and I also transfer ownership of any and all environmental study proceeds I ever had/are/will receive to Mr. Newhaul. This includes "Optar" and grants.

Don't expect much of anything soon lol.


Edit: On the off chance you (or someone else) are serious as a principal investigator I would be glad to lay out some FOIA requests to open up this topic for public review.

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by SecondBase

Buzzstar

If you read through the responses you'll see consensus around the point there is minimal burden to the individual boater (convenience, cost, however you measure it is minimal). The only issue is at the policy aggregate level when we began permanently shipping (about) 5,000,000 - 40,000,000 gallons of liquid around years with no end.

I understand you are in the "yuck-aesthetic" group of responders and your point of view is genuine. What none of the yuck-aesthetic group has said is "it is not to much trouble to make sure my s**t is properly handled" AND "I accept the resulting air pollution."

With an acknowledgment to Jason I add the following. No one has stepped up and simply said "I support the dirty air pollution caused by the clean water act."

Would you be the first to step forward and say that? If not do you see at least the possibility of a conundrum?

Actually, I do. But then I have entered the water both before and after, and actually like the trade off. Yeah, I like it. BUT I still see the silliness of the question, and it is not really a conundrum. Perhaps more importantly for those of you who do not accept the increasing influence of the bureaucrats is the aspect that your attempt to marginalize the benefits of an early and straightforward bureaucratic endeavor could (and probably will, in the long term) result in regulations removing internal combustion engines from "pleasure craft" and commercial vessels of the smaller types. Sails and rope (if made from "natural material" should be OK) but all of your electricity better come from on board solar, wind, or trolling methods. None of these 30 amp land connectors allowed. Now go back to your resting place under the bridge that most of us with masts must avoid.

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by newhaul

It doesnt change my carbon neutral status. I am a composter. Not a pumper.

What do you do with the urine?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SecondBase

What none of the yuck-aesthetic group has said is "it is not to much trouble to make sure my s**t is properly handled" AND "I accept the resulting air pollution."

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.

With an acknowledgment to Jason I add the following. No one has stepped up and simply said "I support the dirty air pollution caused by the clean water act."

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.

[SecondBase]

Lake-Effect,

I respect you are entitled to your opinion. I hope you allow others theirs as well. We all want to, and do, enjoy the waterways. It's a little unfair to impugn or expand motives of a question.

A careful reading of the thread will show little to no support for removing MSD tanks or ending the program. The discussion so far is just a little more nuanced than that.

If you could translate the surety of your point of view into the "number of tons of carbon annually" you might find I and many others completely agree with you !

For example if it turned out to be one additional ton of exhaust powder per year for CWA you have my complete support - no changes needed.

So what's that number Lake?

Please don't wish away the air pollution. If you don't have a number - it is fair for me and others to withhold our judgment and ask for it.

Listen if the answer is too complicated for precision then a simple endorsement from a known "eco-warrior" group would also resolve the trade off in the public's mind. If your position is so solid shouldn't it be easy to find a blessing for the associated fuel burn? If Greenpeace approves the petroleum involved I defer to them.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

What do you do with the urine?

Get the most part direct discharge or hold up to 3 gallons for later disposal either onshore or beyond the three mile limit.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SecondBase

Lake-Effect,

I respect you are entitled to your opinion. I hope you allow others theirs as well. We all want to, and do, enjoy the waterways. It's a little unfair to impugn or expand motives of a question.

A careful reading of the thread will show little to no support for removing MSD tanks or ending the program. The discussion so far is just a little more nuanced than that.

If you could translate the surety of your point of view into the "number of tons of carbon annually" you might find I and many others completely agree with you !

For example if it turned out to be one additional ton of exhaust powder per year for CWA you have my complete support - no changes needed.

So what's that number Lake?

Please don't wish away the air pollution. If you don't have a number - it is fair for me and others to withhold our judgment and ask for it.

Listen if the answer is too complicated for precision then a simple endorsement from a known "eco-warrior" group would also resolve the trade off in the public's mind. If your position is so solid shouldn't it be easy to find a blessing for the associated fuel burn? If Greenpeace approves the petroleum involved I defer to them.

I appreciate that your OP was expressed simply as a math problem, but your subsequent comments suggest to me that you have a theory or an agenda to promote behind this. So - please share - Why do you think that current MSD regulations are onerous or represent some sort of environmental hypocrisy? What would you change the MSD requirements to, to be more realistic and to balance out the impacts on both air and water?

I did give you a number - 1% of my boating footprint from motoring - and I'm fairly certain that it's actually way high, and if you were to average out all pleasure boats with MSDs, I think it would probably be closer to 0.1% of their motoring footprint, or lower.

As low as that, it's a rounding error, a trivial amount that could be swamped by tiny tweaks to many other of the factors involved in boating. Using an MSD is for most people just part of responsible boating; and all the boaters I know seem to manage it without deliberate extra motoring, except to swing by the pumpout dock. You might as well ask about the carbon footprint of carrying your own food and water, as opposed to eating ashore only.

Since you were concerned enough to start the thread, how significant do you think the air pollution caused by the current MSD regulations is?

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Get the most part direct discharge...

I don't know what you mean by, "Get the most part direct discharge."

[SecondBase]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I did give you a number - 1% of my boating footprint from motoring

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?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

I don't know what you mean by, "Get the most part direct discharge."

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