Environmental impact of sailing activities

[WingRyder]

Originally Posted by serol1971

I am interested in your experiences and thoughts on environmental impact of non-professional sailing activities.


I have just finished an article on this problem and would be glad to receive feedback on it. See https://www.erol.at/logbook/index.ph...t_type=message

Your article assumes that these people don't exist, in their normal lives if they weren't sailing. You are comparing their consumables against nothing. They would have consumed many of these things anyway, their poop, trash and carbon footprint would have been better/worse if they weren't on holiday, sailing. How much environmental footprint do they "normally" leave? Compare their sailing vacation against that!

Just to exist, ALL humans have to eat, breathe and poop... Your assumptions are like these people popped into existence, and measuring their environmental impact on their charter. They had an environmental footprint where they existed before they got on the boat! Plus, you are talking about a vacation! Where most people are excessive with their consumables...

I lived in an RV for 5 years, and I could account for every gallon of black, gray, and fresh water I used, and how much trash I was putting into the environment.

I think the eco-friendly movement is a feelgood exercise, and is a very complex subject... How much environmental impact does a Prius have? Considering the mining and volatility of the massive lithium battery banks... probably less than a gas guzzling internal combustion engine... but even still, emission standards have improved dramatically.

I am certain that most liveaboard cruisers are much more environmentally conscious, and leave a much smaller footprint, than most land dwellers... regardless of political leaning, or global warming fear mongering! Most of you are stunningly aware of the effect of plastics, and other pollutants to the sea. I have had many discussions with "green" people, as they sip on their plastic water bottles, instead of drinking it out of a tap... somewhere along the lines, Americans have become germaphobes and refuse to drink tap water?!?

Anywhoooo.... Every living creature leaves an environmental footprint.... we wouldn't exist if stromatophytes hadn't poisoned our atmosphere with oxygen. The earth doesn't care about us! We cannot destroy the planet. We can only make it uninhabitable for HUMANS! But many NATURAL forces can do that as well. The earth will continue whether or not we destroy our ability to live here.

We have been emerging from an ice age for the past 14,000 years. The climate is getting warmer, we may be accelerating that with greenhouse emissions, but I am undecided on that. Forecast models have been greatly exaggerated beyond science, IMO, and have not been realized. I realize that climate forecasting isn't an EXACT science, as compared to say, astronomy. BUT, even astronomers admit, the more we learn, the less we know. The fact that environmental science CLAIMS to already have the answers is not in keeping with scientific method. IMHO, it is merely scare mongering, use for political gain whether it's true or not!

OTOH, It has made ALL of us aware of excesses. In the 1960's factories dumped pollution into the water to get rid of them, and because of the environmental movement, many great things have been accomplished... holding polluting offenders to task, the eradication of lead in gasoline, auto emission standards, recycling awareness, etc.

Americans are overly aware of our environmental footprint, and we have taken great strides in doing something about it... even if, on a feel-good level... But, 90% of the world's population can't do anything about it. I've been to India, many times. It is a 24/7 bustle of crowded human activity. There are trash piles in the streets (they have no one to whisk it away, out of sight/mind, like the 1st world does), 2 stroke tuk-tuk's billowing oily stench, it is polluted, dirty and poor... AND 1/3 of the population of the planet. I assume the same is true w/ China... another 1/3. We 'eco-friendly' people, sit on our verandas, sipping Napa Valley wine, and contemplate our environmental footprint.... Yet, all of the stuff you use in your daily life was produced somewhere out of your field of vision... your computer, your phone, practically ALL of your electronics, clothes, appliances, etc, ... were produced in these countries... Think about that for a moment.

BOTTOM LINE:

Discussing environmental impact of the average human is a lost cause. Each of us believes that we are environmentally aware, but yet, it is a massively complex subject. But in the end, I strongly believe that full-time, liveaboard sailors are among the most environmentally friendly humans on the planet! Yes, you have a GRP boat (which can last for many decades), you have toxic consumables, ie ablative coatings, etc... And some are using exotic woods that come from.... somewhere? BUT, what would be different if you lived in a house in the suburbs? Your environmental impact would likely be far greater... you would have much more stuff, produced in a sweatshop in a third-world country, that has no concept of green.

It's complicated... and it's not sustainable. But? What to do?

[Nicholson58]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

See, I think the average full time cruiser’s impact compared to the average US land dweller is vanishingly small.
Just start with a full size SUV for her and a pickup truck for him, each on average burning 650 gls of fuel per year, then add 100 gls of water a day for each person, and the level of garbage is phenomenal.
We generate trash, but nothing compared to what we did in a house, largely cause it’s such a PIA to get rid of it, where used to be just put the can by the curb each week.

How many gallons of fuel a yr do you think the average cruiser burns?

We are driving a 40 year old boat, 40 tons, 115 HP. 150 gallons used last season. No AC or heater. Probably 30 gallons of gasoline for the dinghy. 20 # propane.

Seems like not much but one must consider annual airline flights to see the family, rental cars etc. Add to that the paint, batteries and other materials to maintain the boat. To be fair, there is an eventual disposal cost at the end of the boat’s life.

If you are really concerned, maybe just live in a discarded packing crate and eat worms.

[serol1971]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Had the same problem as TP. How about posting the main points here, that way we don’t have to go somewhere else.

I summarized the main findings within this info graphics based on an exemplary sailing trip of one week. Crew of 6, travel to/from with two cars, 42 feet sailing yacht.




Emissions from one week sailing trip and a rough estimate of their quantity in kg ((C) Selim E.)

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Pete7

Except on a cruise ship and I do like cruising on a ship, there is a life of gluttony. I do wonder what happens to the packaging and waste food.

Life on board: after the full cooked breakfast there is just time for some shopping before mid morning tea and biscuits. Then lunch on the aft deck followed by a snooze and swim around the pool. High tea with cream cakes will be about 3pm and then evening meal 3 or 4 courses between 7-8pm. Finally if you are a little peckish before bed there is fish and chips at mid night.

I have been watching the you tubers recently to see what they are eating. It's rice and beans, pasta, fresh fish, veggies, omelettes. Simple tasty foods foods with local bought ingredients and minimal packaging for veg because they know they know they will have to dispose of it later if it goes on board.

Gluttony is a personal choice. I've seen lots of small boat cruisers who party hard and consume a lot.

I would expect someone who prefers a simple modest life wouldn't be a glutton on a big cruise ship.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by serol1971

I summarized the main findings within this info graphics based on an exemplary sailing trip of one week. Crew of 6, travel to/from with two cars, 42 feet sailing yacht.




Emissions from one week sailing trip and a rough estimate of their quantity in kg ((C) Selim E.)

67kg of feces per week?? What are you people eating?

[Kenomac]

OP

Your assumptions are ridiculous. The reason there are few fish in Croatia is primarily due to the low levels of organic material in the crystal clear water and relatively high water temperature. Clear water=not much organic material vs Green murky water=plenty of plankton and organic material and lots of fish like in the cooler norther regions. It has absolutely nothing to do with human waste from charter boats. The water near Croatia would actually benefit from more people out cruising and pumping waste into the water... the fish gotta eat.


From your paper:

Impact on water quality and marine life

Human excreta

During a week of sailing the crew produces about 8.5kg of human feces and about 84 liters of urine. In Croatia, like in many other countries, the so called “black water” goes directly into the sea water or is pumped first into an intermediate tank and released later into the open sea.

The impact on sea water has been investigated in several scientific studies. Accordingly, high concentrations of fecal bacteria and their direct impact on fauna and flora can be seen mainly in enclosed coastal areas like harbors and bays. The impact is twofold as human excreta like other biotic waste on the one hand decomposes and on the other hand serves as a nutrient for other organisms. Decomposition uses up oxygen from the surrounding water and if it is too much, fish and other aquatic animals and plants will lack oxygen and may die.
High levels of nutrients as a result of discharged human excreta in enclosed areas may lead to uncontrolled algal and plant growth. As a consequence algal blooms reduce light penetration in water and may produce toxins which as well may lead to extinction of marine animals. When algae decompose they cause as well oxygen depletion.

A recent study of large harbors in the Adriatic sea shows that concentration of bacteria stemming from human excreta is about 20 times higher than in surrounding coastal waters and around 30 (Coli bacteria) to 130 (Enterococci) times higher than what WHO says is sufficient water quality for safe bathing. Although only partly responsible for increased fecal bacteria in commercial harbors, recreational vessels and their crews are contributing a large part in bays used as anchorages.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by serol1971

I summarized the main findings within this info graphics based on an exemplary sailing trip of one week. Crew of 6, travel to/from with two cars, 42 feet sailing yacht.




Emissions from one week sailing trip and a rough estimate of their quantity in kg ((C) Selim E.)

Thanks. Unfortunately I can’t see the graph here either. It shows as an error. For some reason I’m blocked from viewing your site.

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /logbook-data/file-171.png on this server.

Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

[Mike OReilly]

Not sure what everyone is getting all testy about. All living things leave their environmental mark on the planet — it’s part of living. How much we impact we have on our planetary ecosystem is a factor of where we live, and how we live.

The typical westerner consumes many times more resources than the median human on this planet. Modern civilization is an energy and resource hog. Just living in a modern city requires massive per-capita inputs. And our capitalist/consumer economies have been structured to, well, consume as much as possible.

The point about living on a smallish sailboat is not that it is some nirvana of green living. It’s just that it is small. This fact alone limits our impact. And if you are living off the dock, then you are forced to manage your resource uses frugally — doesn’t matter if you’re in a 26-footer or a 70-footer, it’s a relatively small space. This fact lends itself to using less.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Not sure what everyone is getting all testy about. All living things leave their environmental mark on the planet — it’s part of living. How much we impact we have on our planetary ecosystem is a factor of where we live, and how we live.

The typical westerner consumes many times more resources than the median human on this planet. Modern civilization is an energy and resource hog. Just living in a modern city requires massive per-capita inputs. And our capitalist/consumer economies have been structured to, well, consume as much as possible.

The point about living on a smallish sailboat is not that it is some nirvana of green living. It’s just that it is small. This fact alone limits our impact. And if you are living off the dock, then you are forced to manage your resource uses frugally — doesn’t matter if you’re in a 26-footer or a 70-footer, it’s a relatively small space. This fact lends itself to using less.

Mike,

What the ecofreaks fail to realize is that it’s possible to have an overall positive impact on an eco system as a cruiser. Not everything is evil and negative by being a human as many would like us to believe. On our 62 and living in our land-based “cave,” I’m convinved my wife and I actually have a positive eco footprint, not negative. And I base my findings on science rather than emotion.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

What the ecofreaks fail to realize is that it’s possible to have an overall positive impact on an eco system as a cruiser. Not everything is evil and negative by being a human as many would like us to believe. On our 62 and living in our land-based “cave,” I’m convinved my wife and I actually have a positive eco footprint, not negative. And I base my findings on science rather than emotion.

I’m hesitant to ascribe “good” and “bad”, and would certainly never use terms like “evil”, in discussing environmental impacts. Humans are living creatures, and as such we must use the resources within our ecosystem to survive and thrive. It’s part of being alive.

Most creatures achieve some sort of balance in their ecosystems, where crudely speaking, their poop becomes someone else’s dinner. Human civilization has not achieved this kind of balance, but that’s another discussion . But it’s certainly possible for specific humans to live in balance. I think that’s what you mean by having a “positive eco footprint.”

We all use resources, but we can choose to use less, or we can choose to use more. Living in a small space, be it on land or on the water, is a simple way of using less. Nothing magical or saintly “green” about this choice. It’s just that small lends itself to using less.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I’m hesitant to ascribe “good” and “bad”, and would certainly never use terms like “evil”, in discussing environmental impacts. Humans are living creatures, and as such we must use the resources within our ecosystem to survive and thrive. It’s part of being alive.

Most creatures achieve some sort of balance in their ecosystems, where crudely speaking, their poop becomes someone else’s dinner. Human civilization has not achieved this kind of balance, but that’s another discussion . But it’s certainly possible for specific humans to live in balance. I think that’s what you mean by having a “positive eco footprint.”

We all use resources, but we can choose to use less, or we can choose to use more. Living in a small space, be it on land or on the water, is a simple way of using less. Nothing magical or saintly “green” about this choice. It’s just that small lends itself to using less.

No, not “live in balance,” I believe it’s possible to have a positive impact. Mike, you need to try harder, life doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game.

[Tetepare]

Everything needs a benchmark to measure value.


In my area, it would make no difference if every boat dumped sewage overboard, or stored it, or treated it. Every time there is a big rain storm the cities dump millions of gallons of raw sewage into the lake.



Emissions will be greater if one stays home mowing the lawn, driving for a weekend get-away, whatever.


I have no numbers, but I'm certain the plastics that wash down the rivers and off the roads far, far exceed those falling off boats.


We can all do our part, but time may be better spent protesting in front of the local waste treatment plant.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by serol1971

I am interested in your experiences and thoughts on environmental impact of non-professional sailing activities.


I have just finished an article on this problem and would be glad to receive feedback on it. See https://www.erol.at/logbook/index.ph...t_type=message

Reading
Reading your analysis, it sounds like we should stop breathing, Any human activity is going to have adverse environmental impact I guess. What about the guy that walks to his boat and sails for a week? We can negate his excrement since it is not sailing specific.
I'm just trying to yank your chain. A good analysis but to what end?

[seadago]

Originally Posted by serol1971

I am interested in your experiences and thoughts on environmental impact of non-professional sailing activities.


I have just finished an article on this problem and would be glad to receive feedback on it. See https://www.erol.at/logbook/index.ph...t_type=message

A well researched article. Congrats. Just a couple of observations.

In order to be able to compare the environmental impact of cruising as a recreational activity, with that of other activities, you need to consider factors which are only "directly attibutable" to cruising itself. E.g. including CO2 emmissions from travel of participants to and from the boat will lead you to double accounting. As others have pointed out in the thread, it assumes participants would have cero environmental impact if they stayed at home, which is not the case.

Also, it can be extremely difficult to differentiate and apportion pollution loads in a particular locale, when the sources are multiple. Water quatily is a case in point. Indicators of water quality used most often are things like colliforms (foecal bacteria), nitrates, nitrites, phosphates, dissolved O2 (or more correctly, BDO: biological demand for oxygen). In a typical locale - say, a costal village on a protected achorage frequented by boaters - the sources of all those indicators are multiple, and often unknown. Colliforms may come from anchored boats, but also from freatic leaks of septic tanks on the village, or surface runoff. Nitrous compounds, often the metabolites of biodegradation of organic waste, can also come from agricultural fertilisers used in the surrounding countryside. Once dissolvd in the water, no way to tell them apart. And so on and so forth.
That's why it's so damn difficult to point a finger to a particular source of contaminants, or implement an objective environmental protection policy at local level.

A while ago (gee... feels like a lifetime ago!), I conducted a number of EIA exercises in marinas. The purpose was to evaluate water quality within the marina itself -from the human health perspective- as well as asses overall impact on the wider estuarine environment they were part of.

Surprisingly, the single most important identifiable factor contributing to a degradation of water quality in that case, both in the marinas and the estuaries, was silting. Silting reduced the water prism in the estuary channel, signinicantly reducing tidal water flux and therefore renewal. There was a statistically significant threshold in tidal water flux, belowd which water quality degraded very rapidly. Silting depended on coastal current patterns at the mouth of the rivers, and average freshwater influx. Neither of which were "directly attributable" causes of pollution.

[KimSails]

Originally Posted by serol1971

I summarized the main findings within this info graphics based on an exemplary sailing trip of one week. Crew of 6, travel to/from with two cars, 42 feet sailing yacht.




Emissions from one week sailing trip and a rough estimate of their quantity in kg ((C) Selim E.)

I think it is helpful for people, particularly resource-intensive Westerners, to consider their impact on the environment. And I suppose for the sailboat cruising community this chart may get people thinking about their impact, which is good.

To make a fair analysis, however, you would need to compare this to a baseline. Maybe that baseline is a typical land-dwelling western citizen. In that case I expect that a sailboat cruiser comes out pretty good as a comparison.

Maybe that baseline is, instead, a best-case-scenario, sedentary, non-traveling, non-bathing, calorie-restricting, vegetarian hermit living off-the-grid in a tropical (no heating required) environment. In that case, the sailboat cruiser comes off as... less good.

In any case, any baseline that includes a living adult human will include a crap-load (pun intended) of feces and urine, most of which is water weight anyway. Including 11.17 kg of human excrement per person per week (67kg / six cruisers) in this analysis does not seem to be particularly helpful.

OTOH, the 12g of copper and other ablatives, while seemingly a small amount, seems interesting potentially thought provoking. And, as Ann said, you'd want to also include the energy and materials used to produce, and maintain, the boat, sails, lines, and other equipment.