A small question of ethics

[ShipsWoofy]

This is a very emotive subject but I would be interested in some frank answers please. Try in this case to ignore the actual red diesel price hike proposed. Try to look on as impartially as possible. This is for everyone not just owners of sports cruisers, but it would be handy for me to know what camp you are from. This is of only personal interest, there IS NO agenda.

(1) Do you think the current level of fuel consumption by 35ft+ sport cruisers is acceptable and responsible for a sustained planet 10, 15, 20 or so years down the line. Please try to ignore direct comparisons to aircraft, freighters, offshore trawlers etc. Answer only regarding a fast sports cruiser.

(2) Does one mans pleasure override the big picture because he can afford to fill his boat tanks with non sustainable fuel?

(3) If a new breed of engines were designed that used a 1/4 of the fuel for equivalent hp would you upgrade?

(3a) Would you only upgrade if you obtained personal wealth gain? what time scale would be acceptable to start seeing payback? Or would you upgrade for the sake of the planet?

(3b) Be honest, how many people reading question 3 also swung the scenario to an engine 4 times more powerful for the same fuel as today?

(4) Can you empathise with some raggies who see your fuel usage as greedy and only see the big fuel guzzlers as pollutants, this also includes noise? Or do you think it is jealousy and has more to do with wakes?

(5) If you do accept that fuel usage on the planet is too high, what do you plan to do about it, ditch the Chelsea Tractor, limit fuel on the boat. I am no angel BTW, my car engine is far to big for my needs, I never said this was easy, I am just looking for views. Should we always wait for someone else to take the first step, why should you stop using the 4x4 when everyone else keeps theirs.

(6) Should everything just carry on as it is, if someone can afford a big boat which uses tons of fuel then good on them, if they can afford it then it is no one else’s right to tell them how to spend their money or how much fuel they can use?

***usual disclaimer*** This is not a troll, I signed the petition and do not want to see a hike in fuel prices, though I would as a semi ‘green’ type like to see us (the planet) protecting our environment a little more. I wonder if this is the difference between MOBO and raggie, please prove me wrong.


<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>Woof</A>

 

[DepSol]

1 Yes
2 Yes life is short and if you succeed and can afford things then buy them. Like having a nice meal when people are starving in other countries.
3 Most definitely (b) if I could afford to upgrade (c) Nope 28 knots cruising is fine for me
4 Some raggies are stuck in their waves and everyone has the freedom of speech. Why not go back to a boat where everyone has a seat and an oar?
5 I drive a hight top vn for work with a 1.9 litre engine for that reason. Plus I use Soltron /forums/images/icons/smile.gif
6Yes, I work bloody hard 15 hour days to make ends meet and expand my businesses wihout borrowing loads of money I reinvest my profits. If I get to the stage where I have made x thousands and I decide I want the boat of my dreams gas guzzler or not I have worked hard to get it and will have it.

Your wasting your time here with this as people buy what thet can afford to purchase and also run. You had best go back to Greenpeace warrior and start wasting loads of fuel campaining against radioactive plutonium going to or from Cap de La Hague

<hr width=100% size=1>Dom

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.soltron.co.uk>the website</A>
MMS Making boating more affordable

 

[tcm]

hm, i can see the points of your questions.

However, i would say that your questions drive at the fuel used as being the main issue regarding greenhouse effect/environement etc and this is not the case.

The fact is that it wd be far more of an immediate problem if (unlikly) an engine emerged that was 4x as efficient. This is because the energy used to MAKE a boat (or a car) is vastly more than the fuel used to push it around for a hundred or so hours a year. So having a sailing boat is hardly a saving, and having a new sailing boat is worse. The boats with then monster-inefficient engines will still exist, but cheaper (to get rid) and hence present much less of a barrier to ownership and use.

Over time, of course, it's a different matter. But extrapolation of the samne sort of view doesn't lead to sailing boats nor more efficient engines: it leads to no leisure boating at all.

The myth of course, is that we're running out of fuel. But in fact there has never ben a time when there has been so much fuel in the ground in terms of multiples of annual useage.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gludy]

I am from the large motor cruiser camp.
I intend to give your questions the full answer they deserve.
My frank answers are:-

(Question 1) Do you think the current level of fuel consumption by 35ft+ sport cruisers is acceptable and responsible for a sustained planet 10, 15, 20 or so years down the line. Please try to ignore direct comparisons to aircraft, freighters, offshore trawlers etc. Answer only regarding a fast sports cruiser.

Yes I consider it acceptable and responsible. It is not possible to answer this without regard to how the rest of the world works ..... your question is probably based on some incorrect assumptions about sustainable resources and pollution to our planet etc plus some naive political like assumptions when you separate the boats by size.
To make my point :- may I ask you back on this:-
Is there any difference between one boat consuming 30 gph and 6 boats consuming 5 gph? The consumption total in both cases is the same; it’s just a question of how that consumption is distributed. If you consider that one person consuming the same as 6 others is somehow wrong, then even driving to work in you car is consuming what hundreds would consume in a third world country in a year ..... so logical application of the assumption behind your question soon breaks down for all but a threadbare mortal living on the edge of existence.
In any even please come back on this and explain where my use with one large boat is somehow less acceptable than 6 others with smaller boats.


(Question 2) Does one mans pleasure override the big picture because he can afford to fill his boat tanks with non sustainable fuel?
As explained above there is no difference between one man with a big boat and 6 men with smaller boats … if there is please explain.

(Question 3) If a new breed of engines were designed that used a 1/4 of the fuel for equivalent hp would you upgrade?
Yes … yes… yes. Its almost certain that the cost of the capital of upgrading would be lower than the saving … this we already know because so many folks have to change from petrol to diesel with about the same ration in cost savings. I know a petrol boat that did one trip and the owner then spent the winter changing to diesel.

(3a) Would you only upgrade if you obtained personal wealth gain?
what time scale would be acceptable to start seeing payback? Or would you upgrade for the sake of the planet?
I would upgrade because of a personal wealth gain but If I believed that it would help the planet, that would also be a reason. Where I may disagree is I bleive this helping the planet bit approach is often so simplistic that it totally fails to understand the complex nature of how the world really works,

(Question 3b) Be honest, how many people reading question 3 also swung the scenario to an engine 4 times more powerful for the same fuel as today?

No ,,,, would certainly not follow this route.. I am more than happy with my cruising speed etc, in fact I plan for my next boat to be slower and much more fuel efficient.

(Question 4) Can you empathise with some raggies who see your fuel usage as greedy and only see the big fuel guzzlers as pollutants, this also includes noise? Or do you think it is jealousy and has more to do with wakes?

I think its more to do with wakes. Many raggies have big raggie boats that have consumed more energy to make than a small power boat but no-one tells them they are ruining the planet.

(5) If you do accept that fuel usage on the planet is too high, what do you plan to do about it, ditch the Chelsea Tractor, limit fuel on the boat. I am no angel BTW, my car engine is far to big for my needs, I never said this was easy, I am just looking for views. Should we always wait for someone else to take the first step, why should you stop using the 4x4 when everyone else keeps theirs.

I do not accept fuel usage is too high.

(6) Should everything just carry on as it is, if someone can afford a big boat which uses tons of fuel then good on them, if they can afford it then it is no one else’s right to tell them how to spend their money or how much fuel they can use?

Yes – they choose to do that and they pay for it. This applies all across the board … big house, … big car etc.

You said
“***usual disclaimer*** This is not a troll, I signed the petition and do not want to see a hike in fuel prices, though I would as a semi ‘green’ type like to see us (the planet) protecting our environment a little more. I wonder if this is the difference between MOBO and raggie, please prove me wrong.”

I would also like to see the planet better looked after than it is now but would only back practical solutions that would work.

Cheers


<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[DepSol]

Quick question for you. What effortsdo you already make to reduce fuel usage and make the world a greener place to live.

<hr width=100% size=1>Dom

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.soltron.co.uk>the website</A>
MMS Making boating more affordable

 

[Marsupial]

Please people lets have a good look at the issues here.

The green argument is emotional; it implies that we have some responsibility for the situation and that by changing our behaviour a situation will change. Locally that may be the case, The UK is cleaner now than it was when I was lad cos we don’t have half as many coal burning power stations, coke ovens or blast furnaces around. But globally the argument won’t work, those processes now take place somewhere else.

In the grand scheme of things CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuel are insignificant when compared to natural processes like volcanic eruptions, and the role/behaviour of carbon sinks which are still not understood.

That is not to say that the situation isn’t dire, It will be for our children’s children but we are I think powerless to do anything about the outcome even if we stop burning everything now. We could however provide them with a technology that will enable them to live with the consequences of the natural process.

Imagine that the world is a Power Boat, it travels through the water emitting CO2 as it goes, we don’t fully understand the propulsion system in terms of what fuels it consumes but it’s a complex mixture of various carbon and atomic processes, suffice to say it works, how much less CO2 will this world emit if we change our log technology from a spinning impellor to a solar powered Doppler sensor, one uses a tiny bit of forward effort to power it the other does not. The effort consumed by the impellor is the contribution to emissions the consumption of refined fossil fuel makes. I.e. not a lot.

Sadly then its not hard to demolish the environmental argument, if I thought we could turn things around by adapting our behaviour I would be all in favour but it’s a false hope – the world started to globally warm a couple of tens of thousands of years ago, as the ice caps melt the process accelerates – nothing we can do will prevent or slow it.

Which leaves us with taxation, read Huxley’s Brave New World Revisited to understand why it is the British in particular who doff their forelocks to “authority” and accept that Taxation is the answer to everything. Why successive governments believe it’s really their duty to tax the nation and why as a nation we are conditioned to believe that it’s our right and duty to pay it. Thankfully many contributors to this forum think there must be another way and I agree, I take the view that any form of Taxation is unethical, read Sagan then argue with that statement, as a leisure sailor (like me) you will find it hard.

Will we have to pay extra for our fuel?– Oh YES, will most the extra money collected be wasted and devoured in the collection process? – Oh YES, will it make any difference to governments ability to balance a budget? – Oh NO not even a little bit, but it will alienate a large slice of the population who prop up an industry that does earn lots of money through other imposed taxes for the coffers. See post on Obituary and then start to plan your voyage outside of the EU. Is fuel cheaper there? No not really but is harder to be grumpy in paradise.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Col]

I will take more notice of the people who bang on about fuel usage / un-sustanable resorces / pollution etc: when they drive to work in their cars with 3 passengers instead of just 1 driver, when they walk their kids the 1 mile to school instead of driving them, when they trade their 4litre cars in for a 900cc one, when they cycle to the shops instead of drive...........
This traffic pollution is concentrated in small areas too such as town centres.
And yes. I'm just as bad as the next person.

Stand and watch the traffic from any motorway bridge in the rush hour to prove this. Stand outside the school gates.
As it is all the above is so much the norm. So where do all these "greener than green" raggies fit into the above??
There seems to be a lot of hypocracy from some of our raggie friends regarding the pollution ploy, otherwise the marina carparks would be (assuming half raggie half mobo mix of boats ) half full of pushbikes and small, fuel efficient cars and not mainly 2litre+ engined Beemers, Mercs, Porches, 4X4's and people carriers as is the case at the moment at somewhere like Mercury.
I'm afraid I get a bit pissed off when these self same raggies rub their hands in glee at the thought of pricing mobos off the water, because that is really what it comes down to. It may only be a few with this view but they are very vocal about It and makes the the rest of them look bad.



The goverment is no better. Where are the efficient forms of public transport we were promised from the last lot of fuel tax rises? Why are the trains so unreliable (and old!!)


Red diesel hike is just another stealth tax pure & simple. Goverment would be looking at public transport if they were really serious about the pollution issue. As it is, £90 billion p/a is quite a tidy income -thank-you-very-much.



<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.arweb.co.uk/argallery/colspics> Cols Picture Album</A>

 

[Gludy]

Col
I agree it would be another stealth tax .. but it would be a stupid one because they would overall raise less tax not more.



<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[ShipsWoofy]

Sorry Dom, I don't think I ever answered this, which was quite rude of me.

The true answer is not nearly enough. But I do try, for example, I sold my two back seats in the car to go to the boat show this year, which had the added benefit of meeting Jeremy W from on here.

Whenever travelling distance I will always try to go by train. I say try, it has proved more and more difficult this year to find trains running near the times I want or with tickets that are not double the cost of the fuel it would take me to drive.

I am currently off work, but when working I worked shifts and on an RAF camp, which are notoriously in the middle of nowhere, public transport was unfortunately not an option.

I have some mobility problems, so driving is a freedom for me, walking long distance is a thing of the past. Though I am riding my bike again to get around locally, but that is more for personal fitness than saving the planet.

Like I said I am no angel. But, and this one is going to upset some, I do not use 100 gallons to make a 60 mile journey with two people on board. That is unfortunately the thing that bothers me the most. Sorry, but it is a personal opinion.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://big-blunkett.blogspot.com/>Say no to compulsary ID, vote out Überfuhrer Blunkett</A>

 

[Gludy]

I understand and respect your personal opinion.

Could you please give me your views on this:-

The biggest polluter at present is aircraft fuel and. I think I am right in saying this will soon represent well over 50% of all our CO2 pollution.

So understanding that you are against 2 people making a 60 mile journey costing 100 gallon - despite pleasure boating not even being measurable in terms of pollution, what are your views on huge quantities of fuel being spent taking folks on holidays by air? Are you concerned with the sources of the major pollution and are you expressing views about those major sources?

Whilst we are at it, I guess private aviation also goes out the window, as does the fuel required to maintain those superb gold courses in place.

There are many areas where a lot of resources are used in total in providing pleasure to very few ... sailing is one, have you ever worked out the fuel cost that goes into the making of a sailing boat? its very high.

I really think you are sincere with your views, I as a user of fuel in a big power boat, would like to hear a sensible arguement against why I should use not continue as I am now.



<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[longjohnsilver]

Well said Col, couldn't agree more!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Marsupial]

Col

loads of stuff to look at

Have a look at these figures, they come from the EU and are what prompted the exhaust and emmission regs for all water craft fitted with an engine.

"
Directive 94/25/EC is a New Approach Directive dealing with the design and construction of recreational craft. It became fully operational in June 1998, after a four-year transition period.

ICOMIA estimates that the total boat park in the EU/EEA countries, including Switzerland, was in 1998 in the order of:
Sailboats: 821 506
Motorboats: 3 628 000
Inflatables: 170 000
(not already included with motorboats)
Personal watercraft: 10 700
Total: 4 619 506
This figure equates to an approximate ratio of one boat to every 70 members of the European population.

As shown above, the majority of pleasure boats in Europe are motorboats.

"

I know the numbers are 6 years old but they give an idea of the mix. Raggies are around one sixth of the population in terms of units. But very small in terms of horsepower. Draw your own conclusions on fuel usage. Personally I do not have a Mobo vs Raggies thing, how people choose to enjoy themselves is up to them as long as they don’t injure me in some way or other. My boat; 43ft raggy has a 56hp engine, my pal in the next berth has a same length mobo he has 700hp. I use around 300 litres per season, he uses 6000.

So the amount of fuel a power boat uses is vast compared to a yacht but even this is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Incidentally I heat my house with oil and I use about 2000L per annum.

What really upsets me is the way people are manipulated by the media and government to accept unproven unsubstantiated ideas as facts so they then accept the need for some expensive corrective taxation.

I cannot find the numbers right now (it was 12 years ago I looked at this stuff) but they go something like this, one volcanic eruption releases more CO2 and other horrible stuff into the atmosphere than all the fossil fuel burnt by man since man first appeared on the planet 65M years ago - there are around 60 eruptions every year and under the sea some eruptions have been going on for millions of years.

There is a growing belief that the earth “manufactures” carbon rich substances previously thought to have been created by fossilisation.

So it would appear that oil and gas are not what we thought they were and will probably not run out - but these words are not what the politicians want to hear. The truth is no one really knows.

So do we understand global warming? not a chance, can we do anything about it? yes we can learn to live with the consequences, but focusing attention on our insignificant contribution to the CO2 issue is not it. And by the way I am not attempting to trivialise the situation - its dire but taxing fuel is not the solution.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gludy]

Thats a very refreshing look at the issue. A very good contribution.


<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[ShipsWoofy]

<blockquote><font size=1>Quote from previous post:</font><hr>

Thats a very refreshing look at the issue. A very good contribution.

<hr></blockquote>

I agree, I thought I would add a footnote here that my objections to high fuel usage are not about CO2 emissions but sustainable fuel, which oil is not.

Since we depend on oil for many other things than fuel, it does worry me that we (the planet) use and waste far too much. I understand in the big picture motor yachts and other high power vessels are minute, but that does not mean it becomes acceptable. Last season I used about 60 ltrs of diesel, will be at the boat tomorrow and will probably have the heating on, but that used teeny amounts.

On the other hand, if oil does run out, it might get the inventors out of the woodwork to actually produce and market a different propulsion unit. It seems mad after a little over 100 years, the internal combustion engine which is inherently inefficient has not been replaced, in fact it is still pretty much the same engine as the first with better bells and whistles.

There must be a better way!

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>New and updated website</A>

 

[ShipsWoofy]

<blockquote><font size=1>Quote from previous post:</font><hr>

The biggest polluter at present is aircraft fuel and. I think I am right in saying this will soon represent well over 50% of all our CO2 pollution.

<hr></blockquote>

Agreed 100%, but with so much airfreight what can we do, people will not wait 2 months for deliveries. International business would be killed overnight if aircraft had to pay the proper prices for fuel. It would also be a nail in the coffin the overseas holidays, though this would be good for the UK economy.

Personally it would have no big impact on me, I hate flying, I do everything I can to avoid it, though this is the same argument as a raggie saying the loss of red does not hurt as I don't use it.

Soon, I believe, the World will HAVE to do something, but it will wait until it is backed firmly down a blind alley with no choices.

<blockquote><font size=1>Quote from previous post:</font><hr>

There are many areas where a lot of resources are used in total in providing pleasure to very few ... sailing is one, have you ever worked out the fuel cost that goes into the making of a sailing boat? its very high.

<hr></blockquote>

Yes I don't doubt that it is, but... My vessel was built in 1977. I have just bought new sails, I expect a minimum of 8 years out of them as long as I don't damage them accidentally along the way. That would IMO even out the initial costs to nearly nothing across that sort of timespan.

An average modern motor boat by virtue of all that plastic and modern floor to ceiling furnishing and.. and... and... must use way more oil in her manufacture before we even start on annual usage.

Sailing could be looked at as one off start up and then 'quite' green from then on, wouldn't you say.



<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>New and updated website</A>

 

[Gludy]

I think this thread is getting somewhere, we are now talking about oil usage period, not pollution and I am sure you will accept that oil is used in a multitude of ways - so the question becomes how to regulate it use.

It seems that instead of letting the market decide that you wish to impose some sort of rationing based upon a 'fair' distribution system ...... but you have failed to answer any of my questions about others using oil from private aviation through to folks consuming vast quantities on ocena cruise holidays, air trips etc.....

In fact even building a very large house, or having the Queen live in Buckingham Palace would be squandering oil ..... the purchase of that very expensive yacht that just ran aground was in effect consuming great quantities of oil for very few people ... there are tens of thousands of ways of those with more money consuming more oil as well as, of course, the fact that everyone in the Westerm world consumes much more than the under developed world.

So if you feel so strongly about the issue, please explain your views of these issues ... under what basis would you ration those folks choosing to spend a 100 gallons on going 60 miles? Would you apply the same logic to all oil consumption because if you did you would stop society as we know it and basically end up with a central , type rationed society that has already been proved to have failed - polluting and wasting like mad along the way.

I would like to hear your wider view on these points and then the placing of the gas guzzling gin palace in the contxt of those wider views.

Of course all resources are limited .. its the first rule of economics, so the same arguements that you are promoting can be applied to almost anything.

My view is that the market is still the best regulator, albeit that it may need some moderation from time to time, usually to ensure it a free market, and that is the natural role of governement.

<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[halcyon]

What is the relevance on polution from UK motor boats, to say the polution from the Chinesse underground coal fires, which generate more polution than the total from all the motor vehicles in the USA.
When someone comes up with facts and figuers, other than, "by not doing it it must make a differance", I can make a educated comment.

Brian

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[nigellaw]

A quick comment Paul. You have mentioned private aviation a couple of times . Avgas is taxed at about 28p a litre, it isn't tax free like red diesel.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[rickp]

Red diesel isn't tax free.

Rick

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tcm]

1) Do you think the current level of fuel consumption by 35ft sport cruisers is acceptable and responsible for a sustained planet 10, 15, 20 or so years down the line. Please try to ignore direct comparisons to aircraft, freighters, offshore trawlers etc. Answer only regarding a fast sports cruiser.

Yes, sorry, it's fine. It looks bad, but the real fuel used to make a boat is in the making of it, not running it.

(2) Does one mans pleasure override the big picture because he can afford to fill his boat tanks with non sustainable fuel?
Yes, really it does. Follow this to its logical conclusion and everything ends up a bit rubbish, with houses all small and so on. The fuel will run out but then, the planet will also hit the sun eventually too.


(3) If a new breed of engines were designed that used a 1/4 of the fuel for equivalent hp would you upgrade?
Maybe.

(3a) Would you only upgrade if you obtained personal wealth gain? what time scale would be acceptable to start seeing payback? Or would you upgrade for the sake of the planet?
Unlikely top se payback. Also, very very unlikel to happen. try and get a job with an engine research orgainstion and they'll tell you straight - everthing has been sorted, really. There's no feasible 75% saving.


(3b) Be honest, how many people reading question 3 also swung the scenario to an engine 4 times more powerful for the same fuel as today?
Not sure I understand the question. I drive a car 100 times more thirsty than a bicycle, so what?


(4) Can you empathise with some raggies who see your fuel usage as greedy and only see the big fuel guzzlers as pollutants, this also includes noise? Or do you think it is jealousy and has more to do with wakes?
No, sorry, i can't. The overall fuel consumption including making the thing is not that dissimilar. Ally masts, special gear, plus the fact that the engine hours on a sailing boat are much higher per year all make me feel fine. raggies just put up with more pirvations, lower standar of finsih to the boats which makes them feel as though somehow, they're sddaving the planet. They most certainly aren't.

(5) If you do accept that fuel usage on the planet is too high, what do you plan to do about it, ditch the Chelsea Tractor, limit fuel on the boat. I am no angel BTW, my car engine is far to big for my needs, I never said this was easy, I am just looking for views. Should we always wait for someone else to take the first step, why should you stop using the 4x4 when everyone else keeps theirs.

Stop worrying. The current fuel will run out. Then, there'll be something else. BNefore that, there's another 100 years of fuel under antarctica.


(6) Should everything just carry on as it is, if someone can afford a big boat which uses tons of fuel then good on them, if they can afford it then it is no one else’s right to tell them how to spend their money or how much fuel they can use?

Yep, pretty much. It's the same system that gives people a nice house, nice car, nice everything. Going to the moon, and these days dirt cheap airline travel all uses loads and loads more fuel than powerboats.



<hr width=100% size=1>