Inge goes to her favorite clothing shop. Dress for a party! She loves to buy here, because it is without compromising the future of mankind, without contributing to bad labor circumstances, without the extra transport, CO2 and everything. And by the way, it costs a little compared to new.
Believe it or not, every cloth or shoe in this movie comes from… dumpsters!
Inge attended a lecture by Professor Cees Buisman on the future of water and the water usage in the world, specificallly the water we drink. He showed two images that particularly drew her attention. The first is that compared to the earth’s mass, there is relatively little water on our Mother Earth. And that water is mainly salt water.
The quantity of sea water is shown with the big drop. It is enormous compared to the fresh water, like from rivers and lakes, which is the little drop. Now look well, but under that little drop is a pinpoint little drop. That is our drinking water.
Buisman made a basic calculation about the drinking water. With 9 billion people on this world, we could use up to some 2200 liter potable water per inhabitant per year. That seems like a lot. But, is it?
Most people know how much drinking water we Dutchmen use. It is about 120 liter per person per day. But, that is only our direct consumption (most of it for washing water and toilet flushes). But indirectly, a Dutchman uses, like most Europeans, a lot more: 4000 liter per day!
Check out the graphics here, and see what we use all water for.
As you see, the water consumption of Western people is like the fossil fuel consumption: way too far out of proportion to share Mother Earth with other people born in poorer regions.
So, must we all become vegans now?
Professor Buijsman says: “Eat like a lion!” On average, a lion eats meat for 4 days and then 6 six no meat.
How did people ever come into Polynesia?and where dit they come from?
If you look at the currents and the winds on the Pacific Ocean, they mainly go from East to West. Only when you get south of the 60 degees, the winds become from the west. But on these latitudes it is cold and the winds are hard, with names like ‘the Screaming Sixties’ and the ‘Furious Fifties’.
So it is not strange that in the sixties the antropologist Thor Heyerdahl assumed that the Pacific islands were settled by the South Americans. He and his crew tried to sail on a balsa wood raft from Peru to one of the islands. They ended up on an island of the Tuamotus. It convinced Heyerdahl and many others that the Polynesian islands got their first settlers from South America.
And, let’s be fair: it is really difficult to believe that these people came all the way from Asisa, thousands and thousands of miles against the winds and currents. Even with the current Western boats and sailors, considered being superior, it would be really a hard job. And, the old Polynesians did not have charts, not even a compass to support the navigation.
Nevertheless, not every scientist agreed with Heyerdahl. There were cultural and genetic indications pointing the other way, to the West. Check the tattoos for example. It was wide spread in Polynesia, even up to New Zealand. But there was no tattoo culture in Peru.
.
The scepsis on Heyerdahls theory, although proven in a physical way, remained. In 1976 scientists and Polynesian have built a classical Polynesian sailing craft. Two canoos are put together with a platform, like a catamaran, and was rigged with two sails the Polynesian way. It is called a wa’a kaulua.
The Polynesian navigated by reading the waves patterns. Where we Western sailors distinghuish only two or three wave directions, the Polynesians had built up this skill to such a high level of refinement, they could see already for 100 miles in what direction islands would be and they could even predict the weather with reading the waves.
In the current century the DNA research developed. Also a big survey was made on Polynesians from various islands and island groups. In 2021 a report showed that there are strong relations between Polynesians, including the Maori in New Zealand.
So, yes, when we Westerns only sailed the coasts of Europe, the Polynesians were already that developed, that they navigated with their boats over the complete Pacific Ocean, from New Zealand and Melanesia, all the way up to the Marquesas, Gambier and Hawaii.
Right now, there are even indications that they sailed all the way to the West coast of North America (near San Francisco). But that is for later.
We’re always looking for news and things about sustainability, and this week we hit a blog, it is as simple and clear, it is a beauty: https://sailorsforthesea.org/blog/5-reasons-to-be-thankful-for-our-ocean/ from Sailors from the Sea.
Before even thinking of a means of transport, it is best to first think in advance whether you have to go somewhere, and can combine it. Because the unused energy is the most sustainable energy.
Sailing is a fossil-free activity anyway. But if you sail sustainably, so without fossil fuels, including cooking and living on the yacht, then you are by far doing the best.
Did you know that cycling costs even less energy than walking? It is only the product itself. Somewhere in the late eighties of the last century there was a German study that showed that the wear on tires and chains was even less than the wear on shoes. In the meantime, we are all so rich that we buy a new bike every time. So, the most polluting thing is the purchase.
What helps is to prevent yourself being influenced by the ‘silent’ methods of commercial (social?) media. you could also take a Swapfiets.
Transport by your feet comes in at number 3. The advantage is, just like cycling, that you move more, so you don’t have to go to the gym as much (by car?).
This is slightly more polluting than the bicycle because it has more parts that have a shorter lifespan. In terms of time, the lifespan is also shorter – not in terms of kilometers. Just like with the bicycle, the sustainability problem is the rapid replacement. For example, because it is out of fashion. Take the racing bike, which is bought in an enthusiastic mood, but is cycled less and less but is out of fashion because they are now 150 grams lighter.
Dutch trains run on green energy. Because they last for decades and are designed for good maintenance, they last a long time. It looks excellent.
The only disadvantage, which formally falls under ‘green’ is also the wood burning, so there is still pollution from sulphur and nitrogen compounds, among other things. What the train cannot do is get close to home, but here the metro does its job.
The bus does that part that the train can no longer do: the small and remote parts.
The resistance of rolling tires on the road is considerably higher than the resistance of the train wheels on the nice smooth rails, so driving costs a lot more energy. The air resistance is also much higher. No matter how green it is, it costs more wind and solar panels (and wood burning) than the train.
The moped often still has a type of combustion engine (two-stroke, on mixed lubrication) that is quite polluting.
However, the emissions from the small engine are much smaller than those of the car.
The scooter of today does better, because it often has a four-stroke engine, just like a car. The electric scooter is ranked by the (electric) bicycle, in terms of sustainability.
If you charge the electric car exclusively on green energy, only few fossil emissions are created (only from the wood burning part).
Such a car needs very little maintenance, because unlike fossil cars, there are almost no moving parts. They last a long time. Only the batteries need to be replaced after five or ten years, but these are becoming increasingly durable.
The fossil car converts 30 to 40 percent of fossil energy into power for propulsion. The remaining 60-70% is emitted through heat, carbon dioxide, sulphur compounds and nitrogen compounds.
The jet plane is the biggest polluter, even if you calculate per kilometre. An example: flying from Europe to the Marquesas has the same environmental impact as an average yacht in a year.
The propeller plane still has some efficiency in consumption, but it is quite slow. We can expect the first electric planes from this. If you are going to vote in Europe, vote for the party that taxes the emissions of at least flying. Then we will at least reduce the worst polluters.
Three years ago, on our way to Gambia, it was in the early morning when we entered the Senegalese waters and a Senegalese wooden fisher boat passed by.
The little, traditional fishers can always be seen around a wreck, because the big industrial fishing ships can not come that close to wrecks with their enormous gear.
Two skinny men, with worn out clothes on, asked us for water. So we gave them water and some bread. We felt that moment that they were already a night at sea, but still had no catch. And they were clearly determined not to come home without any fish.
Source: globalvoices.org the impact of China’s Fishing Policies on West Africa
Today, we heard a small news item on the radio: Europe does not want to extend the agreement with Senegal to fish in their waters, because there is no enforcement from the Senegalese government. In European words, the EU identified Senegal as a “non-cooperating country” in the fight against illegal fishing earlier this year, citing “failures in monitoring, control and surveillance systems” on Senegalese ships in extraterritorial waters as well as on foreign vessels in the port of Dakar, the capital. (source: Washington Post November 16, 2024).
It looks like Senegal is the bad guy, because they don’t do their duty.
What exactly is happening here? What if we look closer?
For many years the EU en Senegal have had a contract that allows the Europeans to fish in the Senegalese waters. Europe pays Senegal 8,5 million Euros per year and some 18 French and Spanish fishing ships fish in their waters. It means that the fishing waters are for these European fishers only.
This seems to go against their own economy, because each 1 of the 25 Senegalese people depends on fishing: the fishers themselves, the salesmen, and the people processing fish. Why is the government selling it then? Well, let’s put it this way: it can’t be proven that all these millions go straight to the State. Or to put it differently: it could very well be skimmed by the top politicians network. Like it happens in so many poor countries.
Senegal has 15 million inhabitants, Europe has 30 times more. Indicating the economical power by its Gross Domestic Product, Senegal’s is 30 billion, the European Union ‘s is 20 trillion dollars. A difference of about 18,000 times. This is David against Goliath. This level playing field is completely out of balance. However, the European Union made this deal because they see it as part of the development policy. The European fishers fish according to a sustainable protocol, fishing only on fish the Senegalese don’t traditionally fish, so there should be fish the next year. Also they don’t fish their full quota. So it might work, if nobody else catches fish from the Senegalese waters.
Therefore, the contract requirement is that the Senegalese government should also do the surveillance of their waters. That costs many millions a year. So they can’t. And they won’t, because, as told, 1 to 25 Senegalese inhabitants rely on the fishing, and you don’t jeopardise your compatriots.
Also, we saw many Chinese ships in Senegalese and Gambian waters. Greenpeace estimates that more than 400 Chinese fishing vessels are currently operating off the coast of West Africa. For Senegal it is simply not possible to start messing with China, a nation about 20,000 times stronger. Again, it is the level playing field.
Meanwhile, the Senegalese waters are empty now. Europe still points at Senegal to correct the illegals, such as China. Is this reasonable? Each 25th Senegalese man, woman and child need the fish.
Source: globalvoices.org, the impact of China’s Fishing Policies on West Africa
Some food for thoughts.
It starts with Peters favorite quote and it ends with some quotes we wrote down in earlier blogs.
The Earth doesnot belong to us. We belong to the Earth (Chief Seattle)
The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now (Chinese proverb)
The Earth provides enough for everyones need. But not to everyones greed (Ghandi)
I want to know the guy that invented single use plastic.
We get one credit card per week in our body. How much do I take from my credit card to get it out again?
It costs about 1 year to get uranium for nuclear power quality, and it costs 20.000 years to get the radio activity back to a safe level.
The greatest threat to the Earth is the tought that someone else will save it. (Robert Swan)
The climate change matter is quite difificult to understand. Especially the consequenses are rather diverse.
Now there is a game, called Climate Fresk. You can play with a group. This way you get more and more insight in the whole issue of climate change.
How Climate Fresk works: you need a facilitator and some people. The facilitator is trained and gives information about the climate and factors. Then he puts a stack of cards on the table, with captions like: “fossil fuels” and “temperature rises” and as a group you start to put them in causal order.
You can do it with your group of sailors. Playing it on the boat is perhaps too small, because you need a big table. But in your living room is fine. Or in the club, the classroom, wherever.
We played it. Everybody draws there own conclusions. What astonished me were the numerous effects on us, the human beings. Most of the nature will survive, like trees, insects, and fishes. No worries about the ecosystem, it is constantly adapting. but the adaptation will not be in favor of the mammals, and especially the humans. The effects on us are big, if not devastating.
The Ya is now on anchor in the Taiohae Bay of Nuku Hiva, Marqueasas. Every day when you walk along the shore, the waves splash against the sea wall. Often some refreshing drops come in your face. Nice.
But for how long?
Here some numbers and graphics gathered by NASA.
Check for more detalils the NASA report: https://sealevel.nasa.gov/internal_resources/527/Nuku%20Hiva_France_combined.pdf
Last blog told about smart turbines. But what about a cheap one? Then there is the Airloom. It is a bunch of blades running on a oval track.
The blades are 10 meter in length, mounted to a rail 20 meters high. The blades have a profile to let the wind make a lift power to forward and the blades move along the cable. The cable propels the generator and voila: there is the electricity.
It is tested with a 15 kiloWatt setup in Wyoming, USA. This is a small scale test, just for a 15 kW maximum yield. When extrapolated to a larger scale, it looks promising.
The disadvantage of the Airloom compared to the conventional three blade turbine is clear: the Airloom is build low, and there is much less wind.
But, you can put much more blades, and many more fields closer to each other, that per square surface you will get more yield.
The advantage is the price. Now, the estimates are that a kilowatthour generated by an Airloom would cost $ 0,13, whilst a conventional 3 blade generates our energy for $0,35 or more.
The cheap price is possible because of:
Just now, there has been found a sponsor/investor to build a larger scale field. If this would work according to the expectations, it could be the future for windmills on land.
We will keep you posted.
You are interested to build a small one yourself? Check out here and see it running.
