BRP Evinrude calls for industry unity for a cleaner environment

[Dicko]

Gary, I normally think you're on the money with factual info, but really, lately you've got yourself so wrapped up in this issue you're becoming another brainwashed mouthpiece as most others are. This habit of ignoring facts and science and using scare tactics and bullsh*t instead to achieve your outcomes is typical of the whole global warming propoganda machine.

As said by others what engine was it ?, I bet my left nut, that engine in question would have been a 4 stroke...(as most ski boats are) the same engine you're promoting, and the same engines that are in around in 90% of vehicles out there on the road.

If you're going to do the equivalant of sticking your head up an exhaust pipe to gas yourself, it won't matter whether it's a 4 stroke in a car or boat. You're stuffed.,,, but hey, let's not let facts get in the way of a good story now, lets push this story as another reason for reducing emmissons and hope most out there won't read between the lines looking for facts. (The sad thing is, most of the public aren't questioning any of this).

I've questioned the $3.5 billion overall medical costs attributed to 'non complying engines' (at something like 25% of the whole marine industry claimed by BRP in their press release) to both brp and the EPA. I haven't recieved a reply yet.

Do you believe those figures as well ? or has off tangent cases like your last article been used to pad them up... ?


p.s. for the record, I currently have a DFI 2 stroke on my fishing rig & a 4 stroke inboard in my ski boat, but I still like facts, not padded up propoganda.

[Gary Fooks]

I haven’t changed from factual info. Even if some people don’t like it.


As I said "don’t have a tantrum" do your own numbers, or show me which number you disagree with.

And you are mixing up CO and HC , and jumping between them with abandon.


I’ve only shown hard numbers and conservative estimates ( and indicated such)

Just throwing mud and opinion without fact or research is a waste of space. Can we please hold a rational, fact based debate?

Gary

PS

- Its not a 4 stroke vs 2 stroke issue - its a limit on emissions. the CO limit will knock out some 4 strokes.

- The 3.5 billion comes from an independent Cost Benefit Analysis.( Conducted by MMA consultants for DEWHA) I love the way you say its nonsense without having even read the report. Send me your email address if you want a copy. read it carefully, do your own analysis and then criticise as much as you like. Until then its just hollow opinion.

[PinHead]

have more questions...
1. Those emission figures..are they above water or below water emissions.
2. If a combination then what % is what.
3. For underwater emissions, what chemical reactions take place between the water and the emissions and what are the resulting chemicals or compunds.
4. In what % solution will these chemicals be held in suspension in the water.
5. What rates of dilution, if any, are there for any resualtant chemicals.


still no answers on my previous questions ??

How about a holistic approach on this and any other "green" issue.

No point saying this amount of x, y and z are emitted without finding out where they end up.

I am not against regulation where regulation is required..I am 100% against regulation just for the sake of feel good warm and fuzzys...green zones are a perfect example.

Another queston please Gary..who or what is "Eco Friendly Fishing Association" ?

[Gary Fooks]

Pinhead - yes no answers because I avoided playing your game – as soon as I show you data you find somewhere else to pick on. That’s not a mature debate or discussion.

Clearly all of the emissions go into the water – because they all come out of the exhaust pipe, under the water and around the prop … depending on the model.

(I think one or two tiny (2hp) models exhaust straight to the air – but let’s leave them for the moment)

What comes out of the exhaust and stays in the water depends on so many variables including which chemical, water temperature, water salinity, boat speed.

For example – just thinking about hydrocarbons – I have seen oil slicks on the water around an idling 2 stroke, divers say they can taste it and we have all seen blue smoke in the air. So some goes into the water, some on to and some into the air.

As for other chemicals - eg NOx, we can’t taste or see them. One study showed the water behind a boat had a lower pH. (acidic)

The rest of your questions need answers that will not fit in this space. As for the rest, PM me your email address and I will send you lots of studies that can likely answer your questions.

However I don’t believe you are actually interested in studying the issue. It seems clear that you just want to have an argument. I’m not sure what’s in it for you – why you enjoy having an argument but it’s not a game I’m going to play.

I’m interested in rational, mature, fact based debates and discussion.


You too have not answered my questions. Do you dump rubbish out the car window? Overboard? And what would you think of someone intentionally pouring used oil overboard?


Sometimes the answer is simple. In the end I don’t need lots of academic studies to believe that I shouldn’t pour used oil overboard.

I understand that people have different standards to me. That’s why, in the end, we have laws and regulations to set minimum acceptable standards.


We have had car emission standards for twenty years or so. It’s about time marine had something similar.

BTW the outboard standards as predicted wont be anywhere near as tough as current Australian car emission standards, let alone the current standards in Europe, for example.



Gary

[Dicko]

I haven’t changed from factual info. Even if some people don’t like it.


As I said "don’t have a tantrum" do your own numbers, or show me which number you disagree with.

And you are mixing up CO and HC , and jumping between them with abandon.


I’ve only shown hard numbers and conservative estimates ( and indicated such)

Just throwing mud and opinion without fact or research is a waste of space. Can we please hold a rational, fact based debate?

Gary

PS

- Its not a 4 stroke vs 2 stroke issue - its a limit on emissions. the CO limit will knock out some 4 strokes.

- The 3.5 billion comes from an independent Cost Benefit Analysis.( Conducted by MMA consultants for DEWHA) I love the way you say its nonsense without having even read the report. Send me your email address if you want a copy. read it carefully, do your own analysis and then criticise as much as you like. Until then its just hollow opinion.

Gary, you are becoming sensationalist. Why else did you throw in an article of a girl dying from carbon monoxide poisoning in a thread related to low emmsion outboards ? Would that have not happened with an etec ?

As for the report, yes, I have read it. and yes, I think the health cost figures attributed to high emission outboards are nonsense.

If you want fact, than lets look at a real case scenario.

My family (& extended family) are all boatie orientated. I'm thinking back over 40yrs and looking at say a group of 30 people, and potentially 20 different boats amongst us over the years. The majority of them being conventional 2 strokes.

I'm racking my brain, and for the life of me can't come up with one cent that's been spent on health costs attributed to those outboards. (I can think of a few 'sickies' along the way so we could get a bit more enjoyment out of them though)

There's been a couple of water skiing injuries, a couple of cuts & hooks in the wrong places when fishing, but absolutely nothing in the way of health costs that I can attribute to having a conventional 2 stroke outboard.

Yet BRP in their press release (from the attached data) are claiming the health costs of these outboards are $3.5billion !!,( or approx 25% of the whole outboard industries value).

Now, say our 20 odd outboards over the years are/were worth in round figures $200 000, by that report we've cost/going to cost society $50 000 in additional health costs. It hasn't happened.

So yes, it's padded up nonsense.

Or can you show me which other families are absorbing our share of these health costs for the figures to work out as they say ?

[Gary Fooks]

I give in

You've not read the posts above where we talk about CO being a safety issue - thus the story

You've not read the CBA either, especially section 3.5.

fin

Gary

The main studies relied on in this paper are the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI
2005), the European Commission’s air pollution damage estimates (EC 2005) and estimates
imputed from the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics health costs of motor
vehicle emissions estimates (BTRE 2005 and 2003).
As described in the modelling sections, the data we used reports hydrocarbon (HC)
emissions and not volatile organic compounds (VOC), but the studies reported here use

VOC. To convert from HCs to VOCs we used a conversion factor of 1, in other words we

use HCs and VOCs interchangeably. According to the US EPA, the conversion factor for
non-road engines is 1.034 for two strokes and 0.933 for four strokes, but this is based on
very sparse data. Using VOCs and HCs interchangeably therefore provides a conservative
estimate.
The Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (BTRE) quantified the health impacts of
transport emissions in Australia. Following Kunzli et al (2000) and Fisher et al (2002), they

used PM

10 emissions as a surrogate for all air pollution related health impacts. Using their

estimate of health damages from motor vehicle related air pollution for Australian capital

cities (BTRE 2005, p100) and the BTREs estimate of PM

10 emissions in Australian capital

cities (BTRE 2003, p125), the implied health cost per ton of PM

10 emissions as a surrogate

for air pollution from motor vehicle emissions in today’s dollars is between $136,000 and

$324,000, with a best estimate of $230,000 per ton of combustion-related PM

10.26 The large

range reflects uncertainty about motor vehicle related particle emissions, and the value of

life years lost, and the median value of a statistical life. This analysis only considers health
related damages from a subset of combustion emissions in motor vehicles, and omits some
harmful gases as well as environmental harm, including to crops and equipment. The
BTRE’s estimates are therefore likely to be conservative.
The European Commission funded a major study to provide estimates of the damages per
tonne emission of PM

2.5, NH3, SO2, NOx and VOCs from each EU25 member state

(excluding Cyprus) and surrounding seas to update previous estimates and to inform its

Clean Air for Europe (CAFE) program (EC 2005). The range provided takes account of
variation in the method used to value mortality, reflecting the use of the median and mean
estimates of the value of a life year (VOLY) from NewExt (2004) (€50,000 and €120,000
respectively in 2000 €), and the use of the median and mean estimates of the value of
statistical life (VSL), also from NewExt (€980,000 and €2,000,000 respectively). The range is
shown in Table 3-11 and also includes sensitivity to the effects quantified and to the use of
a zero cut-point for assessment of ozone impacts. Again, the study omits a number of
gases emitted from combustion engines and, aside from some agricultural impacts from
the emissions of sulphur oxides (not used in our study), quantifies mainly health effects
and produces figures that are therefore conservative.
We added a composite medium case to the estimates provided by the EC, averaging across
the low sea case and the high land case for our central estimate. This is reasonable for
Australia because the population density is lower than in most of Europe and this
provides a conservative estimate of emissions on land and in estuaries. We used this

composite medium case for our best estimate of the net benefits from the policy options.

[Dicko]

You've not read the CBA either, especially section 3.5.

Yes I have.


and the question still stands, if I can't put my finger on an example of these exorbitant costs to society from my family group using 2 stroke outboards for a significant number of years, which users are affected ?

[PinHead]

Pinhead - yes no answers because I avoided playing your game – as soon as I show you data you find somewhere else to pick on. That’s not a mature debate or discussion. my game...so that is what you call it when you cannot answer the questions

Clearly all of the emissions go into the water – because they all come out of the exhaust pipe, under the water and around the prop … depending on the model.

(I think one or two tiny (2hp) models exhaust straight to the air – but let’s leave them for the moment)

What comes out of the exhaust and stays in the water depends on so many variables including which chemical, water temperature, water salinity, boat speed.

For example – just thinking about hydrocarbons – I have seen oil slicks on the water around an idling 2 stroke, divers say they can taste it and we have all seen blue smoke in the air. So some goes into the water, some on to and some into the air.

As for other chemicals - eg NOx, we can’t taste or see them. One study showed the water behind a boat had a lower pH. (acidic)

The rest of your questions need answers that will not fit in this space. As for the rest, PM me your email address and I will send you lots of studies that can likely answer your questions.

However I don’t believe you are actually interested in studying the issue. It seems clear that you just want to have an argument. I’m not sure what’s in it for you – why you enjoy having an argument but it’s not a game I’m going to play.

here we go again..I ask questions that you don't answer and I am labelled argumentative. There is nothing in it for me..I am not the one running around the country ear bashing anyone that will listen about the star ratings. What is in it for you Gary? Money ? Personal Glory? Thegame getting a bit tough for you...the answers are not there.

I’m interested in rational, mature, fact based debates and discussion. I may be immature but that does not bother me...see all green people when stumped just start insinuating that others that are asking the questions aren;t real bright..so be it..seems you fit in that category also...why not just toss your hands in the air and say whatevah.


You too have not answered my questions. Do you dump rubbish out the car window? Overboard? And what would you think of someone intentionally pouring used oil overboard? what the hell has rubbish got to do with your exhaust emissions..absolutely none..and no..I do not dispose of rubbish like that.
Do you drive a car? if so you leave rubbish everywhere when you drive. That could be an interesting study for someone..amount of crap that comes from a car over its lifetime.


Sometimes the answer is simple. In the end I don’t need lots of academic studies to believe that I shouldn’t pour used oil overboard. and what does pouring oil overbaord have to do with emissions..just more attempts to not answer my questions

I understand that people have different standards to me. That’s why, in the end, we have laws and regulations to set minimum acceptable standards.

acceptable by whose standards..try having a look at refrigerants and see how ridiculous the standards and regualtions are.


We have had car emission standards for twenty years or so. It’s about time marine had something similar.

BTW the outboard standards as predicted wont be anywhere near as tough as current Australian car emission standards, let alone the current standards in Europe, for example.



Gary

I have no problem with anyone standing by what they believe in..I do have problems when only part of the story is told. I would suggest Gary that emsissions that go into the water are dissipated in the water in chemical reactions and due to the vastness of the water then very little damage is done.

So what is your aim Gary? reduction of Nox, HCO, CO, C, or CO2 ???

I will debate any green attitude until all the FACTS are known..I will not base anything on assumptions and to date..that is all we are being fed in most aspects of the green debate..GW is a perfect example...same as the ozone layer.

Gary..what amount of gases are emitted into the ocean from the many active underwater volcanoes ? What gases are these?

My email address is gregh1@bigpond .net.au...no need for me to pm it..I have nothing to hide..you want my address also..always a cold beer in the fridge .

I will not discuss this any further Gary..it is obvious you have not carried this through in its entirety..you have just taken some manufacturers figues..you ever checked them yourself by doing the tests and want everyone else to comply to some air fairy standards..get the complete picture or get out of it.

[finga]

You've not read the posts above where we talk about CO being a safety issue - thus the story

The main studies relied on in this paper are the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI
2005), the European Commission’s air pollution damage estimates (EC 2005) and estimates
imputed from the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics health costs of motor
vehicle emissions estimates (BTRE 2005 and 2003).
As described in the modelling sections, the data we used reports hydrocarbon (HC)
emissions and not volatile organic compounds (VOC), but the studies reported here use

VOC. To convert from HCs to VOCs we used a conversion factor of 1, in other words we

use HCs and VOCs interchangeably. According to the US EPA, the conversion factor for
non-road engines is 1.034 for two strokes and 0.933 for four strokes, but this is based on
very sparse data. Using VOCs and HCs interchangeably therefore provides a conservative
estimate.
The Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (BTRE) quantified the health impacts of
transport emissions in Australia. Following Kunzli et al (2000) and Fisher et al (2002), they

used PM

10 emissions as a surrogate for all air pollution related health impacts. Using their

estimate of health damages from motor vehicle related air pollution for Australian capital

cities (BTRE 2005, p100) and the BTREs estimate of PM

10 emissions in Australian capital

cities (BTRE 2003, p125), the implied health cost per ton of PM

10 emissions as a surrogate

for air pollution from motor vehicle emissions in today’s dollars is between $136,000 and

$324,000, with a best estimate of $230,000 per ton of combustion-related PM

10.26 The large

range reflects uncertainty about motor vehicle related particle emissions, and the value of

life years lost, and the median value of a statistical life. This analysis only considers health
related damages from a subset of combustion emissions in motor vehicles, and omits some
harmful gases as well as environmental harm, including to crops and equipment. The
BTRE’s estimates are therefore likely to be conservative.
The European Commission funded a major study to provide estimates of the damages per
tonne emission of PM

2.5, NH3, SO2, NOx and VOCs from each EU25 member state

(excluding Cyprus) and surrounding seas to update previous estimates and to inform its

Clean Air for Europe (CAFE) program (EC 2005). The range provided takes account of
variation in the method used to value mortality, reflecting the use of the median and mean
estimates of the value of a life year (VOLY) from NewExt (2004) (€50,000 and €120,000
respectively in 2000 €), and the use of the median and mean estimates of the value of
statistical life (VSL), also from NewExt (€980,000 and €2,000,000 respectively). The range is
shown in Table 3-11 and also includes sensitivity to the effects quantified and to the use of
a zero cut-point for assessment of ozone impacts. Again, the study omits a number of
gases emitted from combustion engines and, aside from some agricultural impacts from
the emissions of sulphur oxides (not used in our study), quantifies mainly health effects
and produces figures that are therefore conservative.
We added a composite medium case to the estimates provided by the EC, averaging across
the low sea case and the high land case for our central estimate. This is reasonable for
Australia because the population density is lower than in most of Europe and this
provides a conservative estimate of emissions on land and in estuaries. We used this

composite medium case for our best estimate of the net benefits from the policy options.

Gary, we're not saying to pollute just because of anything.
I, for one, am trying to say don't just pick on one item (ie 2 stroke outboards) to try and resolve all pollution problems in our marine environments...a broad spectrum analysis of all of the damaging inputs of the marine environment need to be considered.

So a couple of questions Gary...oh, before I forget. I usually respect your writings but in this instance I find them one eyed.
Anyways I did read your post about the safety concerns for CO.
The question was raised...were the offending boats 2 stroke or 4 stroke as the makeup/style of the vessels in question tend to make them 4 stroke inboard motors.

Now...
The first paragraph in the introduction of the report (http://www.ephc.gov.au/sites/default...%20Engines.pdf) concerns me.
Here's a quote from it.
Non-road engines such as those used in gardening equipment, lawn mowers and
outboard motors, have been shown to be significant contributors to urban air pollution.
They are significant because they are utilised in large numbers and are not subject to the
degree of pollution control regulation that exists for engines used in on-road vehicles.
Many continue to be powered by high-polluting two stroke carburettor engines that do
not comply with international standards. For example, older style outboard engines that
do not comply with US EPA 2006 emission limits are likely to emit around 10 times the
amount of pollution compared to conforming engines.
Now...Where has it been shown that gardening equipement, lawn mowers and outboard motors are significant contributors to urban air pollution??
There are no references...only hearsay
Or...They are significant because they are utilised in large numbers...but how significant is the number, or better still, their output of pollutants, if you consider ALL motors in our society.
I reckon it'll take a lot of Victa's the match the volume of pollutants pumped out the bum of a 747 in a trip from Brisbane to Sydney.

There is not one reference to backup anything in this opening statement...all hearsay.

According to the original report used by BRP exactly what are the pollutants from a 2 stroke outboard and what exactly do they do to the marine ecosysytem??
What oil did they do the figures on as there are a lot of oils now-a-days which have differing levels and types of chemicals as by-products.
I'm a bit over whelmed by all the information at the moment.... and who actually wrote the report?
Second...who conducted all the studies?? ie who designed the study and all of it's facets, who gathered the information, who worked out the results and most importantly...who paid for the study?
Third...What journals were the results published in?? (because if the results are not published they pretty well mean nothing to a scientist)
Fourthly...what is the point of all the figures in your last post??
They are all concerned with road vehicles and a lot are estimations and guess work. Surrogates, more guessimations and who exactly are Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics??
What figures are available for outboards...both 2 and 4 stroke??
Why were diesels missed out?
Looks like I could have written that report when I was in Uni studying Environmental Sciences seeing my name is on the bottom
What other studies have been conducted to give strength to the theory that there is a problem with pollutants from 2 stroke outboards?
To me those studies are written to baffle people with figures...just like the old saying...if you can't win them with facts you can try and baffle them with bull$hite.
When you weed out the unnecessary stuff there is not much real body in the studies

When your reply with some concrete answers I start on trying to give an argument (with figures) on why the studies are not so relevant, or not so important, to the overall protection of marine ecosystems as there are other more important pollutants/polluters to worry about.

[Gary Fooks]

Finga writes

Gary, we're not saying to pollute just because of anything.
I, for one, am trying to say don't just pick on one item (ie 2 stroke outboards) to try and resolve all pollution problems in our marine environments...a broad spectrum analysis of all of the damaging inputs of the marine environment need to be considered.

I never said for one minute that setting emission standards (not anti 2 stroke regulations) would “solve all the problems”

I have consistently tried to explain in the form of an analogy, that I can’t justify buying a high emissions outboard for the same reason I can’t justify throwing rubbish overboard or out the car window. I just don’t think its right to throw more stuff into the water or countryside than is necessary. Full stop

…. Can someone please explain why this simple analogy doesn’t make sense to some?


So a couple of questions Gary...oh, before I forget. I usually respect your writings but in this instance I find them one eyed.

I am trying to get a point across that has taken me years to accept and understand, to people who are one eyed the other way … Good point, thus I wont play their game anymore. You’re right – I am thus coming over as one eyed – thanks for pointing that out.

Anyways I did read your post about the safety concerns for CO.
The question was raised...were the offending boats 2 stroke or 4 stroke as the makeup/style of the vessels in question tend to make them 4 stroke inboard motors.

I don’t understand what you mean by “offending boats” . Again don’t get stuck on the 2/4 stroke issue. The issue is that we are getting limits on outboard emissions including CO. This CO limit will knock out some 2 strokes and some 4 strokes from what we can buy today

CO poisoning can happen with a 2 or 4 stroke, inboard or outboard … and probably has. So again I am not sure what you are really asking?

As for the other points, I agree the CBA is poorly referenced.

In the first instance have a look at

http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/airquality/publications/marine-outboard-engine.html

http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/airquality/publications/outdoor-garden-equipment.html


After that, send me an email address and I’ll send you some of the studies I have.

The Australian push is being driven by the Air pollution “departments” and the CBA is being driven by Health costs. So damage to the water environment is less well documented in the Australian govt documents.

What are the pollutants? Mostly Hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen. (Plus CO … plus PM)

What oil did they do the figures?The tests are all conducted by the manufacturers, in their own or contract labs. They use the manufacturers own / recommended oil, and the recommended dilution ration. The fuel used is a reference fuel to exact standards. If you need more ask me to email you the testing procedures.


I guess if the test blows out or the engine is s lemon they re-do the test. Then they submit the results in great detail ( down to test engine serial number) to the USA EPA, and CARB for certification.

Who wrote the studies? Who did the report? I’m not sure what you’re asking here (which report?). There are lots of studies, looking at different aspects. Some Australian, many US when they were leading up the regulations 10 years ago.

Numbers ? again see the reports with the URL above


Diesel? Long story but he very start is the excedences in the Sydney air basin. Diesel are much lower numbers … but it is in the pipeline , its running 2 to 3 years behind.


There is a lot more research than the CBA - so yes I understand your questions/ position.

Gary

[finga]

Gary...I see what your saying.
Your saying emission standards need to be given and met for small engines.
I'm saying the problems of emissions should be met with a holistic approach not an approach targeting a small portion of polluters.
Every body chucks waste away...they may know it, they may not.
Even the most discerning 'greeny' would have waste.
If they eat an apple there are pollutants...from poisons, from transport, from packaging etc etc even down to the rubber worn off the push bikes tyres going to buy said apple.
What we all need to try and do is limit these wastes.
You are concentrating on and describing one segment of the waste problem...pollutants from small motors.
I'm saying the emissions given off by small engines (not just 2 stroke or old technology 4's) are but a very small portion of the total emissions of the same type been spewed out in our Australian environment.
If a holistic. or even pick on the largest polluters first, approach is considered diesels would have to be on the top of the hit list.
You stated that Diesel? Long story but he very start is the excedences in the Sydney air basin. Diesel are much lower numbers … but it is in the pipeline , its running 2 to 3 years behind.
Why?? The emissions from diesels would out weigh emissions from small motors many times over.
Diesels have been on the European hit list for donkey's years and they have Euro 5 emission standards for diesels and, slowly, Australia is accepting these standards and adopting them, not from legislation or governing, but by seeing the increasing economies by utilising these Euro 5 compliant trucks in their fleets.
Seeing we're adopting others emissions targets why don't we also adopt the Californian Clean Air Act 1988 (hope that right. It's been a few years)...

The report that BRP have sited for industry unity for a cleaner environment is not a very productive venture by BRP in my books.
If I had have submitted that report whilst attending Uni my lecturers would have laughed at me.
Lack of references is a reflection of the integrity of the entire report.
A lack of established procedures to report writing such as aims, methodology, statistical significance etc also lend to the idea that the report should not carry much scientific weight.
In fact I found the report whimsickle to say the least.
I am also not going to read the other reports you mentioned because, frankly, I have got better things to do and reports bore me to tears. And if they were more pertinent then the original report they would have sighted them as well.

What are the pollutants? Mostly Hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen. (Plus CO … plus PM)
Why did they use these pollutants??
According to established researchers like the CSIRo and University of Queensland those particular pollutants are not considered a major threat to our water born eco-systems.
This (and also the established method of report writing) can be seen in many studies done around our country specifically aimed at water born environments.
Just one example of this type of report is mentioned just recently in the news section of this website...http://www.tweed.nsw.gov.au/Waterway...aysHealth.aspx
If reports of damage to the water environment is less well documented in the Australian govt documents. Look elsewhere. There has been lot of research done of the water environment. There is lots of research been done on the water environment and there will be a lot more research done on the water environment...just don't look for government references. Look outside the box
Here's a good start to show the depth of research available which has been accomplished by a simple google search http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...tralia&spell=1

I for one, do agree that emission targets need to be set.
But, I for one, think a broad spectrum holistic approach is needed with recognised research.
Not the crap BRP are trying to pass in the original report sited by them.
To me, siting that report has lowered that particular report to a mere marketing ploy designed to try and baffle the general populous.

I actually wrote this 4 times and kept losing it for some reason.
A lot of points missed but I think I got a few of the more pertinent ones.
In the end I just got sick of it. I might write more later...might not too.

[Gary Fooks]

Hi Finga

Holistic Approach? I agree , but ot will never happen . I mean we had car emission standards 20 years ago, … that wasn’t holistic either

Its all piece meal , not holistic because its being run by departments and bureaucrats. As I said the current push is run by the Air pollution departments within EPA. “Water is a different department mate!”

I Hate bureaucrats and their non holistic approach - but I also realise I cant change that.

Finga writes The emissions from diesels would out weigh emissions from small motors many times over.

Professor Finga – you want to give me the data on that? Please don’t tell me you made that up? 78% of statistics are just made up on the spot ( I just made that up LOL)

On Road diesel already have regulations - so we are only talking off road …

As it turns out, for marine at least , all the diesels sold come into Australia meeting EURO or US standards - whereas 55% of outboards sold meet no standards. So I’m comfortable that diesels – as sold today are not the worst. ( legislation can only control what is sold new. And 98%+ of diesels sold today are very clean)

Why not diesel?
Prior to “picking on” outboards and lawn mowers their was a study that looked at many sources or Sydney’s air problem and that included panel beaters spray painting, locomotives, those tow vehicles at airports that move jumbos, etc etc etc I sat in a two hour briefing on the study, and the methodology seemed OK

In any case, regulations for off road diesel is in the pipeline 2/3 years behind. Given marine and garden regulations is 23 years behind cars by the time it arrives , what’s another 2?

Pollutants / studies? I certainly looked beyond Government documents. My point was that the (govt) documents I fed you so far don’t look broadly.


BUT in the end this has gone beyond science . Its now a bureaucratic / political issue.

Despite what some may think I am still defending fishing eg:

• keeping the inevitable regulations on track – so we don’t get a unique Australian standards which would add huge costs to every outboard and maybe kill off some brands in Australia.
• Getting regulations to accept US testing - so we don’t have the cost of re testing in Australia
• Getting waterways opened, and fewer closed . My personal target is to open Wivenhoe dam to (clean) outboards. I can claim that getting Lethalls opened , from 6hp to 60hp as my work. It took me 3 years - from complaints to the department, Councill, Ministers .. to eventually writing the Ranger Manual and the guidelines for them and “training “ the Rangers.

I’ll move on now - much to do

Gary

[PinHead]

Hi Finga

Holistic Approach? I agree , but ot will never happen . I mean we had car emission standards 20 years ago, … that wasn’t holistic either

Its all piece meal , not holistic because its being run by departments and bureaucrats. As I said the current push is run by the Air pollution departments within EPA. “Water is a different department mate!”

I Hate bureaucrats and their non holistic approach - but I also realise I cant change that.

Finga writes The emissions from diesels would out weigh emissions from small motors many times over.

Professor Finga – you want to give me the data on that? Please don’t tell me you made that up? 78% of statistics are just made up on the spot ( I just made that up LOL)

On Road diesel already have regulations - so we are only talking off road …

As it turns out, for marine at least , all the diesels sold come into Australia meeting EURO or US standards - whereas 55% of outboards sold meet no standards. So I’m comfortable that diesels – as sold today are not the worst. ( legislation can only control what is sold new. And 98%+ of diesels sold today are very clean)

Why not diesel?
Prior to “picking on” outboards and lawn mowers their was a study that looked at many sources or Sydney’s air problem and that included panel beaters spray painting, locomotives, those tow vehicles at airports that move jumbos, etc etc etc I sat in a two hour briefing on the study, and the methodology seemed OK

In any case, regulations for off road diesel is in the pipeline 2/3 years behind. Given marine and garden regulations is 23 years behind cars by the time it arrives , what’s another 2?

Pollutants / studies? I certainly looked beyond Government documents. My point was that the (govt) documents I fed you so far don’t look broadly.


BUT in the end this has gone beyond science . Its now a bureaucratic / political issue.

Despite what some may think I am still defending fishing eg:

• keeping the inevitable regulations on track – so we don’t get a unique Australian standards which would add huge costs to every outboard and maybe kill off some brands in Australia.
• Getting regulations to accept US testing - so we don’t have the cost of re testing in Australia
• Getting waterways opened, and fewer closed . My personal target is to open Wivenhoe dam to (clean) outboards. I can claim that getting Lethalls opened , from 6hp to 60hp as my work. It took me 3 years - from complaints to the department, Councill, Ministers .. to eventually writing the Ranger Manual and the guidelines for them and “training “ the Rangers.

I’ll move on now - much to do

Gary

I will oppose that one vehemently..leave it alone..no power boats on there at all.

[finga]

Hi Finga

Holistic Approach? I agree , but ot will never happen . I mean we had car emission standards 20 years ago, … that wasn’t holistic either

Its all piece meal , not holistic because its being run by departments and bureaucrats. As I said the current push is run by the Air pollution departments within EPA. “Water is a different department mate!”

I Hate bureaucrats and their non holistic approach - but I also realise I cant change that. Why not...you want us to all change outboards so we're all not chucking rubbish into the water willy nilly??
Getting 2 departments to combined tactics would seem simple as compared to that
Finga writes The emissions from diesels would out weigh emissions from small motors many times over.

Professor Finga – you want to give me the data on that? Please don’t tell me you made that up? 78% of statistics are just made up on the spot ( I just made that up LOL)
Mate, look out the window...simple math there. No need for studies or a Doctorate.
How many trucks go past just one spot on the gateway arterial as compared to all the (undiesel powered) boats used in the Bay on any given day. I'm looking at the big picture...not into the fish tank

Or if you want to talk about diesels just on the water here are some statistics just for one type of diesel boat.
Just in the Port of Brisbane there are 2484 large ships per year that utilise their facilities not counting any other large diesel burning ships like warships. http://www.portbris.com.au/Secure/Tr...radeReport.pdf

Now consider the pollutants pumped out of a container type ship.
Some say one container ship can pollute as much as 50,000 cars http://gas2.org/2009/06/03/one-conta...-million-cars/....but you cannot believe everything you read so say we average it out at 30,000 cars. That would get a combined polluting output of a bucket load of NOx's I reckon (sorry for the non-specific quantified data)
So if you average the size of just the main drive engine (there are lots of other engines in there as well) in a container ship at about 5,000kW http://www.alibaba.com/product-free/...pose_Ship.html and http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/emma-maersk-engine/ then your looking at a combine total of pollutants which would greatly out weigh the total amount of pollutants spewed out by the average Joe Blow, all his mates, and their Quintrex's with Mercury's on the bum I reckon

On Road diesel already have regulations (where?? what are they?? What internationally accepted standard are they meeting??) - so we are only talking off road …
Why?? My argument is that we should be trying to change the big fish in the pollution pond...not pick on the small fry.

As it turns out, for marine at least , all the diesels sold come into Australia meeting EURO or US standards (since when and what standard??) - whereas 55% of outboards sold meet no standards (since when?? The data you showed was 10 years old). So I’m comfortable that diesels – as sold today are not the worst. ( legislation can only control what is sold new. And 98%+ of diesels sold today are very clean) Where's the data or is this hearsay Professor Gary??

Why not diesel?
Prior to “picking on” outboards and lawn mowers their was a study (references please) that looked at many sources or Sydney’s air problem and that included panel beaters spray painting, locomotives, those tow vehicles at airports that move jumbos, etc etc etc I sat in a two hour briefing on the study, and the methodology seemed OK
Ah, Professor Gary is in action...what qualifications do you process to justify that statement seeing we need raw data

In any case, regulations for off road diesel is in the pipeline 2/3 years behind. Given marine and garden regulations is 23 years behind cars by the time it arrives , what’s another 2?
Why bother if 98% of diesels are clean??

Pollutants / studies? I certainly looked beyond Government documents. My point was that the (govt) documents I fed you so far don’t look broadly.
NO COMMENT JUSTIFIED


BUT in the end this has gone beyond science . Its now a bureaucratic / political issue.
A political issue with alter motifs. If politicians were fairdinkum they would be targeting the larger polluters by volume first....Diesel engines (in general) would be a better item to start with as they would be a bigger contributor to the pollutants you've mentioned as compared to all the Victa's and Tohatsu's in Australia....but alas they don't. Why?? What's the agenda?? In this case BRP want to sell outboards.
Speaking of pollutants how come recognised researchers do not deem it necessary to monitor the pollutants you've mentioned in recognised studies??

Despite what some may think I am still defending fishing eg:

• keeping the inevitable regulations on track – so we don’t get a unique Australian standards which would add huge costs to every outboard and maybe kill off some brands in Australia.
• Getting regulations to accept US testing - so we don’t have the cost of re testing in Australia
• Getting waterways opened, and fewer closed . My personal target is to open Wivenhoe dam to (clean) outboards. I can claim that getting Lethalls opened , from 6hp to 60hp as my work. It took me 3 years - from complaints to the department, Councill, Ministers .. to eventually writing the Ranger Manual and the guidelines for them and “training “ the Rangers.

I’ll move on now - much to do

Gary

If BRP was fairdinkum in reducing emissions from outboards why haven't they developed motors to run on LPG?? Why haven't they developed catalytic converters for them??
My argument is that BRP used this report....which is dodgy as best....to promote their marketing plans.
To me this report is nothing but marketing hype.

Oh, as for opening dams up for outboards....well they might be clean but what about the noise pollution and the occasional ###### at the controls of the said motors??
Leave the closed dams closed.
People need some open spaces to escape to where they are not 'annoyed' by motors and the associated wankers.
A lot of people use Wivenhoe just because there are very few other areas where they would feel safe to go for a decent paddle with the kids.

[Gary Fooks]

I Hate bureaucrats and their non holistic approach - but I also realise I cant change that.Why not...you want us to all change outboards so we're all not chucking rubbish into the water willy nilly??
Getting 2 departments to combined tactics would seem simpleas compared to that

I dint agree - getting 2 Departments to work together is near impossible. You have obviously never tried.

Equally even if it was my aim to get fishers to think about their purchases, clearly some people would rather argue nonsense than think.

So I should spend my energy elsewhere.


Finga writes The emissions from diesels would out weigh emissions from small motors many times over.

Professor Finga – you want to give me the data on that? Please don’t tell me you made that up? 78% of statistics are just made up on the spot ( I just made that up LOL)
Mate, look out the window...simple math there.

“’”look out the window is neither data nor realistic research. I thought you were more rational and educated than that statement indicates.

For example , before I showed that two strokes had 10 to 20 times more emissions per hour did you realise that? Sure we knew it was more, but most people ( I am talking marine dealers at conferences ) think a 2 stroke is maybe double – not 10 times more )

You demand data from me - but when I ask the same you say “look out the window?


On Road diesel already have regulations (where?? What are they?? What internationally accepted standard are they meeting??) - so we are only talking off road …

ADR 79/00 (Emissions Control for Light Vehicles) introduced Euro 2 emission standards for new light vehicles operating on diesel from 1 January 2002, and for new light vehicles operating on petrol, Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) and Natural Gas (NG) vehicles from 1 January 2003.
ADR 80/00 (Emission Control for Heavy Vehicles) introduced Euro 3 emission standards for new heavy vehicles operating on diesel, LPG and CNG from 1 January 2002; for new heavy vehicles operating on petrol from 1 January 2003.
ADR 79/01 introduced Euro 3 emission standards for light vehicles operating on petrol, LPG or NG from 2005 and for light vehicles operating on diesel fuel from 2006.
ADR 80/01 introduced Euro 4 emissions standards for heavy vehicles operating on petrol from 2005 and for heavy vehicles operating on diesel, LPG and NG from 2006.
ADR 80/02 (Euro 4) was implemented for heavy vehicles which run on diesel, liquefied petroleum gas or natural gas from January 2007 for new model vehicles and from 29 February 2008 for existing models of vehicle.
ADR 79/02 (Euro 4) was implemented for new model light petrol, LPG and NG vehicles from July 2008 and from July 2010 for all light vehicles.
ADR 80/03 (Euro 5) will be implemented for new model heavy vehicles with a GVM greater than 3.5 tonnes, which run on diesel, liquefied petroleum gas, petrol or natural gas from 2010 and from 2011 for all heavy vehicles.



Why?? My argument is thatwe should be trying to change the big fish in the pollution pond...not pick on the small fry.


The 2006 Inventory (see below) DID look at who was worse and who needed to be targeted.

What you seem to be suggesting is a mega Act of Parliament that will fix everything once and for all? Sorry but the real world does not work that way. Its always going to be piecemeal.

I can’t change that and its naïve to expect otherwise.


As it turns out, for marine at least , all the diesels sold come into Australia meeting EURO or US standards (since when and what standard??) –

Volvo Penta and Yanmar lead the market and all their products meet EU Standards ( they dont make special non conforming engines for Australia). You can look up the other brands - and see what standards they meet on their web sites.

Starting in 1996, the Directives include

Non-Road Mobile Machinery Directive 97/68/EC
• 2004/26/EC3 Amendment to the Non-Road Mobile
Machinery directive
• 2003/44/EC Amendment to the Recreational Craft
Directive
• CCNR4 River Rhein Regulation
• BSO5 Bodensee Regulation
• IMO2 – MARPOL Regulation

Mercury / Mariner products meet US standards vis
EPA Commercial CI Marine Rule (FR1/Vol.64/No.249)
• EPA Recreational CI Marine Rule (FR/Vol.67/No.217)
• EPA Non-Road (FR/Vol.63/No.205)
• IMO2


whereas 55% of outboards sold meet no standards (since when?? The data you showed was 10 years old).
That number is 2005 data.(reference DEWHA 2007 report) I don’t know what you mean by :10 years old”

So I’m comfortable that diesels – as sold today are not the worst. ( legislation can only control what is sold new. And 98%+ of diesels sold today are very clean) Where's the data or is this hearsay Professor Gary??


From Volvo Penta – submission to government. 2009


Why not diesel?
Prior to “picking on” outboards and lawn mowers their was a study (references please) that looked at many sources or Sydney’s air problem and that included panel beaters spray painting, locomotives, those tow vehicles at airports that move jumbos, etc etc etc I sat in a two hour briefing on the study, and the methodology seemed OK
Ah, Professor Gary is in action...what qualifications do you process to justify that statement seeing we need raw data


Do you mean what qualifications to I “posess” B Bus MBA CMC IMP …


Reference? National Emissions Inventory for Small Engines Pacific Air & Environment Pty Ltd DEH February 2006:

The inventory covered the following classes of engines:

Ø Lawn and Garden Equipment

Ø Agricultural Equipment

Ø Airport Service Equipment

Ø Logging Equipment

Ø Recreational Equipment

Ø Recreational Marine

Ø Light Commercial Equipment

Ø Commercial Marine

Ø Industrial Equipment

Ø Rail Service Equipment

Ø Construction Equipment

The inventory covered the following pollutants:

Ø Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX)

Ø Formaldehyde

Ø Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Ø Toluene

Ø Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)

Ø Xylene

Ø Particulate Matter (PM)

Ø Benzene

Ø Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

Ø 1,3-Butadiene

In any case, regulations for off road diesel is in the pipeline 2/3 years behind. Given marine and garden regulations is 23 years behind cars by the time it arrives , what’s another 2?
Why bother if 98% of diesels are clean??

Good point – so its equitable , and controls future engines from … India or wherever. But the 98% does explain the apparent non urgency

Pollutants / studies? I certainly looked beyond Government documents. My point was that the (govt) documents I fed you so far don’t look broadly.
NO COMMENT JUSTIFIED


BUT in the end this has gone beyond science . Its now a bureaucratic / political issue.
A political issue with alter motifs. If politicians were fairdinkum they would be targeting the larger polluters by volume first....Diesel engines (in general) would be a better item to start with as they would be a bigger contributor to the pollutants you've mentioned as compared to all the Victa's and Tohatsu's in Australia....but alas they don't. Why?? What's the agenda?? In this case BRP want to sell outboards.
Speaking of pollutants how come recognised researchers do not deem it necessary to monitor the pollutants you've mentioned in recognised studies??



Do you mean Ulterior Motives? It’s not politicians but Bureaucrats BTW

As I showed above we already have diesel (on road ) standards and marine diesel standards are on the way, but non urgent because most engines we can buy are EU/ US compliant anyway.

You are saying they are worse than Victa and Tohatsu without any numbers - just your guess. You based this in ignorance that we had emission standards for diesel trucks, so perhaps you now have a different view?.

• 
  
  

I’ll move on now - much to do
If BRP was fairdinkum in reducing emissions from outboards why haven't they developed motors to run on LPG?? Why haven't they developed catalytic converters for them??


I’m not here to defend or otherwise BRP

I worked in the LPG Division of an Oil company. You could convert an outboard to work on LPG now. It doesn’t need BRP to do that. Ford and GMH didn’t initiate LPG for taxis in Australia. But with heavy fuel tanks, that have less range be litre, no one wants to convert a boat/outboard.

The costs of LPG pay for themselves with taxis and cars doing lots of KLM - I did hundreds of these calculations in my time, and though it was a while ago , I’ll make an educated guess that LPG would only be viable for commercial boats doing many hours.

Catalytic converters don’t work in a marine environment – apparently as soon as they get any salt water on them they stop working - so it would last about 6 minutes.

As I said, I’m not here to defend or otherwise BRP but No one has done it better than BRP and Honda.

Hondas 75 hp is also the Jazz car engine. But the outboard isn’t as clean because of the issues in making it water ready – including not being able to use a catalytic converter.

It costs money to develop cleaner engines -and already I hear whinges that clean engine cost more than dirty two strokes. You cant have everything.



Oh, as for opening dams up for outboards....well they might be clean but what about the noise pollution and the occasional ###### at the controls of the said motors??
Leave the closed dams closed.
People need some open spaces to escape to where they are not 'annoyed' by motors and the associated wankers.
A lot of people use Wivenhoe just because there are very few other areas where they would feel safe to go for a decent paddle with the kids.

Wivenhoe is huge – all the rowers want or need is one arm, which they have now.

I’m pro - fishing. And you ?

I will close off my responses here.

Gary