The Press+ published an article on July 19 highlighting the government’s inaction to restrict the volume and speed of motorboats and personal watercraft on our lakes and rivers in order to reduce the damage they cause to the environment, shorelines and seabed, not to mention the noise pollution they cause.
Posted yesterday at 12:00 p.m.
The reflex to appeal to governments to settle this kind of imbroglio is frequent. People then observe, powerless, their inaction. The interpretations are numerous: lack of political courage, recklessness, electoral motives, economic imperatives, non-priority file, etc.
But why wait for the government to act? Faced with such an article, my gaze invariably turns elsewhere than to the government. It is more geared towards fans… especially since the article takes the trouble to point out that sales of motorboats have exploded during the pandemic. I sincerely wonder how it can be so, even today.
Although the pleasure of navigating on our splendid waterways is undeniable, isn’t it time to balance, or even eliminate, practices, hobbies and high carbon intensity activities?
Each of these boats first required the extraction of raw materials, their transport, their machining into a finished product and more transport to bring the new boat to the retailer. Then, the boat must be transported to the chosen water point, using a vehicle powerful enough to do so. During the season, which requires several round trips for owners between their residence and the water point, the boats create the damage that we know, in addition to emitting CO2. They are then removed from this water point and transported again, by SUV, to their storage location for the winter.
PHOTO BERNARD BRAULT, PRESS ARCHIVES
A boat is launched in Saint-Hyppolite.
And all this, for what purpose? Where is the real need? Note that the reasoning could also apply elsewhere such as all-terrain vehicles or snowmobiles, or even cottages. Sometimes, I wonder if urbanization, with the artificialization of the soil and the buzz that we know about it, does not contribute to this massive escape towards the countryside as soon as the opportunity lends itself to it; But that’s another story.
Rethinking our conception of pleasure
Back to our boats. Should changing our behavior be limited simply to bringing our cup to the local café, delaying the replacement of certain goods, using a metal straw, or buying an electric vehicle? There is no doubt that these changes in behavior are beneficial, but shouldn’t they also include more painful renunciations?
Indeed, a text published in the Debates section of July 20 urged the government (again!) to intervene urgently and forcefully to limit emissions from aviation… without ever suggesting that by the time the technology is available for To do this, it would be enough to avoid traveling! After all, does the pollution come from the company or from the demand for its services and products?
It is legitimate, even necessary, to be entertained and to seek pleasure. But at what cost ?
What would be the economic repercussions and the beneficial effects on the fight against climate change if people gave up “superfluous” accessories (or occupations) and found pleasure instead in activities that were more modest, more measured, less harmful to the environment?
Giving up high carbon impact pleasures and replacing them with those found with motorless boats or simply with friends at the museum or the bistro, or at a small outdoor concert, surely could not do any harm. , while meeting our vital needs for social interaction.
Changing our behavior is also that, isn’t it?