Skiing's Future

Ripitz said:
on average 52% of an individual's carbon footprint for a day's skiing came in travel to the resort.
Click to expand...
I didn't know the number, but I always assumed this to be true (ie the travel had the greatest impact).
 
Ripitz said:
on average 52% of an individual's carbon footprint for a day's skiing came in travel to the resort.

Another reason why ski bumming is better. Skinning even betterer.
Click to expand...
Skinning is only betterer environmentally if everyone does it. The lifts and groomers still run whether one skins or rides the lifts. Plus, you are still driving to a mountain to skin (let alone purchasing the specialized gear).

If 52% is dedicated to just travel, and resort operations take up a sizeable portion, are they also factoring in costs of building, operating, and maintaining tourism infrastructure to house and feed everyone that isn't day tripping? What about second home impacts? How many houses are built just to sit vacant for the vast majority of the year?

Resort net zero emissions by XXXX date is greenwashing. I doubt resorts are investing in anything that costs them money rather than saves the money long-term. Which is a good place to start, since it is a win-win.

I am glad ski resorts are moving towards renewables and reducing their carbon footprint. But as long as we keep showing up, we are the drivers of this hot mess. A skiing lifestyle is horrifically reckless from an environmental perspective.

I don't think it is fatalistic to believe there is no way to slow this thing down sufficiently. It is tragedy of the commons on a global scale. We are not wired to cooperate on that level, most of us will not make the sacrifices required to mitigate the problem. Certainly, none of us are going to stop skiing, despite knowing our personal impacts.
 
riverc0il said:
Skinning is only betterer environmentally if everyone does it. The lifts and groomers still run whether one skins or rides the lifts. Plus, you are still driving to a mountain to skin (let alone purchasing the specialized gear).

If 52% is dedicated to just travel, and resort operations take up a sizeable portion, are they also factoring in costs of building, operating, and maintaining tourism infrastructure to house and feed everyone that isn't day tripping? What about second home impacts? How many houses are built just to sit vacant for the vast majority of the year?

Resort net zero emissions by XXXX date is greenwashing. I doubt resorts are investing in anything that costs them money rather than saves the money long-term. Which is a good place to start, since it is a win-win.

I am glad ski resorts are moving towards renewables and reducing their carbon footprint. But as long as we keep showing up, we are the drivers of this hot mess. A skiing lifestyle is horrifically reckless from an environmental perspective.

I don't think it is fatalistic to believe there is no way to slow this thing down sufficiently. It is tragedy of the commons on a global scale. We are not wired to cooperate on that level, most of us will not make the sacrifices required to mitigate the problem. Certainly, none of us are going to stop skiing, despite knowing our personal impacts.
Click to expand...
the hard truths.

I think the bottom line is that humans aren't wired for sustainable living.
 
If you read the article they specifically cite air-travel as the driver of that 52% figure. I think I read once that a single person on a shorter haul flight (think a few hours) emits as much C02 as if they just drove the same distance. I always find it ironic that left leaning people who ostensibly care about climate change, are the ones who seem to fly around the world on frivolous vacations the most, while having zero regard for it. Sure, maybe they'll buy a Tesla or put a solar panel on their roof, but give up or at least reduce air-travel? NEVER.

Nothing is going to change until the cost of the CO2 you emit on your long weekend to Turks and Caicos is accurately priced in.
 
So with regard to the 52% number--- if people aren't flying or driving to the mountains then they will be flying and/or driving elsewhere to engage in other activities, so I see that as a wash.

Overall as far as humanity is concerned I see it as a EPIC FAIL that we has humans haven't found a better way to produce energy other than primarily with burning decayed organics. Regardless of what side of the argument you're oil is a finite resource. According to BP Energy, maybe 2067 and current reserves are gone. Modern society dies without electricity, so we'd better start treating this like a global emergency.

I was listening to a podcast and they were talking about how the average temperature in Aspen has increased by ~3F since the 1940's. I then found these charts in this article. https://www.aspendailynews.com/news...cle_d089629e-2453-11ea-a00a-3ffdea573610.html

It really doesn't look good. Maybe the planet just keeps heating and life dies off, rotting and we all become the petroleum for a future civilization. Hopefully the next one is disciplined enough to figure it out in time.

1670784938736.png
1670785348043.png
 
TheGreatAbyss said:
If you read the article they specifically cite air-travel as the driver of that 52% figure.
Click to expand...
I once read that you produce less CO2 driving coast-to-coast vs flying. That seems impossible to me if the airplane is full. But I keep hearing it over and over.
Andy_ROC said:
So with regard to the 52% number--- if people aren't flying or driving to the mountains then they will be flying and/or driving elsewhere to engage in other activities, so I see that as a wash.
Click to expand...
When I don't ski, I stay home. Not trying to imply I am normal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
© Copyright 2008 - 2024 NYSkiBlog
Join | Subscribe | Advertise | Privacy
NYSkiBlog is for the rest of us: regular people with a sense of adventure, who love to ski.
We zig when they zag. To connect with us, follow us:
NYSkiBlog Facebook.
NYSkiBlog Twitter.
NYSkiBlog Instagram.
NYSkiBlog RSS.
Back
Top