Are we skiers helping global climate change?

BenedictGomez · Oct 31, 2014

Judder said:
Tourism = absolutely vital to the VT economy. The way it currently works = unsustainable and killing winter as we know it.

People driving to Vermont is "killing winter" is it? Wow. I never knew how low the Global Warming (aka rebranded Climate Change) bar could be set.

Judder said:
When you have thousands of SUVs driving hundreds of miles each weekend just to play in the snow, that's just a kick in the balls to mother nature, climate, and our energy resources. Sh!t aint sustainable for long. I'm to blame for this too; I need my car for everything.

Do you eat meat (hamburger, steak, chicken, hotdogs)?

Do you own a pet dog or cats or horses?

Because IF (and it sounds like you do) you believe the IPCC science claiming that man is to blame for Global Warming, then EITHER of those activities above are worse than driving an SUV. So why are you focusing on fuel?

fbrissette · Oct 31, 2014

BenedictGomez said:
People driving to Vermont is "killing winter" is it? Wow. I never knew how low the Global Warming (aka rebranded Climate Change) bar could be set.

Do you eat meat (hamburger, steak, chicken, hotdogs)?

Do you own a pet dog or cats or horses?

Because IF (and it sounds like you do) you believe the IPCC science claiming that man is to blame for Global Warming, then EITHER of those activities above are worse than driving an SUV. So why are you focusing on fuel?

Despite what it written in the internet, the claim that a pet consumes more energy than an SUV is not true, and I'm pretty sure you know that. Comparing fuel consumption to food energy without any consideration to lifecycle (of both the fuel and SUV) is plain dumb and not scientific.

I'll give you that pets do nonetheless have a non-negligible carbon footprint. However, using this as an excuse to not to act on another front is weak at best.

VTKilarney · Oct 31, 2014

Morality is not going to change whether or not people drive SUVs to Vermont to go skiing. What will affect behavior is cost. Costs need to increase by quite a bit before behavior is affected in any meaningful way.

It's a double edged sword. If government increases costs through taxation in order to impact behavior, it would be extremely regressive. Al Gore can absorb the increased cost much easier than someone driving to their job at the local motel.

Domeskier · Oct 31, 2014

I don't even own a car, but I bet I do more harm to the environment in a single international flight than these weekend warriors do all season with their SUVs. I am ashamed.

BenedictGomez · Oct 31, 2014

fbrissette said:
Despite what it written in the internet, the claim that a pet consumes more energy than an SUV is not true, and I'm pretty sure you know that. Comparing fuel consumption to food energy without any consideration to lifecycle (of both the fuel and SUV) is plain dumb and not scientific.

I'll give you that pets do nonetheless have a non-negligible carbon footprint. However, using this as an excuse to not to act on another front is weak at best.

IF you believe the IPCC:

Eating meat is worse than driving, even if you drive an "evil" SUV.

Owning pets can be worse than driving, depending on how many dogs/cats/animals you own and their size (i.e teacup chihuahuas versus Mastiffs) and what you feed them (SEE: Eating meat is worse than driving). True the pets thing isn't an absolute, I'll give you that, but even if it's somewhat "close", why do you suppose you never hear people say that "owning pets is evil", but "driving SUVs" is? Why do you suppose we dont constantly hear from the politicians that "eating meat" is evil? Do you have an answer for that, because I'm genuinely curious.

dlague · Oct 31, 2014

fbrissette said:
Despite what it written in the internet, the claim that a pet consumes more energy than an SUV is not true, and I'm pretty sure you know that. Comparing fuel consumption to food energy without any consideration to lifecycle (of both the fuel and SUV) is plain dumb and not scientific.

I'll give you that pets do nonetheless have a non-negligible carbon footprint. However, using this as an excuse to not to act on another front is weak at best.

Wow this debate took place last winter! If you want to look the overall picture then concert promoters, professional sports teams, concentration of corporations with in cities, etc are all to blame. In reality there could be a single natural event like volcanos (for example) that can change the climate dramatically! Skier traffic to ski areas in like a fart in the wind! there are about 16 million skiers at best averaging 6 days per year. There are over 300 million in the US - ALL of those non skiers are going somewhere else!

BenedictGomez · Oct 31, 2014

Domeskier said:
I don't even own a car, but I bet I do more harm to the environment in a single international flight than these weekend warriors do all season with their SUVs. I am ashamed.

Why? Didn't you get the memo? You can do as much damage to the planet as you want as long as you purchase "carbon offsets".

Whenever you're in doubt, just ask yourself WWLDD (What Would Leonardo DiCaprio Do).

BenedictGomez · Oct 31, 2014

dlague said:
Skier traffic to ski areas in like a fart in the wind!

Yes, that was my initial point.

Or, alternatively, skier traffic is like 1/1,000,000,000th of a Chinese baby fart.

Domeskier · Oct 31, 2014

BenedictGomez said:
Why? Didn't you get the memo? You can do as much damage to the planet as you want as long as you purchase "carbon offsets".

Whenever you're in doubt, just ask yourself WWLDD (What Would Leonardo DiCaprio Do).

I wonder if he'll drive me to Sundown this winter if I promise to plant a petunia.

deadheadskier · Oct 31, 2014

Judder said:
Just trying to stir some sh!t up.

I think you all are missing this part of the post.......

Scruffy · Oct 31, 2014

Time to lock another thread!

You assholes that want to talk global warming in a ski forum, go find "I'm always correct, and your views are wrong, about global warming forum" to c#nt up.

Jesus Fing Crips Give it a Fucking rest!

jack97 · Oct 31, 2014

fbrissette · Oct 31, 2014

dlague said:
Wow this debate took place last winter! If you want to look the overall picture then concert promoters, professional sports teams, concentration of corporations with in cities, etc are all to blame. In reality there could be a single natural event like volcanos (for example) that can change the climate dramatically! Skier traffic to ski areas in like a fart in the wind! there are about 16 million skiers at best averaging 6 days per year. There are over 300 million in the US - ALL of those non skiers are going somewhere else!

I am not arguing that driving to the mountain is bad. I simply said that the lifecycle carbon footprint of a SUV is larger than that of a pet. That's it. Ne need to jump. I fully agree that driving to the mountain is a drop in the ocean.

fbrissette · Oct 31, 2014

BenedictGomez said:
IF you believe the IPCC:
Eating meat is worse than driving,

You will not find this in any official IPCC document.

BenedictGomez said:
Why do you suppose we dont constantly hear from the politicians that "eating meat" is evil? Do you have an answer for that, because I'm genuinely curious.

Because politicians are mostly clueless idiots or agenda-driven self-serving asses (and often both).

bdfreetuna · Oct 31, 2014

Please visit this link folks, it is an interactive history of weather modification (mostly in the USA).

In the last 10 years, as climate fear has increased, so have weather modification projects increased in the field.

If you go through this timeline you'll have a better idea what we're dealing with. Climate change IS caused by humans, but not for the reasons many of you seem to believe.

http://climateviewer.com/weather-control/

bdfreetuna · Oct 31, 2014

The goal of scaring people into believing that any year now we'll be under water is to introduce worldwide geo-engineering.

Bill Gates, JASON Group, Raytheon, Boeing, David Keith, Ken Caldeira are all pushing this.

The National Science Foundation along with NASA and NOAA have already proven solar radiation management works in the field.

If enough people think the world is about to end, they will demand geo-engineering. Yes, they'll demand 40 million tonnes of sulphuric acid, titanium and aluminum be introduced into the stratosphere every year to reproduce the effects of a volcano.

We are rapidly heading in this direction. The weather experiments alone are myriad. When actual SRM geo-E starts, you can expect not to see blue skies for quite a long time. And this looks to begin in earnest within a year or a few years.

bobbutts · Oct 31, 2014

Resident know it all complains about number of climate change threads, then proceeds to post 20 times in each.

Edd · Oct 31, 2014

This thread has taken a most excellent turn.

BenedictGomez · Oct 31, 2014

fbrissette said:
You will not find this in any official IPCC document.

There are multiple IPCC members who have publicly stated we should become vegetarians to "combat" climate change because eating meat is bad for the planet, and yes, worse than driving.

From the BBC:

A 2006 report concluded meat production was responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions - more than transport.......Leading figures in the climate change establishment, such as Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chairman Rajendra Pachauri and Lord (Nicholas) Stern, have also quoted the 18% figure as a reason why people should consider eating less meat.

Cannonball · Oct 31, 2014

BenedictGomez said:
There are multiple IPCC members who have publicly stated we should become vegetarians to "combat" climate change because eating meat is bad for the planet, and yes, worse than driving.

Believe it or not, it is possible for more than one thing at a time to be important. I know that makes things a little complicated for your cue cards, but it's true.

Just because Tyson's right was deadly, doesn't mean you'd be fine getting hit with his left.

Are we skiers helping global climate change?

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Active member

New member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Similar threads