• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

Are we skiers helping global climate change?

swampwiz

New member
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
42
Points
0
Reading through the comments of an article I referenced previously in another thread, I noticed this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/us/climate-change-threatens-ski-industrys-livelihood.html

  • Tinah
  • idaho
Downhill skiing has got to be one of the most unsustainable sports that exists, and snowmaking to make up for lack of snow is one of its sickest aspects. How many fossil fuels are burned to make snow for our entertainment? How much does that add to the C02 problem, which warms things up just a little more?

I think the lack of future ski resorts is going to be a very, very small problem compared to a future of more severe storms like Sandy, severe droughts that impact our food and water supplies (hello, do you like to eat?), wildfires that burn our forests, sea level rise, and ocean acidification.

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is occurring and that humans are influencing the climate. And, if you notice in many, many of the recent stories about their findings, they frequently say, "oh, gee, it's worse than we thought.''

Please bring on severe and harsh carbon taxes. And, for Pete's sake, we might want to think a little bit about the absolutely ridiculous idea of producing artificial snow.

Sorry folks -- we should all stop skiing immediately (unless you want to hike up and then ski down a very nearby mountain).

What do you think? It definitely would seem ironic that skiers would be helping to bring about the climate change that would destroy skiing!

But thinking about it, how much energy is expended in making snow? A pump and a few fans? That's not all that much. Heck, there is probably a lot more energy being expended in running the lifts and the customers' cars.
 

bdfreetuna

New member
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Messages
4,300
Points
0
Location
keep the faith
It's an interesting question: Does the environmental impact of skiing outweigh the environmental awareness it promotes?

Many people use $40-$100 worth of gas just to go skiing.

I think ski resorts, on their own, generally have minimal environmental impact. Ski areas should be building wind turbines, or using alternative forms of energy like Killington is doing as much as possible to reduce this impact.

Overall, skiing is something that gets people out in nature and exposes them first hand to the impact of climate change and other environmental issues.

As long as their are still NASCAR races I'm not going to feel the slightest bit guilty for enjoying my sport and way of life.
 

oakapple

New member
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
470
Points
0
Location
New York, NY
As long as their are still NASCAR races I'm not going to feel the slightest bit guilty for enjoying my sport and way of life.

Exactly: As long as we have NASCAR, I'll have a tough time believing that skiing is "one of the most unsustainable sports that exists."
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
10,768
Points
48
Location
PRNJ
Again? Do we really need 1000 global warming threads on a skiing board? Okay, maybe not 1000, but I believe this is now the 4th in about a week.

And now one that claims that downhill skiing is bad for the environment and creating Global Warming?
 
Last edited:

dmc

New member
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
14,275
Points
0
Again? Do we really need 1000 global warming threads on a skiing board? Okay, maybe not 1000, but I believe this is now the 4th in about a week.

Why don't you complain to Paris Hilton?

This is an important issue to many of us...
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
10,768
Points
48
Location
PRNJ
This is an important issue to many of us...


Look, if you believe in man-made global warming, if you REALLY understand the science, and if you REALLY believe in it, then nearly EVERYTHING we do is "bad for the environment".

Creating a super-resistant virus and killing every man, woman, and child on the planet is the "best" thing we can do to "save" earth if you believe in this stuff. The horse is out of the barn if you believe in this stuff, and regulating Belgium or Luxembourg or Swaziland is a JOKE, because the bulk of the "problem" is with the developing world, who wont do ANYTHING about this.

So relax, fire up that SUV, pet your dog (who is killing the planet MORE than your SUV if you REALLY believe this stuff and understand the science), and enjoy your ski vacation.
 

dmc

New member
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
14,275
Points
0
Look, if you believe in man-made global warming, if you REALLY understand the science, and if you REALLY believe in it, then nearly EVERYTHING we do is "bad for the environment".


All i said is it was important to many of us...

You need to chill out a bit.. When you become a moderator here you can control what happens - until then maybe you should just avoid these threads rather than starting with your comments to belittle us and make assumptions about what kind of car we drive...
 

skiNEwhere

New member
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
4,139
Points
0
I find it funny and ironic that it practically takes an act of congress to cut a new tail, let's not even mention build a new ski area, yet thousands of trees are cut down in the amazon every day.

If we don't get our wood from the forest for a few ski trails, we'll just get them somewhere else, so are these environmentalists really winning by blocking a ski resort being built?
 

dmc

New member
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
14,275
Points
0
I find it funny and ironic that it practically takes an act of congress to cut a new tail, let's not even mention build a new ski area, yet thousands of trees are cut down in the amazon every day.

If we don't get our wood from the forest for a few ski trails, we'll just get them somewhere else, so are these environmentalists really winning by blocking a ski resort being built?

again... not the same thing...
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
10,768
Points
48
Location
PRNJ
I find it funny and ironic that it practically takes an act of congress to cut a new tail, let's not even mention build a new ski area, yet thousands of trees are cut down in the amazon every day.

I find it funny and ironic that eating chicken or steak is far worse for the environment than the impact of driving a car (if you REALLY believe this stuff), but yet there is no government movement to force people to eat vegetarian, while there are numerous regulations on cars.

Just goes to show ya, you cant make money taxing a herbivorous state of life.
 

Cannonball

New member
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
Points
0
Location
This user has been deleted
I find it funny and ironic that eating chicken or steak is far worse for the environment than the impact of driving a car (if you REALLY believe this stuff), but yet there is no government movement to force people to eat vegetarian, while there are numerous regulations on cars.

This is a good point and it's nice to see you finally taking an environmental stance. Get that anti factory-farmed chicken and steak movement going and I'll be happy to sign your petition.
 

Rambo

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
889
Points
16
Location
Binghamton, NY
This is a good point and it's nice to see you finally taking an environmental stance. Get that anti factory-farmed chicken and steak movement going and I'll be happy to sign your petition.

Best be careful about saying anything about the mega factory farm/food operations. They sue individuals under "Food Libel" - they do not want people to know how our food like chickens is produced...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...soHoBg&usg=AFQjCNGfIfLK9ddbif5_epx_e2YPOMnPKA

Food libel laws, also known as food disparagement laws and informally asveggie libel laws, are laws passed in 13 U.S. states that make it easier for food producers to sue their critics for libel. These 13 states include Alabama, Arizona,Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio,Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas.[SUP][1][/SUP] Many of the food-disparagement laws establish a lower standard for civil liability and allow for punitive damages and attorney's fees for plaintiffs alone, regardless of the case's outcome.[SUP][2][/SUP]
These laws vary significantly from state to state, but food libel laws typically allow a food manufacturer or processor to sue a person or group who makes disparaging comments about their food products. In some states these laws also establish different standards of proof than are used in traditional American libel lawsuits, including the practice of placing the burden of proof on the party being sued.
 

abc

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
4,360
Points
63
Location
Lower Hudson Valley
regulating Belgium or Luxembourg or Swaziland is a JOKE, because the bulk of the "problem" is with the developing world, who wont do ANYTHING about this.
Right, it's always somebody else doing the harm!

Per capital, the US has one of the highest (actually THE highest) energy consumption. On average, each person in the US uses many times more than one Chinese or one Indian!

Now, there're many more Chinese and Indian than Americans. But guess what, they're copying how Americans are living! So what we use per person, will be multiply by billion times.

Enjoy your SUV and artificial snow. They're doing the same in Beijing, only many times more of of the same!!!
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
10,768
Points
48
Location
PRNJ
This is a good point and it's nice to see you finally taking an environmental stance. Get that anti factory-farmed chicken and steak movement going and I'll be happy to sign your petition.

Wouldn't make any difference in the long-run.

It would be like trying to change the salinity of the ocean by pissing in it. The human act of meat consumption itself is the problem, IF, that is, you believe in man-made Global Warming (which I dont).

My point is, it should make people wonder why all the government and political focus is on taxing "big business" and regulating "SUVs" and "car manufacturers", when not eating vegetarian is a FAR bigger problem.

Or, alternatively, why owning a pet dog is worse than owning an SUV (which almost nobody knows, because it's not publicized, because that too would harm the "religion").

The reason they dont go after this more substantial problem is twofold:

1) You cant get millions of dollars in tax by telling people not to eat meat
2) If politicians told people eating chicken cordon bleu and hamburgers was "evil" they'd lose election

The same two reasons apply to the pet ownership thing too.
 

dmc

New member
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
14,275
Points
0
3). Rich people don't want to admit global warming exists or they'll lose billions. See Koch brothers.
 

BeefyBoy50

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2012
Messages
149
Points
0
Location
Norristown, PA
Compare skiing as a sport to others such as the NFL/ NBA/ MLB. In each of these sports, hundreds of thousands of people drive many miles each week to lots of different games all across the country- many times the amount of people who ski. They sit on the interstate spewing CO2 and other emissions into the atmosphere and consuming fuel at a crazy rate. Sure skiing is certainly not good on climate change or efficient by any means of the word, but we have to keep scale in mind here. Atleast skiing promotes climate awareness- people who ski or snowboard know that the climate affects the sport they love, and therefore they have to protect the environment for their own sport. Normal sports fans probably think nothing of the thousands if not millions of gallons of gas guzzled for every one of their games.
 

Blizzard of Wahhs

New member
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
114
Points
0
Answer: Yes, skiers are helping global climate change by enhancing CO2 emissions and participating indirectly in deforestation. These inputs increase the rate and/or overall amount of GHGs emitted while reducing the net CO2 eaters on planet earff.

/thread
 

ScottySkis

Active member
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
11,990
Points
38
Location
Middletown NY
Wouldn't make any difference in the long-run.

It would be like trying to change the salinity of the ocean by pissing in it. The human act of meat consumption itself i



1) You cant get millions of dollars in tax by telling people not to eat meat
2) If politicians told people eating chicken cordon bleu and hamburgers was "evil" they'd lose election


I know one thing that can be made legal and taxed and save our economy, end of thread hijack now.
 
Top