riverc0il
New member
Enough trolling each other, more intellectual discourse. Please!
I suspect skiers do vastly more harm driving and flying to ski areas than the ski areas themselves do making and grooming snow. And then factor in creating all the gear, shipping that gear, replacing that gear, building and fueling and heating and stocking resort homes and lodging, etc. In the grand scheme of things, energy for snow making is a drop in the bucket compared to even just the jet fuel for destination tripping, let alone driving to the resorts in the local market.
The problem with this argument is the slippery slope. Who is arbitrarily going to decide what is sustainable and what is not? Sitting at home, typing this message on my laptop with a second monitor, two lights going, and a heat source going is using energy. Anything else I do beyond that is using exponentially more. Even for those that walk or bike to work, their work is using energy. Where do we draw the line?
How about watching sports? How much energy goes into a major sporting event? Travel for everyone involved, all the news/media equipment, building stadiums, everyone driving to the stadium. Isn't that a waste?
How many miles do flatlander metro hikers drive every year to hike mountains? You would think that hiking isn't bad for the environment but many people burn 1/2 to a full tank of gas to get from the city to the mountains every weekend for their own personal enjoyment of the outdoors. Should we shame hikers that they are destroying the outdoors they love by driving to them?
No. We need to get past this type of thinking. If individuals personally feel that making sacrifices is important, then cool. Nature will inflict its own penalties and we will adapt. We already are seeing financial penalties: if you don't use fuel efficiently, you pay more. As we burn more fuel, that financial pain will continue to get worse. If a changing climate affects snowfall totals, then we'll have to accept that painful change. The world will keep spinning, those of us that care will do what we think is appropriate. But ultimately environmental changes that cause financial pain will be the only thing that ultimately will and should effect decisions on how we go about our lives, do the things we enjoy, and recreate. Otherwise, it is a slippery slope towards lighting candles to read, not driving, and tanking the economy into ruin.
And all that doesn't mean I don't think humans have made their own bed and should make reasonable decisions about improving things. It is just the way it is. I'm going to keep on skiing, I'm going to keep on contributing to the problem, and I'm not going to feel guilty about that. And I suspect everyone reading this board is in the same boat.
I suspect skiers do vastly more harm driving and flying to ski areas than the ski areas themselves do making and grooming snow. And then factor in creating all the gear, shipping that gear, replacing that gear, building and fueling and heating and stocking resort homes and lodging, etc. In the grand scheme of things, energy for snow making is a drop in the bucket compared to even just the jet fuel for destination tripping, let alone driving to the resorts in the local market.
The problem with this argument is the slippery slope. Who is arbitrarily going to decide what is sustainable and what is not? Sitting at home, typing this message on my laptop with a second monitor, two lights going, and a heat source going is using energy. Anything else I do beyond that is using exponentially more. Even for those that walk or bike to work, their work is using energy. Where do we draw the line?
How about watching sports? How much energy goes into a major sporting event? Travel for everyone involved, all the news/media equipment, building stadiums, everyone driving to the stadium. Isn't that a waste?
How many miles do flatlander metro hikers drive every year to hike mountains? You would think that hiking isn't bad for the environment but many people burn 1/2 to a full tank of gas to get from the city to the mountains every weekend for their own personal enjoyment of the outdoors. Should we shame hikers that they are destroying the outdoors they love by driving to them?
No. We need to get past this type of thinking. If individuals personally feel that making sacrifices is important, then cool. Nature will inflict its own penalties and we will adapt. We already are seeing financial penalties: if you don't use fuel efficiently, you pay more. As we burn more fuel, that financial pain will continue to get worse. If a changing climate affects snowfall totals, then we'll have to accept that painful change. The world will keep spinning, those of us that care will do what we think is appropriate. But ultimately environmental changes that cause financial pain will be the only thing that ultimately will and should effect decisions on how we go about our lives, do the things we enjoy, and recreate. Otherwise, it is a slippery slope towards lighting candles to read, not driving, and tanking the economy into ruin.
And all that doesn't mean I don't think humans have made their own bed and should make reasonable decisions about improving things. It is just the way it is. I'm going to keep on skiing, I'm going to keep on contributing to the problem, and I'm not going to feel guilty about that. And I suspect everyone reading this board is in the same boat.
