Extending ski seasons

[STG]

Mike:

It does appear that snowmaking has environmental issues: http://www.outsideonline.com/1904791/na ... aking-snow. I don't ski at developed areas, but I do drive a long ways to ski YNP. So for me to criticize mechanized skiing as being environmentally damaging, I have to look at my contribution to the problem by driving. The West and Intermountain West have had to deal with many drought years/cycles. I think the tide against snowmaking will happen when local communities (at a county level) become vocal against ski resorts using public water for recreation when drought conditions or water rationing exists. Competing interests (e.g., agriculture, fisheries, communities) will not like scarce water used for play.

Off topic: I just purchased a pair of Asnes skis-KONGSVOLD. I thought I had my gear addiction under control. On topic: How much energy to make those skis and how much energy to transport them from Colorado to Montana?

[MikeK]

Oh I drive too. Driving is one of the worst. 2nd worst to electricity production... in which we can lump almost everything. Agriculture is really bad - you shouldn't eat, especially meat. I haven't learned photosynthesis yet, so I'm still eating...

All our skis are made with electric power from raw materials that were extracted somehow, and not free of energy. Then they are shipped all over the world, usually using diesel and gasoline. It ain't good.

At least the auto industry can say it's going in the right direction. The right direction would be to stop, but it's not going to. It's highly regulated and some day it's going to be zero carbon, zero emission. But before that can happen, the energy industry needs to be zero carbon, zero emission. That's a long way off.

Guess I shouldn't be upset with the ski industry, but I am. It really isn't ALL their fault our winters keep getting shorter, but they have a part. We all do, everything does. Guess the point is I like to see things start to go the other way. Use less energy. Start scaling back. Do more with less. Seems most industry is not going that way.

Part of me wonders what skiing would be like if it was still all small hills and tow ropes. Or skiing to ski - no high speed lifts, no snowmaking, no giant resorts. Maybe just run by the towns on public land. Kind of like it used to be. I bet those times were cool. Maybe then it wouldn't be such a big deal if you had a thin winter...

[fisheater]

Mike it is obvious you are a thoughtful guy, but I am not into banning things just because I could consider them wasteful, or because I feel they use too much carbon. Climate has changed dramatically over the earth's history. However those that push for the most government control over carbon emissions are those that are enriching themselves. You can start with Al Gore and move on from there. While the climate of the earth is complicated too little attention is currently being placed on solar activity in my opinion. The bottom line is climate laws are being pushed by those whom favor economic central planning.
I find it very difficult to take seriously national scale politicians that bemoan global warming that do not seek to expand nuclear power. I am all for various renewable methods, but society as we know cannot exist without energy produced by mass economies of scale. There are small regions like the Niagara Valley that can produce hydro-power on an industrial basis. Other than those unique places, it is either fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Furthermore if we allow government to restrict energy use the overall economy will suffer and we will decrease in wealth. The less wealthy a society is the more polluting it becomes. That would be until the population collapses, and the society goes back to hunting gathering, without smelting of iron, etc.

Since I mentioned nuclear energy I thought I would mention a little about Fukushima. The Fukushima reactors started construction in 1967 and I believe they were completed in 1972. Technology has increased tremendously since that time. Geographically the Fukushima location is not the safest location for a nuclear reactor. Tsunamis and earthquake prone locations are not the best locations for nuclear reactors. We could build plants in safer locations. We also have a facility to dispose of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. The science is much more conclusive of it's suitability than the science on global warming.

In my opinion, the leaders of the global warming movement world wide are a class of politicians attempting to secure power and wealth at the expense of hard working people with good intentions.

As far as snowmaking, I do not enjoy the resort experience as much as the backcountry experience. I certainly do not enjoy paying for lift tickets. I think the prices are further pushed by brutal grooming and terrain parks. That being said, sometimes it is the only game in town. Another thought also, is that well snowmaking uses energy, it probably does not produce as much carbon emissions as twisting the throttle on a sled. In northern lower Michigan businesses close in lean snow years without snowmobilers.

Connyro, I used to have a buddy that was a pro patroller at a resort with views of the Carp River as well as Lake Superior. There was a ten year stretch I logged quite a few days there. I still have a dent in my knee cap from a rock that only had a inch of snow over it, when the rest of the slope had two feet of powder. It was a named run at one time, but it was closed the day I dented my knee cap. I was young and lucky that day. It took to the bottom of the run to "walk it off" and that was the extent of my suffering. Twenty years later I can still feel the dent.

[MikeK]

I'm not suggesting we ban anything. Banning and having legislature that guides society in the correct direction are two different things. Eventually these things become obsolete or so little used that it's not an issue anymore, kind of like using horses for transportation.

I don't necessarily like to bring up politics here. Two things that go bad on forums are politics and personal character attacks. But with that caveat placed, I'll mention one thing that doesn't seem obvious to a lot of people: Capitalism IS NOT conducive to preserving the environment. There are, by means of supply and demand, no reason for anyone to ever consider environmental impacts. It simply does not compute in the calculus of growing an economy. People realized this after the first industrial revolution (and also issues of workers rights) and that's why we saw the formation of the park systems and the government started managing public lands. The EPA took this a step further to try to regulate industries at the source. Now there are slews of different regulations that govern everything. Because there has to be. If there wasn't, those that were counting the beans would go in the direction that would make them the most money.

It's the same for ski resorts. It's the reason most of them don't make excess snow. They don't have a good business model to make money beyond a certain date in spring. If people are willing to pay, they will. Killington manages to stay open until June and makes enough money to keep it viable. If they didn't, well they would have went out of business.

Despite all the rules and regs, it's really that simple: one person wants to make money, the next wants to preserve and protect what we have. Since our first conservation movement in this country around the turn of the 19th century, that's what the battle has been. It doesn't matter if it's skis, bikes, houses, cars... whatever... it all comes down to that.

I'm not anti-progress. I'm not anti-capitalist. But really it's up the people to decide. Decide the direction that keeps the best balance. We'll always destroy the environment, it's the nature of who humans are. We propagate our species very well and we require a vast amount of resources. But the larger the world populations become, the harder it becomes to control, and the larger the quantity of pollutants becomes. And by the same token, our capitalist machine must keep eating resources and spitting our trinkets to grow... or else it topples. I honestly don't think it can sustain itself at it's current level. We can't exploit workers as much anymore to increase profits. We can't exploit natural resources as easily anymore to increase the bottom line. There is a limit. We are rapidly approaching it.

At some point humanity will have to realize "more" is not the way. It's hard to do. Your very nature asks for it. Our model of what it means to be an American revolves around it.

[fisheater]

Mike, I didn't say you were proposing a ban on snowmaking, but I did say I was against banning things of that nature. I certainly do not want to be be rude or a boor, but I did express a direct opinion on an issue that will become more central to all of our lives.
I agree with you about capitalism. Man has two economic vices, men are inherently lazy and greedy. Capitalism only checks the laziness of man. No less than John Paul II said something to the effect that there was nothing inherently good or holy about capitalism. I also wish ski resorts had less frills, so maybe I might be inclined to ski their machine made snow when the woods are brown.
I did respond to your post offering a differing outlook. It was not done out of disrespect, but out of passion. I know passion sounds like a weird word for the subject, but I have lived long enough not to trust things that just don't ring true to me.
My apologies if I caused offense, but not for my opinion. Maybe I'll just be more careful about expressing my more controversial opinions.

[MikeK]

Don't worry - I'm not offended. It will take much more than that for you to offend me.

It's good to have points from every perspective.

Perhaps some people read what I write as contrarian or authoritative. My intent when writing is not even close to that.