 Poster: A snowHead
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| ...a load of stuff about how he doesn't like High Altitude and disapproves of heli-skiing because it's expensive and environmentally unfriendly |
I very much doubt a few elite heli-skiers are melting any glaciers. You might want to consider the bigger picture.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Mon 2-02-09 22:22; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| johnnyh wrote: |
| No, heli-skiing is about the skiing not the heli ride therefore you can achieve this as DG and others have said via skins and a bit of effort. Heli-skiing = FAIL. |
I would suggest that for most people who participate, heli-skiing is either a profession or a once in a lifetime holiday. People waste energy in so many ways during their everyday lives, that heli-skiing is totally irrelevant. If we all decided to cut heli-skiing out of our lives, it's not like we'd be wondering what to replace it with every weekend FFS. So why judge people based on something they may have done only once or twice in their lifetime?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| johnnyh wrote: |
| No, heli-skiing is about the skiing not the heli ride therefore you can achieve this as DG and others have said via skins and a bit of effort. Heli-skiing = FAIL. |
I would suggest that for most people who participate, heli-skiing is either a profession or a once in a lifetime holiday. People waste energy in so many ways during their everyday lives, that heli-skiing is totally irrelevant. If we all decided to cut heli-skiing out of our lives, it's not like we'd be wondering what to replace it with every weekend FFS. So why judge people based on something they may have done only once or twice in their lifetime? |
Nicely put 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
uktrailmonster, Not that I'm getting involved in this pointless debate. I feel its best to have a flexible view upon science and controversial issues such as climate change (Global warming is a word that irritates me as it simply isn't strictly true).
An extreme example, but one that dismisses your last point. I could murder once or twice in my life time, and I would expect to be judged and rightly so. Therefore yes it is acceptable to judge people for something they do a couple of times.
I feel there is a lot of reverse snobbery and hypocracy in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
David Goldsmith, PLEASE.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Unfortunately David has opened up a whole can of worms confusing the heliskiing debate with global warming. Well done lad.
As I said previously. Pressure groups, such as Mountain Wildernesss, who lead the campaign against heliskiing in Europe are principally opposed to the nuisance factor not global warming. If you live in the mountains having helicopters buzzing over your head all day it is extremely unpleasant. It is already enough with the rescue services and other work copters. In France tourist flights are restricted for the "wider interest". I'm not sure the oil question was ever anything to do with it. The initial ban in the Mont-Blanc range was taken by Giscard and was extended by Mitterand in the early 80s basically on a nuisance reason.
| Vipa wrote: |
| coming down requires a skill set that probably a good 50-75% of us here have, going up is a whole different ball game! |
that is where you are wrong and it is one of the dangers of helisking. The heliskier is dumped into a high mountain environment of which he understands very little. He may be able to ski the snow but would be lost without a guide. It is like those folk who get dragged to the top of Everest. They shouldn't be there.
If you want thrills, buy a playstation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The daft thing about the ban on helisking in france is that while you can't get dropped off on the top of the mountains there is a guy with a house just outside corchevel with no roads to so he helis in each day. Does this not cause just as much nuisance and pollution and hes not even getting the kick of skiing big mountain lines out of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| davidof wrote: |
| Vipa wrote: |
| coming down requires a skill set that probably a good 50-75% of us here have, going up is a whole different ball game! |
that is where you are wrong and it is one of the dangers of helisking. The heliskier is dumped into a high mountain environment of which he understands very little. He may be able to ski the snow but would be lost without a guide. It is like those folk who get dragged to the top of Everest. They shouldn't be there.
If you want thrills, buy a playstation. |
You have taken a section of my post and used it out of context.... 50-75% of us here are probably good enough skiers to be able to cope with a middle of the road powder drop in alaska.... the rest of my post when read in full makes it quite clear that I feel probably only 1% of us (and I certainly don't include myself in that) are skilled enough to get up and survive high mountains..
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
There is no reason in the world why one could not off-set a heliride. A 45-minute helicopter tour emits approximately 160 kg of CO2/passenger depending on the age and model of the chopper and the fuel it uses. To off-set that would cost some 3 euro. In the price tag of a heliskiing trip that is minimal.
For comparison, a six-hour scenic drive in your family car will emit appr. 45 kg of CO2/passenger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ahhh....carbon offsetting. Another can of worms opened and not a Goldsmith in sight !!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
demos, are you sure you mean kg
i am with davidof on this. it's not so question of being in favour of heli-skiing or not IMO. i am OK with heli-skiing in appropriate places but (IMO) most of the alps are not appropriate because of the noise/nuisance factor*. in the back of beyond in Canada it is a completely different thing - helis are the only practical way of getting to many places and there isn't much human or animal life to disturb
Vipa, I do think you are under a misconception. it takes much more skill to ski down a mountain than climb up the same mountain (assuming you use the same route). the two european heli drops I can think of (Rosablanche and Pigne d'Arolla) are pretty straightforward climbs, albeit that you need to commit a bit of time and energy to getting up there.
* i am a bit of a hypocrite here because i have used the heli service in Alpe d'Huez
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
I went heli-skiing last week for the first time (Trient) - it was excellent. Thankfully this thread didn't exist then so I had a guilt-free trip  . I don't own a car though - can someone let me know the appropriate level of shame I should be feeling?
Oh, and I enjoyed High Altitude, although I preferred it when they bundled these bits into the Ski Sunday show proper. There's clearly no hope for me!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Christopher wrote: |
An extreme example, but one that dismisses your last point. I could murder once or twice in my life time, and I would expect to be judged and rightly so. Therefore yes it is acceptable to judge people for something they do a couple of times.
|
Yes that's an extreme example and in no way dismisses my point. Murdering someone (which is illegal) and going on a heli skiing trip (which is not illegal) are in no way comparable acts. If you want to judge someone in terms of their green prowess, then you need to look at how they lead their everyday lives. I doubt whether the odd heli trip will be a significant factor in any of our lifetime carbon footprints.
Anyone who feels that strongly about the environment shouldn't be visiting ski resorts anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
Vipa wrote:
coming down requires a skill set that probably a good 50-75% of us here have, going up is a whole different ball game!
that is where you are wrong and it is one of the dangers of helisking. The heliskier is dumped into a high mountain environment of which he understands very little.
|
I think this is a really important point. There is an understanding of the (mountain) environment which many (somewhat arrogant and selfish) skiers appear not only to lack but also appear to not want to engage with in case it spoils their fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Arno, yes, I mean kg. It may sound like a lot, but helicopters are quite inefficient... I googled some data, though I have no idea what type of a helicopter a heliski service would use:
Robinson R22 - 35 liters/hour or 9 US gal/hr
Bell 206 Jet Ranger - 115/30
Bell 206 Long Ranger - 150/40
Eurocopter AS350B2 - 180/47
Bell 212 - 430/115
Agusta A119 - 260/65
For the sake of argument, let's say it's roughly 170l/hour, but it may easily go up to 230/hour if the speed high and load is sufficient. The fuel they use is jet fuel and it has approximately the same CO2 efficiency as ordinary fuel, i.e. some 3kg/litre. Count it from there.
Unlike shipping emissions, which are based on g/tkm (grams of GHGs per tons transported times distance transported), human cargo is usually measured in kg/100pkm (or kilograms of GHGs per 100 passenger kilometers. This takes into account the number of passengers, but not the crew, and helps in comparing different aircraft and fleet emissions on a per-customer basis.
I found an example from the web: say that a helicopter transports 4 people over 615 km with 419 liters of Jet A fuel. 419 liters would result in 1,257 kg of GHGs if we take the 3kg/litre as the basis. This needs to be adjusted form our passenger-kms of 2,460 (4 people x 615 km) to 100 pkm. So we divide 1,257 by 24.6 (2,460/100) to get 51.1 kg/100pkm.
Whatever way you look at this, it's an enormous amount. It is almost five times more than the average emissions of the Lufthansa jet fleet per 100pkm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| Christopher wrote: |
An extreme example, but one that dismisses your last point. I could murder once or twice in my life time, and I would expect to be judged and rightly so. Therefore yes it is acceptable to judge people for something they do a couple of times.
|
Yes that's an extreme example and in no way dismisses my point. Murdering someone (which is illegal) and going on a heli skiing trip (which is not illegal) are in no way comparable acts. If you want to judge someone in terms of their green prowess, then you need to look at how they lead their everyday lives. I doubt whether the odd heli trip will be a significant factor in any of our lifetime carbon footprints.
Anyone who feels that strongly about the environment shouldn't be visiting ski resorts anyway. |
There's almost no point judging the "carbon footprint" (what a terrible phrase that is anyway) of individuals. You may as well blame the extent of the Thai tsunami on someone who once pissed in the sea when they were a toddler.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| demos wrote: |
Arno, The fuel they use is jet fuel and it has approximately the same CO2 efficiency as ordinary fuel, i.e. some 3kg/litre. Count it from there.
|
I've never understood this.... How can a liquid with a mass of approx .75kgs produce a gas with a mass of 3kgs when burned? I'm sure I'm missunderstanding something here, any scientists out there to help?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Vipa wrote: |
| I've never understood this.... How can a liquid with a mass of approx .75kgs produce a gas with a mass of 3kgs when burned? I'm sure I'm missunderstanding something here, any scientists out there to help? |
that's what made me doubt whether it really was kgs - maybe it's because the carbon from the fuel reacts with oxygen from the air. no doubt a proper scientist will explain!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Oxidisation, presumably.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vipa, petrochemical fuels are essentially hydrocarbon chains (a chain of carbon atoms, with two hydrogen atoms for each carbon atom, plus one on each end). One such "alkane" molecule is called Octane, or C8H18, which has a molecular weight of 114 g/mol (one mol is equal to 6.02 x 10^23 molecules). Let's assume, for sake of argument, that gasoline consists solely of Octane.
Fuel makes up one critical part of the fire triangle (fuel, oxygen, heat), a car engine adds the other two, oxygen from the air intake, and heat from the spark plug spark (without one of these, there's no fire). When combustion occurs a chemical reaction releases heat (which expands the air in the engine and provides the energy that moves the car) and breaks up the C8H18. Since the broken up C and H atoms are lonely they grab hold of the O's and form new molecules. These include for example C02 (carbon dioxide) and H20 (water vapor). In the absence of enough oxygen CO (carbon monoxide) forms, and sometimes Nitrogen from the intake air forms NOx (any number of different nitrogen oxides).
One 114 g/mol Octane molecule and 25 O's (roughly 13 O2's, because they are in pairs, weighing 32 g/mol each) join forces to make 8 CO2 molecules (44 g/mol) and 9 H20 molecules (34 g/mol). One kg of Octane contains 8.77 mols (1000g/kg divided by 114g/mol). Thus this 1 kg of Octane results in 70.16 CO2 molecules (8.77 x 8 ), or 3,087g (70.16 x 44). We also know that the reaction makes 78.93 H20 molecules (8.77 x 9), or 2,683.6 g (78.93 x 34). So the total tailpipe emissions per 1 kg amount to around 5,770g (3,087g + 2,683g), of course the H20 (water) isn't really of much concern.
BTW, obviously this is not my own text though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Arno wrote: |
| Vipa wrote: |
Ahhh... but nowhere near the same level of fitness and my rope/crampon/ice axe & belay skills are sadly inadequate for a climb of that level, as I suspect would be most skiers. Also, there is the fear factor.... I'm sure I'm not alone here but I am happy to throw myself, albeit very ungracefully, off quite extreme inclines with a pair of planks on my feet.... send me up the other way and there is a very good chance fear would kick in and I'd freeze!!! Bizzare but true.... I have had to be rescued by my wife before now after freezing on rung 7 of an aluminium ladder!  Thankfully she didn't need to call the rescue services out so not a helicopter in sight |
put it this way, on my first ski touring training course, the group containing the best skiers did the pigne d'arolla at the end of the week. a number of them had never used an ice axe, rope, touring skis etc at the beginning of the week.
i have only looked at the rosablanche but it looks considerably easier than the pigne
fitness is a requirement, but i would say that fitness isn't the same as technique |
Don't get me wrong Arno.... my ultimate goal (if I can ever get fit enough and good enough) is to move away from lift served piste skiing and get more into touring (perhaps even ski mountaineering.... my fears vanish when I have a harness and rope on.... I seem FAR too willing to put trust in my equipment!) My argument is that probably the majority of skiers here, right now, if dropped by heli at the top of a decent run, would be capable of getting down it. The majority of skiers here, right now would not be capable of getting up the same run by foot and then down again safely, if at all.
Global warming and noise polution aside, is there really anything wrong, if one can afford it, in using 21st century technology to make something accesible that wouldn't be otherwise? Let's face it..... once Mr Branson has perfected his holiday space shuttle there will be no end of wealthy individuals willing to drop 20-50k on a sub-orbital flight, is that any different. If they can afford it who are we to critiscize (sp?)
It strikes me that the whole anti-heliskiing argument (genuine green crusaders excepted) is tinged with more than a little jelousy. There are those that critiscize gas guzzling Bentleys and Astons and those that drive them but in reality how many of us, if money were no object, WOULDN'T go and buy the car of our dreams, hypocritical? I think at worst most of us are, at best we are as a species paradoxical.
I'd love to go heliskiing in Alaska.... just once..... so I could tell my grand kids... but I'll never be able to a) justify spending $8,000US for a week or b) convince the wife that it's a good idea........... Hang on...... $8k for a week in Alaska all inclusive! That's not bad at all...... right... if the £ gets back up to about $1.90US I recon that's do-able, if anyone else is up for it the price drops to $7,300US for double occupancy 
Last edited by After all it is free  on Tue 3-02-09 15:36; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| demos wrote: |
| Vipa, ), of course the H20 (water) isn't really of much concern.. |
Maybe thats the real reason sea levels are rising
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| demos wrote: |
Vipa, petrochemical fuels are essentially hydrocarbon chains (a chain of carbon atoms, with two hydrogen atoms for each carbon atom, plus one on each end). One such "alkane" molecule is called Octane, or C8H18, which has a molecular weight of 114 g/mol (one mol is equal to 6.02 x 10^23 molecules). Let's assume, for sake of argument, that gasoline consists solely of Octane.
Fuel makes up one critical part of the fire triangle (fuel, oxygen, heat), a car engine adds the other two, oxygen from the air intake, and heat from the spark plug spark (without one of these, there's no fire). When combustion occurs a chemical reaction releases heat (which expands the air in the engine and provides the energy that moves the car) and breaks up the C8H18. Since the broken up C and H atoms are lonely they grab hold of the O's and form new molecules. These include for example C02 (carbon dioxide) and H20 (water vapor). In the absence of enough oxygen CO (carbon monoxide) forms, and sometimes Nitrogen from the intake air forms NOx (any number of different nitrogen oxides).
One 114 g/mol Octane molecule and 25 O's (roughly 13 O2's, because they are in pairs, weighing 32 g/mol each) join forces to make 8 CO2 molecules (44 g/mol) and 9 H20 molecules (34 g/mol). One kg of Octane contains 8.77 mols (1000g/kg divided by 114g/mol). Thus this 1 kg of Octane results in 70.16 CO2 molecules (8.77 x 8 ), or 3,087g (70.16 x 44). We also know that the reaction makes 78.93 H20 molecules (8.77 x 9), or 2,683.6 g (78.93 x 34). So the total tailpipe emissions per 1 kg amount to around 5,770g (3,087g + 2,683g), of course the H20 (water) isn't really of much concern.
BTW, obviously this is not my own text though. |
Phew... my brain hurts... took 3 reads but I completely understand now..... Thanks demos, your text or not, that was great. I have wondered about that for years... another mystery of the universe clear in my pea sized brain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
It took me a while too... It's really logical and fits well with high school chemistry where we used to calculate these type of examples as homework (in year 0 which was a long long time ago). I could possibly not get through this kind of thing without help nowadays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Quote: |
Global warming and noise polution aside, is there really anything wrong, if one can afford it, in using 21st century technology to make something accesible that wouldn't otherwise?
|
errr no. Putting those two aside isn't really an argument. Those are a part of what we're discussing so what you seem to be saying is if a I ignore the good reason not to do something it's therefore OK to do it. I would say the answer to that is yes, of course, but then there wouldn't be an issue. Set aside gravity and I would have no problem flying (without an airplane) isn't really an argument.
I do see what your saying about if you could then you would, but I fear that is one of the problems in todays society in that we believe since we can then we should without any accountability or responsibility appropriate for our actions. It's a huge thing to ask, but actually thinking about what we do rather than just doing it and having no regard for the possible consequences is surely a better example to attempt to live by. BUT if you really want to do it, then in some way i guess you will, regardless of its possible impact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| johnnyh wrote: |
| Quote: |
Global warming and noise polution aside, is there really anything wrong, if one can afford it, in using 21st century technology to make something accesible that wouldn't otherwise?
|
errr no. Putting those two aside isn't really an argument. Those are a part of what we're discussing so what you seem to be saying is if a I ignore the good reason not to do something it's therefore OK to do it. I would say the answer to that is yes, of course, but then there wouldn't be an issue. Set aside gravity and I would have no problem flying (without an airplane) isn't really an argument.
I do see what your saying about if you could then you would, but I fear that is one of the problems in todays society in that we believe since we can then we should without any accountability or responsibility appropriate for our actions. It's a huge thing to ask, but actually thinking about what we do rather than just doing it and having no regard for the possible consequences is surely a better example to attempt to live by. BUT if you really want to do it, then in some way i guess you will, regardless of its possible impact. |
But in this argument those things MUST be put aside!
Heliskiing is, in the grand scheme of things... hell, in the grand scheme of skiing, such a minority interest that it doesn't even register on the impact scale. As was mentioned earlier, closing a few old ski resorts or replacing outdated inefficient lifts or banning flights to Geneva or closing roads into the alps....etc...etc.... would have an impact, in other words it's the things we do on a daily basis without thought and concern that have the biggest impact. Banning heliskiing would have absolutely no impact on anything other than the poor rich kids that used to enjoy it because we'd all go on day by day driving our cars, taking those flights, using the lift system in resort.
Exclusive, expensive pass-times are self-regulating from a carbon foot print point of view... If we all drove 10 litre bentleys or spent our ski-holidays jumping out of helis then I would be inclined to agree with the argument but producing lots of carbon requires lots of cash and so those pass-times and luxury items, due to cost alone, end up being .000001% of the problem due to the fact that 99% of us can't afford them, remove that .000001% and you still have 99.99999% of the issue.
So as I say, I feel there is more than a tinge of jelousy going on here..... It's amazing the number of times I've been out with mates (I love the car analogy) and been surprised, nay shocked, at thier outburts... I live very near to a small town which is frequented in the main by wealthy individuals, footie players etc and hence has a higher than average poulation of Porsches, Astons, AMG Mercs, Bentleys and even a few Ferraris, the number of times an instant dislike has been taken to someone just because they jump into a nice shiney Bently... "look a that tosser" is the kind of comment you'll sometimes hear! They don't know the bloke, never met him, never spoken to him, it is just decided that he is a tosser because there is an element of jelousy surrounding what he can afford. The people making said comments would be the first to go out and buy a Bentley could they afford it and then they too would be targets for the same green eyed monsterism!
Those on here who critiscize (sp? i really should go look it up) Heliskiing and demand its abolishment.... do me a favour..... Stop using your car for anything other than absolutely essential journeys, use public transport or walk or bicycle to get to work.... and then, once you have taken those steps, come back on here and I will gladly listen to your argument in the belief that you are genuinely concerned for the environment!
Last edited by So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much  on Tue 3-02-09 16:11; edited 4 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
I think that noise pollution is a non-arguable point, something's either noisy or it isn't. But I do wish that the experts (self-appointed and otherwise) in some of the great moral issues of our time - such as global warming, the wearing of helmets for snowsports and the necessity for Carre Neige - could reach enough of a consensus to enable ill-informed numpties like me to make a sensible decision. Luckily, I can afford to shell out the expense for a helmet and Carre Neige, even if that expense is of dubious necessity. The same does not apply to heli-skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
On some things there's a symbolic value. Heli-skiing can be one of those activities. That said, I would go immediately on a trip if I had one available and could afford it. In fact, if we end up going to Italy this March, I might well go up from Cervinia.
While many people don't believe in offsetting, it might offer a solution to this issue. It's not expensive and it would take away the argument from the no-camp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Vipa, how is Yarm these days 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Quote: |
Those on here who critiscize (sp? i really should go look it up) Heliskiing and demand its abolishment.... do me a favour..... Stop using your car for anything other than absolutely essential journeys, use public transport or walk or bicycle to get to work.... and then, once you have taken those steps, come back on here and I will gladly listen to your argument in the belief that you are genuinely concerned for the environment!
|
Exactly. I do feel that some on here are a bit self righteous. Unless they're powering their PC by solar energy or some other eco friendly source then they shouldn't be on here wasting energy, equally they should not be going on skiing holidays unless they're close to a British ski resort as again they're going to be adding to "Global Warming" whether they get there by train, car or plane (all for their selfish enjoyment).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| johnnyh wrote: |
| I think this is a really important point. There is an understanding of the (mountain) environment which many (somewhat arrogant and selfish) skiers appear not only to lack but also appear to not want to engage with in case it spoils their fun. |
That's really rather sanctimonious. It's clear from most of the snowHeads who disagree with you that they have "engaged" with the subject, but have come to a different conclusion to you - which they have taken some trouble to spell out.
| Quote: |
| but actually thinking about what we do rather than just doing it and having no regard for the possible consequences is surely a better example to attempt to live by. |
Ditto.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| johnnyh wrote: |
| It's a huge thing to ask, but actually thinking about what we do rather than just doing it and having no regard for the possible consequences is surely a better example to attempt to live by. |
A better example to whom? The Chinese workers on one of their 2400 new coal fired power stations? The owner of a white goods factory in Bombay? A salesman in a Jeep dealership in Jakarta?
Unless we stop the developing world developing and we wind back our own outputs to a time when we had a smaller, poorer, population then no change will be made.
I would love to heli ski (well, board, actually) and the amount of CO2 the thing put out would not even enter my head.
If such a thought did enter my head, I would hope a mental image would immediately appear, of David Goldsmith cycling to work up Highgate Hill in a biting gale, with a windchill of -16degC, having decided to give up using fossil fuels. This image would immediately restore my ying yang balance and allow me to get on with enjoying my heli skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
I find there are some interesting points made here which really don't stand any critical review:
"Unless they're powering their PC by solar energy..." Does this mean that making adjustments is not enough? That it really is about either all or nothing? That unless you live by 19th century energy consumption standards, all comments about some other people over-consuming is just self-righteous.
"A better example to whom? The Chinese workers on one of their 2400 new coal fired power stations?" Does that indicate that the more developed countries should do nothing and show no example so that the developing countries can do exactly the same stupid mistakes we have made?
I have read in the last three pages lots of comments which either criticise the concept of global warming, the data, the research community, individual actions that can be taken etc. I still don't think that there is nothing profoundly problematic with heliski per se, but it is clear that its footprint is disproportionate. I can hardly find a leisure activity which pollutes more. It might not stop me from doing it, but perhaps it should at least make me think about whether or not it is what mountain sports should be about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
(Dives for cover...... 
)