 Poster: A snowHead
|
rob@rar.org.uk,
Thats about right.... You might want to ban piste bashers before helicopters on account of there being zillions more of them and they push out a lot of gunk as well. I'd go for this one first.. 
I think it is indeed about people thinking they have ' made a difference' and feeling rather pleased with themselves rather than actually making any relavant difference. I'd ban lorries through the Mont Blanc tunnel and the like or make train transporting those said lorries so much cheaper and therefore attractive first. If that worked and made a difference then I'd pursue the token offerings.
Out of all the flights in the mountains by Helis, how many are for heli-skiing...? You might find that rescue, marketing and building take up far more flights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Rob, it would be a symbolic sacrificial initiative by the governing body of our sport. If the FIS don't buy the idea, then it would be interesting to hear from them (or yourself) some other initiatives that would say "We're skiers, we understand the gravity of climate change. This is a symbolic contribution to the solution."
Tim, yes, I'd like trains to be increasingly powered by renewable energy. No, I won't stop using them because a proportion of their power comes from nuclear. What do you want, blood?
I'm away for a couple of days. I wish you a stimulating debate!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
If the FIS is going to get involved with the environamental debate, I'd rather see it do something useful like campaign for all skiers and boarders to use low-energy lightbulbs in their homes rather than get involved in tokenistic arguments about fringe activities, no matter how distasteful some people find those minority practices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| Rob, it would be a symbolic sacrificial initiative by the governing body of our sport. |
No, it would be an actual sacrifice by those who make a living from heli-skiing, and those who's life passion is heli-skiing. The old men who govern FIS would be sacrificing very little!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
Tim, yes, I'd like trains to be increasingly powered by renewable energy. No, I won't stop using them because a proportion of their power comes from nuclear. What do you want, blood?
|
A 'proportion'! Come now, David, it's a huge proportion. The fact is, you can't say nuclear power is 'unacceptable' while all the time being a consumer of it. Your position is untenable and needs to be totally revised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| Rob, it would be a symbolic sacrificial initiative by the governing body of our sport. |
The FIS isn't the governing body of recreational skiing, is it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Tim Brown wrote: |
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| Rob, it would be a symbolic sacrificial initiative by the governing body of our sport. |
The FIS isn't the governing body of recreational skiing, is it? |
There is no governing body for recreational skiing, although I suspect that some people might like there to be  Is there any recreational activity which has a governing body? I'm off on holiday tomorrow - do you think I need a "sight-seeing" governing body?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar.org.uk,
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| Rob, it would be a symbolic sacrificial initiative by the governing body of our sport. |
Symbolic? Now I'm a little confused as to what your position is, because you have also stated:
"the environmental impact per skier is very significant."
Have you now totally revised your position?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Tim Brown wrote: |
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| Rob, it would be a symbolic sacrificial initiative by the governing body of our sport. |
Symbolic? Now I'm a little confused as to what your position is, because you have also stated:
"the environmental impact per skier is very significant."
Have you now totally revised your position? |
I'm sure that carbon emissions per heli-skier is much greater than skiing lift-served terrain, but the number of skiers who "indulge" in heli-skiing is so small as to make very little impact compared to, say, the number of people who leave their TV's on standby.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Tim Brown wrote: |
| The FIS isn't the governing body of recreational skiing, is it? |
That's quite right, it isn't. FIS was formed to regulate competitive skiing.
However, in certain areas it could be said that national governments have accepted that FIS speaks for skiing as a whole. One example is the way national or state legislatures have incorporated the "skiing code of conduct" established by FIS many years ago ( http://www.fis-ski.com/uk/rulesandpublications/fisgeneralrules/10fisrules.html ) into legislation such as the Colorado Ski Safety Act ( http://www.dora.state.co.us/tramway/SkiSafetyAct.pdf - scroll down to clause 33-44-109, Duties of Skiers). I don't know of similar ski safety legislation in the Alpine countries, but I'm sure they have it - perhaps Snowheads who live in those countries could oblige.
Of course FIS cannot "ban" heli-skiing - it has no jurisdiction in any country. But a statement saying that FIS did not endorse heli-skiing would be massively influential in possibly bringing about legislation similar to France's in other countries. This would be just one step, but it would send out an important signal that skiing is serious about trying to be low-impact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| rob@rar.org.uk wrote: |
| Tim Brown wrote: |
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| Rob, it would be a symbolic sacrificial initiative by the governing body of our sport. |
Symbolic? Now I'm a little confused as to what your position is, because you have also stated:
"the environmental impact per skier is very significant."
Have you now totally revised your position? |
I'm sure that carbon emissions per heli-skier is much greater than skiing lift-served terrain, but the number of skiers who "indulge" in heli-skiing is so small as to make very little impact compared to, say, the number of people who leave their TV's on standby. |
Yes, it would be a symbolic move - but symbols are important in the modern world of instant communications. The message would be that FIS was aiming to reduce pollution by the largest amount possible, while impacting the smallest possible number of skiers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Well Martin, I'm glad someone finally got around to pointing out the fact that the FIS have no power what-so-ever to ban heli-skiing. As you say, they could influence a country's stance on heli-skiing, but it would then lie with that country's governing powers. They would of course be interested in the economic impact of putting plenty of people out of jobs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
And on the front of flights, let's take a couple skiing in Whistler as an example.
IMPORTANT: Please note that this is hypothetical as currently the UK and Canada are not joined so it would be impossible to drive from London to Vancouver, but using it as an example for distances only. This is also biased towards the car as it also assumes that it would be able to take a route as direct as the plane.
They fly from Heathrow to Vancouver with British Airways, who operate Boeing 747-400s on that route. Now a Boeing 747 uses about 1 gallon of fuel per second  . Or 5 gallons per mile (so, 0.2 miles per gallon  ). Not good some of you are saying. Let's consider that the 747 is only three-quarters full, so there are about 315 passengers aboard. London-Vancouver is 4,725 miles. 4,725 miles = 23,625 gallons of fuel. Between those 315 passengers, that is 75 gallons each. So, for that couple, 150 gallons. Assuming they have a typical saloon car (say a VW Passat - which does 28.2 mpg), then they would use 167.6 gallons of fuel to reach Vancouver from London by driving - 17.6 gallons more than flying Which equates to 496.32 miles worth of fuel in their car (more than enough to make up for transfers at either end).
So, fly long haul, it's good for the environment! 
I have used the following sources to gather the necessary data:
www.ba.com / www.boeing.com / answers.google.com / www.indo.com / www.volkswagon.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| JT wrote: |
| You might want to ban piste bashers |
or, to put it another way, "STOP THE BRUTAL GROOMING"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Now there's something I'd vote for!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Martin Bell, I know the 4 stroke snowmobile is better for the environment etc. however it doesn't do the job in the backcountry half as well as the 2 stroke machines, as the 4 stroke machines are heavier, don't have the same grunt/characteristics, and are balanced all wrong.
Much time is spent digging out 4 stroke machines in the backcountry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Martin Bell wrote: |
| [Yes, it would be a symbolic move - but symbols are important in the modern world of instant communications. |
I agree that an eye-catching message is important, but if that symbolic gesture is also clearly tokenistic it contributes little to the winning of hearts and minds. In this case I think that not only would banning heli-skiing contribute little to reducing carbon emissions, but it would be counter-productive because of the sense of injustice it would breed among skiers who you'd hope have more than a passing interest in the whole climate change debate. This sense of injustice might even make other more significant carbon-reducing measures more difficult. For example, I've never heliskied, and I don't thinkI ever will, but I object to the notion that some people will have to make real sacrifices in order that the FIS could trumpet a symbolic gesture. If the FIS think that banning heliskiing is a sensible proposition, why on earth would I respect any other advice it offers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Martin Bell wrote: |
| "STOP THE BRUTAL GROOMING"? |
In a resort out of season I was amazed at the earth moving equpiment and the state of the 'roads' they were making that would become a piste in the winter. It had full drainage and almost a type 1 finish to the run.
I thought that was way way over the top but maybe they thought they were justified making this hideous scar as flat as possible so that costs in the winter would be lower regarding maintaining a minimum snow cover to keep it in skiable condition.
I've driven on worst tarmaced surfaces, I'm certain. Thats my interpretation on brutal grooming. I know its a fine line commercially but I'd serverly hamper what resorts could do.. In fact I would favour a resort approach of putting in one lift and not pisting it at all. This would save on bashing costs...then you could say that heli skiing is beyond the pale... IMV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| JT wrote: |
| In fact I would favour a resort approach of putting in one lift and not pisting it at all. |
Then every resort would be like La Grave.....woooot! (as I understand they say who are young and hip)
In absolute terms I'm sure that lift systems must contribute more to CO2 emissions than heli-skiing - and it's the absolute emissions tonnage which is actually the thing that matters to the environment, rather than emissions per skier. At present heli-skiing is such a minority pasttime that I agree with rob@rar.org.uk - any such ban would be simple tokenism and subject any such move to ridicule.
I would happily use the train if flights were a load more expensive, but at present whenever I've tried using trains, flights ended up being cheaper and (the actual decider) much more convenient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 am beginning to think that providing a train system, in whole-system cost terms, is goppingly expensive. Of course, airlines do not pay VAT on fuel. But even if they did, and that were added to the cost of the flights, they would still be way way cheaper than train tickets, particularly if all subsidy were removed form the train services and infrastructure. The in-your-face example is Eurotunnel, the cost of which will probably never be recovered for its investors. The costs elsewhere are made murky bu government activity. Bizarrely, in the UK, the government chose to make rail travel even more expensive for many travellers by charging for rail franchises - effectively a tax on rail travel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
How should UK skiers who don't live close to an international rail terminal get to their chosen ski resort?
|
Well the way I do it from Aberdeen is i take the train to Cambridge where I meet up with friends - we then fill 3 cars and drive to the french resorts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
(
| Quote: |
Assuming they have a typical saloon car (say a VW Passat - which does 28.2 mpg),
|
That happens to be one of the cars we use, but a diesel and on the journey to france and back we average 40-45mpg with a roof box.
Also I think the arguement is aginst short haul rather than long haul.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Presumably planes use the most fuel in the climb to cruise so the longer the journey the better as far as overall efficiency is concerned.
Generally speaking larger planes are more efficient than smaller ones so maybe we should all stop flying 737s into Geneva and demand 747s instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Dave Horsley, okay, you've got me. The argument doesn't necessarily hold up against diesels and it is a better picture if you use long-haul over short-haul, but the idea was to prove that flying is nowhere near as ecologically destructive as some would have us believe. The 737s that are flying most European routes will be the newer kind using newer engine technology etc. making them more fuel efficient, however, as stated, per passenger it will still be worse than a 747 (or even the A380, which will be huge and have new, efficient technology).
I do however support the taxation of aviation fuel as was suggested about a month ago at the EU parliament.
On the subject of heli-skiing, I think I come down on the same side as most here, following the same argument as rob@rar.org.uk, that it would be a tokenistic gesture with bug-ger all actual impact on the environment as so little of it goes on in the grand scheme of things. Unlike a 747 though, it's not overly fuel efficient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
No
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Some good points on the epic board:
What about recreational private aircraft and helicopter flying.
What about scenic flights in light aircraft and helicopters?
What about Cruise Liners just wandering the oceans, burning fuel, so that the rich can drink their G&Ts in a new port every night.
What about the fact that the heli skiing takes place in powder with zero ground contact...ie reduced impact.
What about grooming the pistes every night with huge deisal powered bashers (we've all seen the huge exhaust plumes they throw out).
You mentioned 1.5 tons of CO2/hr from helis....reality check: Helis dont even burn that amount of raw fuel in an hour (well maybe a big military Chinook does), so how could one of the by products weigh that much?
Sorry David but your on thin ice with this whole idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
David Goldsmith, shifting slightly to the fly/drive/train debate... my parents come over to Peisey-Vallandry to vivist me fairly regularly and "Asked The Expert" on the Telegraph, about the green way to travel. here is the detail :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plane or car: which is the green way to go?
Jackie and Bob Nicholson write from Ashbourne:
We travel to the French Alps regularly to visit our son, either flying to Lyon or Geneva, or driving from Derbyshire. Our car does about 48 miles per gallon. Time and cost aside, are we being more environmentally friendly by driving all the way or would we do better to fly? We have had conflicting advice.
Gill replies:
There has been a lot of talk in the press about airlines and their CO2 emissions polluting the skies, but, as you say, finding reliable figures is not easy. A spokesman for the environmental group Friends of the Earth (FoE) told me: "Going by train is by far the best way to travel long distances." He quoted comparative figures for a 300-mile journey from London to Manchester.
By train a single person would create 13kg of CO2, by car 53kg (in a mid-sized vehicle) and by air 99kg. Case closed, I thought - until I started looking into the distance aspect a bit more.
These calculations, made by a government advisory body, the Commission for Integrated Transport, are more revealing than FoE lets on. If you travel from London to Edinburgh by car, the figure is 112kg; if you travel by air, it is 126kg. Suddenly the difference doesn't seem so great. This is because the bulk of the C02 emissions are released on take-off and landing.
A Dutch study for an environmental group, Climate Action Network Europe, tried to factor in every variable on an 805-mile journey from Amsterdam to Rome and concluded that the most eco-friendly way to travel between two cities is by coach (31kg), followed by train (87kg), plane (153kg) and, worst, car (154kg).
One thing that scientists do not seem to agree on is whether or not it is more damaging to emit CO2 at altitude than at ground level.
Your journey from Derbyshire to the French Alps near Geneva is about 750 miles, similar to the Rome example; so, if you want to be really eco-friendly, you should take the Eurostar to Lyon and hire a car from there.
As for the plane-versus-car debate, it would appear - and I would be delighted to hear from scientists who know what they're talking about - that there isn't a great deal of difference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it looks like you're on the money taking the train.
But.... I do think you're making, ahem, a mountain out of a mole-hill with the heli-skiing eco-warrior bit to be honest....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I presume the figures produced are based on all the seats in a train/plane being fully occupied. Precumably it is also more eco friendly to take a slow rather than a fast train.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Frosty the Snowman, lord knows! I just thought poor old DG was getting a pasting for his "anti-heliskiing liberation front" stance and would welcome some good news on his chosen travel choice!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
I suppose if you are that eco friendly then hike locally to where you live as skiing is an obvious environmental no-no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frosty the Snowman, I do. (well, I walk leisurely)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rungsp, in your mass balances you need to allow for the oxygen consumed in the combustion process. Petroleum fuel is effectively n*(CH2) (OK for the pedants amongst us, the '2' bit is maybe a bit variable, alkanes push it up a bit, but the aromatics pull it down a bit, and there's probably a bit of S in there too). This basic repeat unit has atomic weight 14, and burns to n*CO2 (atomic weight 44) + n*H2O (atomic weight 18 ). So 1 tonne of petroleum fuel will release approx 3.1 tonnes of CO2 and 1.3 tonnes of water. Don't know whether this would make up the discrepancy in the heli fuel mass consumption or not - as I don't know how much the heli consumes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
GrahamN, gosh!
Point taken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
flying_squirrel, intersting figures, plane v train v car. It's a pity that usually the train is the most expensive way to travel a long distance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
as I'm coming down to London for a rollerski race on Sunday 13th August. My first thought was the sleeper, but they don't run on Saturday night. Flights wise I could have got the first flight from aberdeen to gatwick which would have got me in in time for the 1030am race start and then flown back in the evening, but i decided that was just too ecologically unsound so I'm now getting the overnight megabus down and back. Hopefullly I'll actually be in a fit state to race 