 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
... and our precious mountain environments are safe again. Must be true because, while looking through this copy of Ski & Bored (that I wish I hadn't bought), it dawned on me that the Respect The Mountain Campaign has all but disappeared, possibly under an avalanche of unsold green wristbands. Can't see mention of it in the mag and it seems to be buried fairly deep in the website. Meanwhile, having asked us all to travel by train and wear edible gear for the last few years, the mag seems happy to promote heli-skiing in Russia and jetting off to long haul destinations like Chile - I'm all in favour of doing both actually but just thought it would be fun to point out the inescapable fact that the band wagon was well and truely just jumped on for PR purposes. Or is it a sign that actually nobody is really that bothered when it comes to interfering with their own personal enjoyment?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Swiller, some points on this may help put this into perspective:
1. It may be difficult to find any ski magazine that doesn't rave about long-haul exotic destinations and heli-skiing to excite the readers. Ski+Board is far from unique. Of course, the big ski movies go strong on all this stuff too.
2. Arnie Wilson has a reasonably free hand in editing Ski+Board and isn't duty-bound to promote environmentalism. That may sound odd, since I've been sitting on the Ski Club's environmental working group for 3 years [the SCGB publishes S+B, for those that didn't know this] but I think editorial independence is important. Of course, you're at liberty to write directly to the editor as a buyer of the magazine.
3. The Respect the Mountain campaign was an initiative of the Club's executive (specifically the marketing and/or new media departments I think). I don't know if the RTM project was put to the Club's directors (Council) for approval but it certainly generated a lot of public comment and triggered an environmental code. It raised a fair sum for tree planting by The Woodland Trust, which is a highly-respected organisation. I'd personally like the spotlight to now shine on a 'Respect the Atmosphere' message, because it's the atmosphere rather than 'the mountain' which holds the sport's fate.
4. Certainly the Club exploited the PR potential of 'Respect the Mountain'. Since the problem of CO2 pollution is getting far more serious, with catastrophic consequences predicted, the story is really in its early days, so the momentum of the RTM campaign needs building on.
5. It doesn't take a ski club, or any other opinion-leading body, to make it obvious that any skier can reduce their environmental impact - and the methods are fairly obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Its not at all proven that Global warming is caused by man. It could be that we are in the middle of a cycle...
There have been reports that the Ozone layer is recovering etc
Thats not to say we shouldn't be concerned or oblivious, but I'm more worried about the reduction of the rain forests which can be attributed to man, rather than 'global warming' which may not be
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Global warming and the ozone layer are seperate issues; global warming is caused by, amongst other things, increased levels of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere whilst damage to the ozone layer is caused by CFC's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
If I go to the alps by train (which consumes huge amounts of Electricity) will the snow last longer 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Climate Action Network Europe has comparisons of CO2 output for train v plane. For a journey of around 900km they calculate that the train's energy consumption per passenger involves approximately one-third of the CO2 emissions:
http://www.climnet.org/publicawareness/transport.html#com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
boredsurfin, the majority of electricity genenerated in France (80%?) is nuclear powered. Therefore no CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Mainly because the pollution of aircraft isn't taxed to discourage use. Driving four people out isn't so bad for pollution per passenger.
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Tue 3-10-06 8:38; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Goldsmith, Very surprising results in that link above, We should go by Coach if we can't afford the train !!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| Mainly because the pollution of aircraft isn't taxed to discourage use |
.....and Petrol is just taxed 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
[sorry, cross-edited]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| boredsurfin wrote: |
So why's the train so expensive
|
At a guess I'd say too little competition in the market. Shorthaul flying was not a cheap option until Stelios and friends came along, so we have him to be grateful to him for driving the price down (even if he has upset the PSBers).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
The London-Paris fares have been coming down. Paris-Geneva is available at good prices.
The combination is available for around £100 return.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| Mainly because the pollution of aircraft isn't taxed to discourage use. Driving four people out isn't so bad for pollution per passenger. |
Do you have any stats for that, I vaguely recall an episode of Top Gear showing Cars and coaches being less polluting per passenger than trains (UK both diesel and electric).
I must say I find the coach argument intriging especially as my Daughters school ski trip is by coach and some parents are muttering that their darlings should be flown to the resort. The poluution/global warming point hasn't been made regarding the coach!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
The London-Paris fares have been coming down. Paris-Geneva is available at good prices.
The combination is available for around £100 return. |
That's good to know, but when I compared prices earlier this season it was still better for me to fly when I took into account price, convenience and available ski time. I'd would very much like to be able to take the train - it's a very easy journey given how close my place is to the railhead at Bourg St Maurice. Unfortunately the train isn't a good option for me just yet, but I hope it becomes one, and soon.
One thing which would need to be addressed if the train is to become more popular is the difficulty of booking tickets. At the moment it's difficult, and you can't plan in advance. Improving their customer service would be an easy step for the rail companies to take, and it wouldn't involve extensive changes to taxation to tempt more people to the let the train take the strain
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Odd report.
Strange that we have the most utilised railway network in Europe . We use the most pedal power in Europe. We are using our Railways & Bicycles networks extensively yet we still have some of the busiest roads in Europe
We got a more pressing localised serious problem with NO2 emmisions
http://www.humanhub.nl/NO2pollution.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
| Its not at all proven that Global warming is caused by man. It could be that we are in the middle of a cycle... |
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
| Quote: |
| methane in the atmosphere whilst damage to the ozone layer is caused by CFC's. |
Amongst other things (e.g. volcanoes). That said the main damage was done by CFCs. The ozone hole is still there (and here) and is not expected to be "repaired" until around or after the middle of the century. This "repair" will be down to the Montreal Protocol. The Montreal Protocol is a good example of what can be done with international agreements.
| Quote: |
| Therefore no CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels. |
Pedantically it's "low", not "no". Nuclear generation is not entirely fossil fuel free (mining, refining, shipment, construction & decommisioning).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| skanky wrote: |
| Pedantically it's "low", not "no". Nuclear generation is not entirely fossil fuel free (mining, refining, shipment, construction & decommisioning). |
Yes, fair point (although some of those factors are also common to coal- or oil-powered generation).
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
.... and even if we did, would it make any difference while the US is pumping to the max and the Chinese, Indians, etc. are catching up fast ?
|
I hate this excuse for doing nothing. If we can successfully reduce our emmissions by a significant % - which I think is possible with some joined up thinking, appropriate legislation and tax insentives and dissensentives, we can the say to the US, China etc. Look we have reduced our emmissions, and this is how you do it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
Dave Horsley, I wasn't intending it as an excuse for doing nothing, more my assessment of what will happen after we've done something, if we ever do, ie. that it won't make any difference. We're all doooooomed <Private Fraser smiley>
.... but I agree we should at least try.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| skanky wrote: |
| in order to work it needs to be done fairly - e.g. the global population gets the same level per person. |
Any idea how much of a person's quota would be taken up by a one week ski holiday (say from the English midlands to a mid-level resort in the Swiss Alps, for an intermediate skier)?
How would the rationing be accomplished?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
brian,
I wasn't thinking that you were, just that it is one of the excuses many trot out for doing nothing.
I try to do my bit, my house is heated by a CO2 neutral fuel (wood), The electricity I use (1800kWh/year which is about half the national average I think) is mainly from renewable sources (courtesy of where I live as SSEs generation in Scotland is mainly wind and hydro plus some oil fired from Peterhead). I've knocked off about 1500miles of car driving by cycling to work at least a couple of times a week, plus it keeps me fit. I try and keep my shorthaul flights to a minimum - less than 1 a year recently. I drive a small car that gives me ~65mpg. I grow a fair amount of my own food and try and source the food I do buy locally where possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Dave Horsley, that's very commendable. Can I ask how the reduction in shorthaul flights affects how much skiing you get each year?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure why trains are so often more expensive than planes, but wondered about the following:
(1) Infrastructure costs - planes don't need tunnels, bridges or rails and 'signalling' is centralised.
(2) Utilisation - planes, particularly the low cost carriers, fly pretty much full all the time (as far as I can tell). Trains don't.
(3) Fuel for trains attracts fuel duty, can't believe.
I'd be interested to know the price difference between a passenger jet and a train...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| skanky wrote: |
| in order to work it needs to be done fairly - e.g. the global population gets the same level per person. |
Any idea how much of a person's quota would be taken up by a one week ski holiday (say from the English midlands to a mid-level resort in the Swiss Alps, for an intermediate skier)?
How would the rationing be accomplished? |
The first question I don't think there's been a full agreement on a global quota yet, let alone dividing that by the population (both present and projected). The next IPCC report is out next year, and may go into detail enough to get a good first idea. As for how much of that as yet, unknown number is used up by a ski holiday, well it will depend on a number of other factors (transport mode, energy supply to transport and resort, energy saved by being away from home, extra energy consumed in resort, energy expended on equipment manufacture etc.).
No idea on the second question. I guess it depends on which political or economic models you wish to use as your framework.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Hoppo wrote: |
Not sure why trains are so often more expensive than planes, but wondered about the following:
(1) Infrastructure costs - planes don't need tunnels, bridges or rails and 'signalling' is centralised.
(2) Utilisation - planes, particularly the low cost carriers, fly pretty much full all the time (as far as I can tell). Trains don't.
(3) Fuel for trains attracts fuel duty, can't believe.
I'd be interested to know the price difference between a passenger jet and a train... |
on (3) train diesel is duty free I believe, presumably they can negociate good prices for electricity too?
(4) non-unionized labour (for the low cost carriers ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| skanky wrote: |
The first question I don't think there's been a full agreement on a global quota yet, let alone dividing that by the population (both present and projected). The next IPCC report is out next year, and may go into detail enough to get a good first idea. As for how much of that as yet, unknown number is used up by a ski holiday |
I suspect your lifetime's quota will be used up by a single ski holiday. Vedi l'Alpi e Poi Muori!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| davidof wrote: |
| skanky wrote: |
The first question I don't think there's been a full agreement on a global quota yet, let alone dividing that by the population (both present and projected). The next IPCC report is out next year, and may go into detail enough to get a good first idea. As for how much of that as yet, unknown number is used up by a ski holiday |
I suspect your lifetime's quota will be used up by a single ski holiday. Vedi l'Alpi e Poi Muori! |
That's a possibility (as is the fact that a lifetime's quota may be used up each year generally), however I would also guess that it would a sliding scale quote that decreases over time (based on phasing out current energy supply systems).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
rob@rar.org.uk,
Not a lot, I get a lot of skiing locally - 20+ days last year in and around Scotland. I did one skiing holiday abroad last season, and took the train to meet my friends and then we drove with full cars, which is (AFAIK) a reasonably efficient way of getting to the resort. I'll do the same again this year, but I'm going skiing with diferent friends aswell this season and we are flying for that holiday. Its not that I don't fly, I just try and avoid it if its not the best way to get around. For example I went down to London for a rollerski race a couple of months ago. One posibilty was to fly, but seemd a bit OTT for a 1hr race. In the end I took the overnight coach down and back (would have prefered the sleeper train, but it doesn't run Saturday nights).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Dave Horsley, thanks. I'm envious of your local skiing. My local skiing is 200m of plastic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
| That's a possibility (as is the fact that a lifetime's quota may be used up each year generally), however I would also guess that it would a sliding scale quote that decreases over time (based on phasing out current energy supply systems). |
okay that makes some sense.
BTW Gas is at -5p a therm today on the spot market if you are interested
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
davidof, James Hansen (et al) has come up with an "alternative scenario" for emmissions reduction that cuts non-CO2 GHGs initially (these are relatively easier to do) and increases the CO2 cuts to buy time (it then takes longer to reach a level that could be construed to be "dangerous"). This time is then used to enable the drastic cut in emmissions to have less societal effect. I don't have a link to hand but it is easily found via Google or on the GISS site.
It seems to me though, that along with life-style changes, if the energy supply to the infrastructure (e.g. the electric trains being largely supplied by nuclear, and the lifts by hydro*/nuclear as in Switzerland & France) becomes low carbon, then individual usage will also drop.
One complicating factor in calculating individual carbon footprints, is that created by manufacture abroad. Have a look at the Virgin Islands' carbon footprint. It's huge. But that's because they do oil refining there. Most of the products go abroad so should the footprint be transferred abroad, or does it stay in the VI because it provides employment there? The same goes for manufacturing in China.
*I'm not sure low in carbon hydro is, but assume it's lower than coal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
*I'm not sure low in carbon hydro is, but assume it's lower than coal.
|
Very dependent on the hydro. In the alps/scotland it should be very low carbon - basically just the CO2 in building the dams and the equipment spread over the life of the project. In other places - for example large projects particularly in tropical countries where for example the forest trees are left in place and not removed, the methane released as the trees rot can cause the greenhouse gas emmissions to aproach the levels released by a fossil fule plant. Of course these effects can be reduced by choosing the site of your project carefully and doing things like harvesting the forest before flooding the valley.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Horsley, thanks for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 reliably informed ( God don't you just hate posts that start like that?  ) that new developemnts from a British physicist are looking at using the oft-maligned Bernoulli effect in fluid flow in order to generate movement through pressure differences, and hence energy (but in this case within rivers rather than air). The definition of renewable I'd of thought.
Apparently Quebec Hydro are extremely interested and sponsoring further research and design work.
Wonder why no-one in the UK energy sector is looking at it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
