 Poster: A snowHead
|
You'd have thought that an industry with its future dependent on a commodity that hangs in the balance might be doing something to protect that resource.
Snow isn't going to be around just because it's around now. This is what the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says in its latest report just published. These quotes are extracted from a section which deals with Europe specifically:
| Quote: |
For the first time, wide ranging impacts of changes in current climate have been documented: retreating glaciers, longer growing seasons, shift of species ranges, and health impacts due to a heat wave of unprecedented magnitude".
"Mountainous areas will face glacier retreat, reduced snow cover and winter tourism, and extensive species losses (in some areas up to 60% under high emission scenarios by 2080)". |
And what is the ski and ski travel industry's response to this? More greenwash?
Interestingly the Conservative Party is calling for an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 [Observer report today], which exceeds current targets (that are not currently being met anyway - CO2 emissions continue to rise).
As a consumer, if you care about the future of snow and protecting it for future generations of skiers, the best thing to do is lobby your MP for drastic action on all this. Aircraft need to be taxed out of the skies, international rail travel needs to be boosted substantially, and (not that this has much to do with UK politicians) high altitude resort expansion should be halted completely (maybe by EU laws?) ... as far as I can see.
Skiing is a big polluter, but could be less of a polluter.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Sun 8-04-07 8:01; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| Aircraft need to be taxed out of the skies, |
I think that aircraft contribute about 2% of global CO2 emissions. Is anyone able to confirm this, or correct me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
As far as aircraft are concerned there may be an issue with the polutants/gasses being more damaging than their numerical figures might suggest due to their depositing the stuff at high altitudes.
Now as for the ski industry not doing anything I think you are being perhaps a little unfair, many individual resorts try to be enviromentally friendly, it's not uncommon for piste bashers to be fueld by bio diesel, and many hotels ask their guests to be enviromentally friendly with simple things like cutting back on needing new towles each day and so on, it is at least as important for the punters to be willing to be enviromentally aware as it is for the resorts
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
of course this is if you actually believe the IPCC's report
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
David Goldsmith, you are tyalking to a bunch of skiers. They are going to go firmly for the head-in-the-sand approach over anything which interferes with thir cheap flights and as much skiing as possible. And you know it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DGO, yes, I suspect there's a major issue about aircraft pollution being worse because of the altitude at which the exhaust gases are emitted. Despite that, there is continuing pressure to expand airports (and part of the pressure will be ski flights) and burn more fuel.
As for towel washing and bio fuel (someone's food converted) to power grooming machines, it's of no signifance in relation to the major problem - the treatment of the atmosphere as a dustbin (which mirrors our treatment of the oceans as dustbins).
I get the impression that the ski industry is only capable of exploiting what's left. It would inspire confidence if the ski community could say "this is what we must preserve, and this is our contribution to achieving it."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lizzard, no I don't take such a cynical view - otherwise there wouldn't be any point to this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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,
1. climate change is something we must accept and adapt to. It is not something we can alter, prevent or postpone.
2. concern about use of fossil fuel in aviation is sensible, but has nothing to do with climate change and all to do with management of a finite resource.
Climate Change. Orthodox opinion (Western government propaganda?) may suggest that Global Warming is all man-made and due to carbon dioxide, but this is not accepted by all ( University of Michigan). The main Greenhouse Gas is water vapour (see Water vapour rules the Greenhouse System ). Man-made CO2 is a minute fraction of the total CO2 production (graph). CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 50-200 years (MMU and DEFRA] (some say even longer e.g. NEWTON BBS), so any attempts to alter the levels now will not do anything to halt the decline in northern hemisphere glaciers and snow levels predicted for this century.
Fossil Fuels. In particular Oil. We are at Hubberts Peak. The USA past this in 1970. The world hit it this year. The Middle East will not get there for maybe 10 years. If we don’t find an alternative, or learn to live with a declining vital resource, the result is likely to be suffering far greater than any of the “doomsday scenarios” suggested for global warming. Alongwith economic depression and famine, there is likely to be war (fromthewilderness and dissidentnews).
Page 229 of Richard Heinberg’s The Party’s Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies:
“America’s military and espionage budgets represent a gargantuan investment in an eventual Armageddon. The U.S. portrays itself as the global cop keeping order in an otherwise chaotic and dangerous world, but in reality America uses its military might primarily to maintain dominance over the world’s resources”
Global Warming or Global War? Take your pick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will it please the green lobbyists to pass a law to criminalise skiing as an illegal activity? so that the poor Norweigians who go to work on a pair of skis have to take a bus?
When there is snow outside we can walk on it but it is criminal to ski on it.
Personally I think the climate change is created by more travel, more power usage, more cars, more food consumption, higher living standard, more freedom for people to do their own things etc.
Blaming the problem singularly on skiing is looking at the problem with a pair of blinkers. If there weren't cheap flights would there be such a growth in the skiing industry? Would there be still so many UK skiers able to travel to the Alps quickly and cheaply to place demand of the second hoomes there? Bearing in mind the resorts are used to attract summer walkers and tourists as well. These people are all equally guilty for the climate change because they decide to walk/tour in a foreign country instead of just outside their own home?
I find the problem self adjusting. If the climate change is getting serious and affecting the skiing industry then resorts will get closed. Is there a better example to see beyond what is happening in the Scottish resorts? Do we have a sudden increase of new skiers this year when the snow is poor across Europe?
If one wants to be green, don't ski, travel on foot (as bikes need metal and energy to manufacture), live far away from civilisation so that there is no need to increase the demand of running water, sewerage disposal, electricity usage, contamination, CO2 creation etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| saikee wrote: |
| Will it please the green lobbyists to pass a law to criminalise skiing as an illegal activity? |
Yes, it will make some people very happy. Then they will move on to ban something else...
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Sun 8-04-07 16:33; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Australia and NZ both looking forward to excellent ski season this year - El Nino reversing to become El Nina again. Don't seem to see much talk of ocean currents in a lot of the global warming discussion, and ocean currents have a massive impact on temperatures, which is why the North of UK and Scotland is nowhere near as cold as Labrador, and why the south coast of England is generally pretty mild.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Winterhighland, that will be excessive tax on petrol then. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
laundryman, you are saying that the quoted predictions in the first post are based on a 4C increase in temperatures this century.
Please could you point out the section of the IPCC report which states any such condition.
I believe that if the ski industry continues to do nothing, or simply makes token 'greenwash' gestures towards the problem, that there will be a very strong public backlash against this sport. It's easy for resorts to play around with bio fuel, towel washing and windmills but the overall impact of CO2 pollution including the inward and outward travel of skiers is key.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, is it only this report by the ipcc that you believe, is it gospel.
| Quote: |
I believe that if the ski industry continues to do nothing, or simply makes token 'greenwash' gestures towards the problem, that there will be a very strong public backlash against this sport
|
i can see it now, folks picketing the passes/roads to resorts, placards reading "down with that sorta thing" 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| ... there will be a very strong public backlash against this sport. |
Do you think that the backlash will come from skiers who will abandon skiing holidays because of climate concerns, or will it come from the general public so that we skiers will have to secretly escape to the mountains to avoid being beaten up by irate greenies?
This is serious - we must tax every plane that carries skiers out of the air as soon as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
maybe kevlar body armour should be mentioned in the toys thread, can never be tooo careful
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
graeme, that's right, you can never be too careful. Maybe I should start inventing a plausible story about what I do during the winter which doesn't mention the dreaded "S" word - can you plant trees on a voluntary basis during the winter months? Maybe that would keep me safe from the backlash against my holiday plans?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For newbies to snowheads, this thread is following a well-worn path. Search the forum for "warming" as a keyword, and "David Goldsmith" as an author - you'll find a bunch. If you want to see more, "global" and "environment" are other keywords you may wish to try.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i just tell folk i am off to club seals, its got to be kinder than strapping planks to your feet
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| graeme wrote: |
| i just tell folk i am off to club seals, its got to be kinder than strapping planks to your feet |
Great idea! Much more socially acceptable to club wide-eyed innocents to death than be an evil snowslider
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| Aircraft need to be taxed out of the skies, |
China needs to be taxed out of the universe
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
David Goldsmith, I personally believe the danger is real but Jonpim is correct in saying the most politically persuasive argument is the future scarcity of fuel resources. I think we should be expanding our Nuclear options as part of a Carbon-neutral diversification of energy sources. What do you think? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
stoatsbrother,
|||||||||||||||^|
Name the meter 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
i dont get it, whats wrong with that, cheaper to fly to europe than drive to scotland, well i call that a result
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I don't give a hoot about the future of climate change and how it will effect snow precipitation nor do I give a monkeys hoot in protecting the precious stuff for future generations of skiers. As long as I get enough of it in my life time, which I know I will, why should I care about these skiers when I'm long dead and buried. In 2 days time I will be skiing in Tignes which at present has a snow depth of 240cm on it's upper slopes and 136cm on it's lower slopes - this time last year the same resort had only half the depth of snow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Winterhighland, first, I admit I didn't read carefully the destinations for the fly crowd and the drive crowd were not the same.
However, as graeme observed, the point was still valid despite the different destination. In fact, it's even more extreme of an example. The point it, the pollution make by the plane is pretty much independent of the number of passenger on board. So, the cheap tickets to fill the plane actually help take the skier off the road, out of their polluting cars. MANY CARS, will NOT be polluting for 2 1/2 hours, as a result of cheap tickets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| David Goldsmith, I personally believe the danger is real but Jonpim is correct in saying the most politically persuasive argument is the future scarcity of fuel resources. I think we should be expanding our Nuclear options as part of a Carbon-neutral diversification of energy sources. What do you think? |
I oppose any construction of new nuclear power stations.
Jonpim, with respect I don't think the choice is between global warming and global war - they're hardly mutually exclusive - the choice is between the accepted role of capitalism (which is based on profit maximisation and therefore maximisation of exploitation of natural resources to generate profit) or a more enlightened and holistic view about life on the planet.
A key reference is a book written by EJ Mishan exactly 40 years ago: 'The Costs of Economic Growth'. That book set out the thesis that growth in income was compatible with decline in human welfare and environmental degradation.
It's taken a long time for Mishan's message to come home, and let's hope that the realisation hasn't dawned too late.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| .........I oppose any construction of new nuclear power stations. |
Naturally. If we were obtaining energy from a zero carbon-emission source, you'd have one less subject to re-cycle.
| Quote: |
| ......... the choice is between the accepted role of capitalism (which is based on profit maximisation and therefore maximisation of exploitation of natural resources to generate profit) or a more enlightened and holistic view about life on the planet................ |
Oooo. Now that is a new variation from you, I think. A sort of variation of Das Kapital. Do you see yourself as the new Friedrich Engels?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| David Goldsmith, I personally believe the danger is real but Jonpim is correct in saying the most politically persuasive argument is the future scarcity of fuel resources. I think we should be expanding our Nuclear options as part of a Carbon-neutral diversification of energy sources. What do you think? |
I agree on the nuclear front - it would be a great way to supply the high electricity demands of trains, which at the moment in the UK rely on coal/oil/gas power plants and therefore contribute to global warming. And perhaps if the whole train network were improved then more of us might be tempted onto the train. At the moment it's such a hassle to have to get to London to the eurostar or whatever. Whereas if there was a direct soutch coast connection that cat the scummy London bit out then things would be much better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
David Goldsmith, as it happens I'm working on drawings for parts for a new design of Nuclear Reactor, if I understand the technical people correctly the design is a little less effective than other designs but it has the great advantage of being considerably safer to opperate and because of the way the fuel is made it is impossible to use it to make weapons grade material, indeed it is so safe that if an explosion were to occur in the reactor vessel itself scattering the fuel elements everywhere it would actually be possible for people with next to no protection to safely collect the stuff up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D G Orf, wicked - I'd like one in my back yard if they do them in a size small! There's still be people who always equate nuclear power with Hiroshima, Long Island and Chernobyl though. Perhaps these people need to compare the risks of nuclear power to the risks of "global warming", air pollution, depletion of fossil fuels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
petemillis, well the reactor vessel apparently weighs arround 400 tons ..... empty so you will need a pretty big back yard for one 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
How to use nuclear power is no different to using a box cutter.
You can open your mails or fit carpet with a box cutter but the same thing inside a plane can lead to 9/11 terroist-type attacks.
So it is right to ban all box cutter?
People are worry about climate change and CO2 emission to the point of stopping skiing but if there is part solution to it they bury their heads in the sand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
A key reference is a book written by EJ Mishan exactly 40 years ago: 'The Costs of Economic Growth'. That book set out the thesis that growth in income was compatible with decline in human welfare and environmental degradation.
It's taken a long time for Mishan's message to come home, and let's hope that the realisation hasn't dawned too late. |
It's taken a long time to come home because, far from being "enlightened and holistic", it's complete dangly bits. Forty years ago, regular famines were a feature of life in India and China. Now, due to the advances made possible by free enterprise and the engagement with that system by those countries, billions are freed from the spectre of starvation and malnourishment and millions are enjoying the luxuries that most in the West take for granted. It is simply not true to say that the welfare of the bulk of the human race is worse than forty years ago; where there have been few improvements, it's been due to prolonged warfare and/or despotic government.
In the free enterprise system, human activity is driven by the cause of providing people with what they want; any possible alternative is about providing them with what some dictatorship (that invariably thinks itself "enlightened" and its philosophy "holistic") thinks they should have.
Sorry David, but you can stuff it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
