Which forms of skiing are expendable, if we're to reduce CO2 emissions?

A snowHead

Looking at our sport in the round, as practised from the UK, there seem to be three key issues if skiing is to reduce its environmental impact (the greatest and most relevant impact being CO2 emissions and the resultant rising snowline) :

1. The destinations that skiers travel to (i.e. distance to get there: fuel consumed)
2. The mode of transport used (air-v-rail-v-car)

3. The number of ski holidays taken

According to figures in The Independent on 28 May, the CO2 emitted per passenger on a New York flight is over 10 times that emitted for a Paris flight, so the Geneva/Denver comparison is probably at least as bad.

Sadly, we should all ditch the idea of skiing in North America if we're to take this seriously.

The mode of transport for European skiing offers us three alternatives, plus the little discussed 'coach'. I suspect that the latter is actually the most fuel-efficient, and if the bus runs on modern fuels it's probably relatively clean.

The Independent claimed that rail travel is either 8 or 19 times less polluting than air, though a study by Lancaster University has drawn a less favourable comparison for rail. I'm doing some research of sources on this important question and will come back to this thread with more info. shortly. There are some indications that high-speed trains use more energy than medium-speed trains, which could be an argument for overnight sleepers that don't need to run at 180/190 mph.

As for the number of ski holidays, one thing that's maybe worth considering is taking fewer ski holidays without necessarily reducing the amount of skiing. A three-centre ski holiday, linked by rail (or maybe bus) connections, springs to mind, since it's the repeat UK-Alps journeys that bump up the pollution.

A snowHead

Trans-atlantic flights would be first to go if I had the responsibility of making skiing greener. Causes the least amount of pain to skiers (who still have world-class skiing to take advantage of), but makes a significant difference to the carbon footprint of skiing.

I would love to have a flexible, low-cost sleeper service London to Bourg St Maurice. Unfortunately it is cheaper to fly/drive via Lyon or Geneva, and current train services are not very flexible if you want a direct UK-Alps journey. A reduction in tax on trains, or an increase in tax on flights might help change this equation, but at the moment the train option is not as attractive for me as fly/drive.

Going for one long ski trip rather than several short trips is not an option I'm afraid. I'm lucky to be able to get a week off during the winter, often have to make do with long weekends. Going on multi-centre ski trips for a fortnight or more will have to wait until Jane and I retire!

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

rob@rar.org.uk, at least in London you have trains that go to France.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Here are the only two sources of rail-v-air comparisons I'm currently aware of, having phoned Friends of the Earth:

Commission for Integrated Transport. A comparative study of the environmental effects of rail and short-haul air travel (in other words, this research focuses on internal UK flights -v- inter-city rail journeys

University of Lancaster. Transport Energy Consumption: a discussion paper (by Professor Roger Kemp)

The Eurostar is reckoned to be highly CO2 friendly, incidentally, because its French sections run on power which is 80% generated from nuclear power stations, not that I'm personally advocating the operation of those.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Water skiing; polutes both air and water

What do the rail companies do with the sleepers for the 7.5 months of the year that they have no passengers. Cant see there being much out of season traffic.

You'll need to Register first of course.

Frosty the Snowman, people don't only sleep their way to the mountains. The French use sleeper trains to go elsewhere too.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Elsewhere?? You mean that there are other places in France? Shocked

After all it is free

admin, I understand that, but i presume lots of UK traffic would overload the system. Direct service from York would suit my family every time.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

a job for Mr Branson I feel, anyone got his number ?

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

snow reports

Nuclear Stations have a very high environmental impact in the construction stage. All that concrete and steel takes a great deal of energy to manufacture. When in use, nuclear power is extremely 'clean' - far, far better than burning fossil fuels. And solar and wind power will unfortunately never contribute more that a few percent. Wave power is potentially a useful clean method but needs much research and development before paying off. The big unknown with nuclear is the cost and feasibilty of decommissioning stations past their working life - since no-one has really tackled this yet.
On topic - it is nonsense that there is no VAT on aviation fuel. That would be a very quick and simple way to hit the low cost airlines which are providing so much of the transport to the alps.

You know it makes sense.

kuwait_ian, The VAT is not important, I suspect what you mean is fuel duty. The VAT would just be claimed back by the airlines

Ships use and trains use "red" diesel but this still has a portion of duty applicable. Current duty on a litre of petrol or diesel is 47.1 p per litre (up to 48.32 on 1st sept) if a 737 can hold 5500 litres then a full tank would raise an extra £2650 in duty. I dont know what a 737 does to the mile, but it would certainly have a major impact on prices

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

As far as I'm concerned, no forms of skiing are expendable. I'll happily drive an electric or biodiesel car powered by fuel cells/hydrogen/etc, generated from renewable CO2-neutral supplies, fit tripple glazing, walk to work, recycle rubbish, whatever it takes but I WILL NEVER GIVE UP SKIING so Friends of the Earth and their cronies can shove it where the sun don't shine Twisted Evil

A snowHead

A snowHead

One Easter ski trip I cycled from the Netherlands to St Anton 900km. Dont think you can get greener than that & you arrive fully fit to ski Smile

Here in Holland cycling every day in all weather to the shops/school/work/station etc is a normal way of life & with a population is 16 million with 60 million bikes Very Happy

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

David Goldsmith, Where are you coming from ? Your initial assumption is that fuel consumption = C02 emissions = the major impact on the environment. As is pointed out later in the thread natural resource and hence C02 levels are significantly affected by many other factors ( e.g. cutting down trees in the first place).

Nero and fiddles comes to mind.

IF your contention was a real problem , why not go the whole hog and agree within the EC that only people living in that country can ski there ... problem solved. Hope you lot enjoy the Peak District.

A serious comment - are you a UK Liberal party member ? Evil or Very Mad

plake I wish I could be so succinct. I feel as if I've got involved in the making of a party political broadcast - thought it was the 1930s when this kind of continuous 'positioning' happened.

Sorry guys , it is irreleavnt to the manin theme but Fuel Duty/Local Taxes is quite complicated when applied to airlines ( I don't understand it) but is done based upon where consumed not upload.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

eEvans, I'm coming from Kyoto.

And the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Which international convention of scientists do you rely on for your facts?

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

David Goldsmith, Like Dubya , I have little intention of reading / recognising it.

When you find the bit that says ' The best thing that the ski-ing community can do to reduce CO2 emmissions is to fly to Geneva not Denver', I would however be interested in seeing the link.

Given that cars produce per C02 per capita than airlines why not focus on them ?

As I suggested on another thread to bang on about 'itsy bitsy' nuances on what is ( I suggest but do not know) a fundamentally environmetally/ecologically unfriendly pastime is rather like p****** into the wind on the top of Mont Blanc.

You'll need to Register first of course.

eEvans, of course you're right, but surely those like us who indulge in the most hedonistic CO2-inducing pastimes carry the greater responsibilities to sort out a strategy?

These are still early days in a global fight against climate change that can only involve massive changes in lifestyle if it's going to save the snow.

In answer to your point cars are being focused on, but (as mentioned above) there's still this bizarre absence of taxation on aircraft fuel.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Frosty the Snowman, as a child/teenager, I travelled to the Pyrenees in a French sleeper train.
To add my bit to the argument, I love travelling by train, and would do so if it were an option, but it isn't from here.

After all it is free

David Goldsmith, Yikes, serious questions that I have to respond to - with full recognition that we are a bunch of environmental misfits!

Nick Zotov,
." But it does wind up as an end-user cost, provided the final product is VAT-rated. So retail customers would see that as an increase in price on their tickets, provided they were rated for VAT."

Nope, it is a value added tax not a purchase tax.

The end product already has VAT charged on it; any VAT involved in the setting up of the end product is offset.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

john wells, I understand airline tickets are zero-rated at present. Open to correction, on that, though.

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

Looks like airline tickets are indeed zero-rated - see sections 4 and 5 here.
So, if VAT were charged on them EU citizens would be subject to it (I guess non-EU citizens could claim an exemption. Of course, John is right. But if the tickets were non zero-rated, the government would get the VAT revenue (despite the airline claiming its element back) and most airline passengers would suffer higher costs.

snow reports

I would suggest that inter EU flights would be VAT applicable but those "exporting" or "importing" people to/from the EU would be exempt. Duty or a levy could be charged on fuel over a certain level present in tanks on arriving in the EU. This is currently done with trucks, sometimes illegally? on trucks on inter EU work.

Frosty the Snowman, I think safety considerations might preclude this.

You know it makes sense.

Alastair, I cant see them landing on MT as they would have to pay on the fuel either way.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

If we're dropping forms of snow riding, surely we'd make at least some impact in many positive (not only climatically) ways by banning snowboarding?

[ducks and runs for cover...]

A snowHead

Alastair, I think safety considerations might preclude this.

A snowHead

I think there is alot of BS comimg from UK baesd posters talking about it and not acting on it ?

If you read between the lines on what has been said here, it seems to me its a case of "how can i get to the slopes on the dates i want at the cheapest cost possible price".

I think this is just fueling th fire Very Happy

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

Frosty the Snowman, you're right - I did indeed mean fuel duty. Any ful nos. Sorry & TKS for the correction.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Just for everyones information neither coach, rail or air travel attract VAT i.e you don't pay VAT for the tickets on any of them, placing fuel duty on aviation fuel would have an effect, all the planes would land where there was no fuel duty to fill up meaning that they would actually increase the amount of pollution since the greatest amount of pollution given off by aircraft is upon taking off and landing, which would occur one extra time per journey, if fuel duty is going to work it has to be done world wide and the US will never agree to that because of the huge pressure that its commercial (oil, air etc.) lobby groups can apply, the government could apply an increase in landing charges instead which might get arround this but it might also result in many companies switching their routes from UK airports to continental ones for long haul destinations.

Personally in 36 years of going to the mountains I've taken the train 19 times, the coach 6 times, the car 7 times and I've flown just twice:
I found flying uncomfortable but quick but the luggage limits are a pain.
The coach was uncomfortable and slow and I'd never choose to use it now that I'm the one that pays, it was however cheap.
The car works out quite cheap with arround 3 people going and its great for carrying all the luggage plus its convenient for going door to door (or in my case door to Lauterbrunnen railway station Laughing

).
My favorite method of travel is however the train, no luggage limits and the ability to sleep overnight is great, you can walk arround the train if you need to have a stretch and apart from the UK they tend to be quite comfortable, they are however not cheap, especially if you decide to go for comfort and pay first class fares, it is however a pain to have to carry the luggage arround at the intermediaate stations, but no worse than at an airport where you usually end up running from the passport control to the aircraft because its so far away.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

D G Orf, I'd pretty much go along with what you say, though, sadly, I usually find myself flying because of time and cost. I have travelled by myself by car. Bit of a nightmare, in the days of wind down windows and having to lean across the car to pay the tolls. But with 3, all drivers, and stopping overnight en-route, very pleasant indeed. Train is also comfortable, but expensive. And I don't sleep well overnight in them. Coach is a bum-numbing experience.
What happens in China, India, and America is going to make any changes we do rather insignificant, I feel.

You'll need to Register first of course.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Trouble is that China and India are signatories to Kyoto, but have no limits on their carbon emission, as Non-Annex-1 countries. So, they have no emission reduction or limitation targets.

After all it is free

Nick Zotov, the good thing about both countries is that they will be most unlikely to drive around in bloated monsters with huge lumps of unsophisticated detroit pig iron under the bonnets. But the huge numbers of small modern cars, trucks and buses they will use in the near future as both economies boom will still have an impact.
We really need the USA to make a conservation commitment and to lead by example. I'm not 100% sure of the figures but I think their citizens comprise 25% of the world's population but they use 40% of the energy. But with Bush in charge, we'll get nowhere unless the oil price goes so high the good old boys finally see the light.

kuwait_ian, if the price goes too high he may add a few countries to his axis of evil list and invade Shocked

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Help!!

Which forms of skiing are expendable, if we're to reduce CO2 emissions?

snowHeads Forum Index >>> The Piste