 Poster: A snowHead
|
For the past 18 years (ever since a geographical magazine put the Alps in a coffin on its front cover) I've taken an interest in what our sport is doing to secure its future, not to mention the overall health of our very vulnerable mountainscapes.
If someone can tell me what skiing is doing for the survival of snow (and everything that lives and grows on mountains) please let me know.
Heli-skiing is a case in point.
Members of the European Parliament are duty-bound to protect the environment and could pass tough laws to prevent the continued exploitation of Alpine land to generate more accommodation, roads and pollution.
What exactly are we going to do about it?
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Fri 20-05-05 13:01; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| If someone can tell me what skiing is doing for the survival of snow |
Well, Les Arcs is installing lots more snow cannons this summer, so that will help the snow survive 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
If someone can tell me what skiing is doing for the survival of snow
|
Quite a few people seem to be wearing little green bits of plastic on their wrists. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
David Goldsmith, have you got a reference to an article? I am missing the point here. Surely snow falls, we pack it down a bit for pistes, we slide along on it, it melts, redo from start? Are you referring to climate change? Would any of us care that what used to be a beautiful valley that no-one ever saw became a purpose-built ski resort? Just trying to get your drift here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
There is already a fair amount of European regulation in place which is good staring point.
Here in the UK we take European planning directives quite seriously and most large projects require and get a thorough Environmental Appraisal. That would certainly be true of any major new ski lift proposal or road construction within a sensitive enironment.
If a project is contentious in the UK then there will normally be a planning inquiry to idependently weigh up the evidence.
Right now for example the Whinash inquiry into the installation of 27 wind turbines on the edge of the Lake District is in full swing near here. Its raising all sorts of topical issues.
Even if large scale development is not actually prevented the Inquiry will normally impose identify mitigating measures to reduce the impacts as far as possible. This is the reason it takes so long to do anything in Britain, but it does mean that decisions are more considered and its not normal here to devastate our best landscapes.
Like us other EU countries are required to carry out an Environmental Appriasal of their planning polciies and that should include evaluation of all alternative options and solutions. The objective is to formulate policies that will avoid grossly unsustainable development from taking place.
However it may be that in some of the Alpine countries local politics and individual personalities have the power to usurp or ignore these safeguards.
I'm also not sure how well organised environmental pressure groups are elsewhere in Europe and whether they have had much success in persudaing policy makers to become more conservation orientated or in challenging their harmful decisons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I am guessing that the problem lies with the development of ski areas - construction, more vistitors, etc causing changes to the local environment.
I have no idea what problems these factors do cause in the Alps - sorry DG but you are probably the most knowledgable on this.
I guess that the question that really needs to be asked is that do we need to develop further at the expense of the environment (if this is going to be affected)? Does the tourism industry really have to benefit from the destruction of the planet - surely this would also be a cause for concern in summer destinations (for the more affluent amongst us, what is the environmental impact of the Palms / World projects in UAE)?
I may be completely off subject on this but this may also be the most sane and comprehensible post I have ever made in any forum on the Interweb!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We should worry more about the buildings that are already up there. The road up to Arc 2000 for instance is in a bit of a state. In the week I was there we could see various rock falls onto the road - from the road above. In ten years Arc 2000 wont exist unless they do something to strengthen the sides of the road soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surely Arc 2000 will exist - it is just the road that won't?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Paul Mason wrote: |
| We should worry more about the buildings that are already up there. The road up to Arc 2000 for instance is in a bit of a state. In the week I was there we could see various rock falls onto the road - from the road above. In ten years Arc 2000 wont exist unless they do something to strengthen the sides of the road soon. |
Isn't that the case with all mountain roads which are cut into the side of the hill? The road up to BSM from Moutiers seems to get its fair share of minor (and occasionaly major) landslides. I've never thought that the Arc 2000 road was any worse than other roads in the area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Peter S wrote: |
I'm also not sure how well organised environmental pressure groups are elsewhere in Europe and whether they have had much success in persudaing policy makers to become more conservation orientated or in challenging their harmful decisons. |
That seems to imply though that you believe the Alpine countries are less rigourous than the UK?
I can think of a certain proposal in the Cairngorms that went through due to pressure from local's who stood to benefit. I can also think of the Val-Cenis/Termignon link which has just been stopped due to environmental concerns. I would agree that the environmental movement in France, in any case, is less visible than in the UK although the previous government had ministers from the Green party and the current Green leader - Voynet - is not a bad person[1]. The Green movement here (in France) probably dates back to the 68ers with the first big victory being the defense of the Vanoise National Park against the ski station developments of Peter Schnebelen, a battle that continues to this day.
[1] A few years ago Madame Voynet was held hostage by randy peasants after agreeing to meet them. The vociferous farmers got increasingly raucous with a rousing chorus of "get yer kit off, get yer kit off" (Voynet a poil)... while her two security guards stood outside feigning not to hear, shrugging shoulders and smoking fags. The lazy Gendarmes finally went to her rescue - probably just as well for the peasants.
She is better known as the minister who banned off-piste skiing on the backside of the Aiguille Rouge due to very real concerns about hibernating animals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Building and manitaining roads, especially in the Alps, is a contentious issue, local roads are maintained by the regional Government, national roads are maintained by the regional Governtment on behalf of the Government and all roads within the commune are maintained by the commune. It could be that the road from BSM to Les Arcs is entirely within the commune of BSM, in which case the cost of repair comes out of the Taxe d'Habitation, so PG and everyone else in BSM will have to bear the cost. Now BSM has a permanent population of about 7,000 people, so it's a bit of a burden and invariably the cost will be spread across every taxable entity in the entire domain. We have an issue with the road from BSM up to La Rosiere, it's only 23kms but it's built on the side of a mountain and needs constant maintenance, it's also a Route National, the N90. The regional Government, Savoie, have refused to upgrade the road and set a limit of 10,000 beds per week as being the maximum that the road can manage, much to the chagrin of the lift operators who wanted the commune to expand to 14,000+ beds per week. I can't see the Savoie Governement moving on this, but the lift operators will be lobbying hard for the road to be upgraded. So at the moment it's one of the reasons why La Rosiere doesn't get overrun even in peak season. I do agree with David's suggestion that any future access to high resorts should be by Funicular or railway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
The Cairngorm funicular replaced existing lifts in accordance with Scottish National Planning Guidance. I think thats why it was ultimately permitted.
The proposed extension into Leurchers Gulley in the 1980s was rejected because it would have meant the extension of development, principally a new road, across an otherwise unspoiled landscape of national scenic quality.
Given DGs post and evidence from large areas of the Alps, I'm not at all convinced that Planning systems in most Alpine countries, are anywhere near as rigourous as in the UK.
However that might be because these days we tend to cherish our upland whereas the French and Italians regard large parts of the Alps as essentially industrial land. I can think of some historical reasons for that.
I suspect that the Swiss probably have the most rigouress policies of all. I think I recall that as at Cairngorm, some Regions in Switzerland only permit the replacement of existing lifts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Cairngorms became a national park recently, so any expansion of the ski area (pretty hypothetical now anyway due to snow shortage) is most unlikely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Peter S wrote: |
| I suspect that the Swiss probably have the most rigouress policies of all. I think I recall that as at Cairngorm, some Regions in Switzerland only permit the replacement of existing lifts. |
Yes, that's correct. But, also in some parts of France. Wasn't that the issue on the glacier at Fornet? In fact wasn't there an issue even replacing the lift.
As I type I realise they're now putting cannons on the glacier of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Peter S wrote: |
However that might be because these days we tend to cherish our upland whereas the French and Italians regard large parts of the Alps as essentially industrial land. |
I think that is largely because your upland has little commercial value - where it does have value controversial projects such as the Cairngorm funicular get approved. If it was 1000 m higher you could expect to see a lot of ski development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Interesting point, davidof. Maybe that's why global concerns about ecology, atmosphere, glaciers etc. need to transcend national economic concerns and why European environmental law is so important here.
An interesting convergence of environmental and economic concerns occurred on Aonach Mor (Nevis Range), which is (I think still) owned by an aluminium smelting plant in Fort William (Alcan?) because it provides the water catchment for their cooling activities. When the ski development was proposed the aluminium company insisted on minimum water pollution, since it would affect their plant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
that's why global concerns about ecology, atmosphere, glaciers etc. need to transcend national economic concerns and why European environmental law is so important here.
|
That is a fair comment. It is probably a bit rich certain European countries lecturing say, Brazil about biodiversity and rain forest when we have already felled a lot of our forest.
I do agree that some of the butt ugly developments in the alps, or more recently the overdevelopment makes you wonder whether there are any planning controls but in fact it is quite a long, complicated process. The south coast (Provence not Bournemouth) is the worst example of fly-building.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
I think that is largely because your upland has little commercial value - where it does have value controversial projects such as the Cairngorm funicular get approved. If it was 1000 m higher you could expect to see a lot of ski development.
|
Large parts of Britain have great economic value but are effectively protected from the worst excessives of development by our planning system. The Green Belt around London and the retention of large parts of open countryside in the South east of England springs to mind. Don't forget that the conservation and national Park movements began in Britain as long ago as William Wordsworth, and its subsequent influence has been very effective in protecting the countryside and sensitive environments today.
No doubt if we did have mountains that were 1000m higher we would have had more skiing development - although the challenges of constructing and operating infrastructure at 2000m in the UK climate might well have limited things somewhat  .
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Well, if the gulf-stream fails we may yet get big ski resorts here - though probably not in my lifetime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
