Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Global Warming Pushes Ski Industry Downhill

By Daniel A. Shaw, Grist.org. Posted February 9, 2006.


Climate change is forcing ski slopes around the world to adopt sustainable practices before the industry collapses.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Daniel A. Shaw

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

With the Olympics starting this week, all eyes are on the slopes of Turin. But skiing and snowboarding could disappear from our collective culture in about 50 years if global-warming forecasts ring true. In a lot of popular ski areas, there simply won't be any snow.

It's all downhill from here

It's already happening in parts of Europe: They're wrapping glaciers in Switzerland, and Scottish Highlands ski areas are being recast as mountain-biking destinations. In the United States, resorts in the Pacific Northwest got a harbinger last season when a warm winter led to a 78 percent drop in skier visits.

Global warming, of course, will impact practically every aspect of life the world over, and recreational plights won't be our biggest worry. But right now, the ski industry is the perfect coal-mine canary for its fallout. And while no single industry can reverse climate change, enlightened self-interest is driving ski areas to adopt a wide range of innovative energy measures to prolong their survival -- and maybe ours.

Are they doing enough? It depends whom you ask.

Mountain Unrest

The center of the green skiing movement in the United States is Aspen, a place not exactly known for reducing consumption of anything. The Aspen Skiing Co., which operates four mountains in the area, first tinted green in 1997, when CEO Patrick O'Donnell -- who had previously run Patagonia -- hired Auden Schendler as the industry's first in-house environmental affairs director. Since then, critics and observers ranging from the U.S. Green Building Council to the Natural Resources Defense Council to Plenty magazine, which named Aspen North America's top eco-ski resort in 2004, have hailed their work as a model for the industry -- and for other outdoor-recreation industries as well.

"Our whole environmental program is organized under the umbrella of climate," says Schendler, who previously worked at the nearby Rocky Mountain Institute. "Climate change should be driving everything we all do."

For its part, Aspen has enacted a top-to-bottom program to conserve energy and water and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, incorporating green buildings, a minihydroelectric plant, biodiesel-driven groomers and wind power purchases. This year, the company became the first resort of any kind to join the Chicago Climate Exchange, North America's first voluntary, legally binding emissions-trading market. Aspen has even set up a consulting business to help other resorts and businesses go green.

A monumental moment

The $4 billion ski industry "got a wake-up call" in 1998, notes Schendler, when protesters torched Vail. The fact that radical greens would burn a place most people envision as part of an outdoors experience stunned the industry into introspection. Until that point, says Schendler, "there was this perception that the industry must be environmentally friendly because these are all really outdoorsy people, but the reality of it was there was no environmental scrutiny whatsoever."

Two years later, more than 160 resorts signed a nonbinding charter initiated by the National Ski Areas Association that pledged environmental responsibility. Today, of the 492 ski resorts in the United States, about 180 participate in the NSAA's Sustainable Slopes program, which grew out of the charter. Schendler says things are changing, but not enough. "The industry response [to climate change] has largely been to increase snowmaking and increase water storage," he laments, "not, 'Let's lobby hard for legislation and start being more energy-efficient.'" As a result, he says, "not much has happened industrywide."

Geraldine Link, director of public policy at the Lakewood, Colo.-based NSAA, disagrees. "The industry is taking climate change seriously, and I think we're doing a lot," she says. For the last two years, the NSAA has partnered with NRDC on a Keep Winter Cool public-education campaign. The goal is to reach as many of America's 15 million skiers and snowboarders as possible through public-service announcements and promotional materials. This winter's big push is selling "cool tags" -- mini, $2 versions of alternative-energy certificates, whose proceeds let resorts buy the real thing.

John Steelman, program manager of NRDC's climate center, says the partnership drew some flak early on from green groups that viewed ski resorts as land-gobbling, energy-sucking enemies, but once he explained it, they backed off. "One of our objectives was to move the issue of climate change beyond the environmental community," he explains. At the same time, he points out that NRDC's endorsement does not go past the Keep Winter Cool campaign: "There are areas where we disagree with the ski industry, particularly land use."


Digg!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Uhhh...What About Overflowing Parkinglots at Mammoth?
Posted by: decembrist on Feb 9, 2006 5:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Parkinglots at the biggest resorts are giant, overflowing acres of snow-covered asphalt. Despite alot of relatively cleaner burning Subaru Outbacks, the majority are SUVs of the dirtiest burning variety. The SUV is the trademark of the ski area skier, and Outbacks aren't much better.
The miles that skiers drive to get to resorts is just as bad as the diesel generators that alot of ski areas use to power their resorts. The statement that "Even the biggest proponents of these changes acknowledge that none of the measures -- not even all of them put together -- will reverse global warming. But every little bit helps." is naieve at best. Ski areas DEPEND on dirty SUVs to get skiers to the lifts. Although I applaud any attempt at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the number of shiny, sleek, and dirty as hell SUVs in the parkinglots reduces this applause.

Another aspect this article fails to address is that many resorts that don't receive natural snowfall (like many in S. California) continue to stay open to skiers by producing man-made snow. It's truly a bizarre experience to see a mountain completely brown with white spaghetti-shaped lines of man-made snow snaking down its flanks. As long as a resort maintains freezing temperatures they can pump water in order to "make" their snow. In a future global-warmed planet, many resorts could conceivably remain open by producing their own snow, as long as temperatures at least hovered around freezing. This leads me to believe, as well as their parkinglots filled with SUVs, that most "green" ski areas are participating in the "Keep Winter Cool" campaign for marketing reasons. You know there are plenty of SUV drivers who are against global warming.

Alta near Salt Lake City is an exception, I know from experience. There is a bus that runs from the bottom of the canyon all the way to Alta's parkinglot at the top... though it seems like few take advantage of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I find this funny, funny haha!
Posted by: jpinder on Feb 9, 2006 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I knew it; the only reason most people will make an effort to save energy is when it hurts the pocket book. They’re scrambling to save money like chickens with their head cut off. Only when it affects them, otherwise they would have done nothing or even would have created more waste. We’ll hear of these types of stories more often. And one day it will trickle down to auto and truck manufacturers (already started with Ford and ilk). The U.S.A. is so slow when it comes to change; you still use the English system of measure. Imagine changing the CO2 release habit. I hope oil prices triple again, we’re too spoiled.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Greenwash!
Posted by: ScottP on Feb 9, 2006 9:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is filled with factual falsehoods and leaves out critical facts that completely change the picture. I would know, I've skied at most of the ski areas in question, including several hundred days at Mammoth over the past 25 years. I've also skied at over 50 other ski areas in the US and abroad, and helped run our neighborhood rope tow run as a kid.

As far as Mammoth, here are a few falsehoods:
"Even with a new gondola up and running this year": that new Village Gondola was running last year.

"imposed a five-minute idling time limit for vehicles on all of its properties": oh, so writing a rule in a book that is never enforced counts as environmental protection? It's routine still this year for drivers to sit with their engines running and heaters on in the parking lot and loading zone by Main Lodge.

"reduced the number of parking spaces to encourage commuting": I certainly noticed no reduction in parking places near Main Lodge, and if there was I would have heard the outcry. If they actually wanted to encourage more use of the busses, they would run them in such a manner that it doesn't take over a half hour every time I want to use the bus go 3 miles from town to Main Lodge or back.

So that's the number of falsehoods in a single paragraph!

But let's go on! Later it states "At Mammoth, a new lodge is currently in the design phase -- but the resort sits on a volcanic cauldron, so the building will tap this geothermal gold mine". Actually, the vents are not near Main Lodge, which is slated for demolition. And they certainly wouldn't want to tap it there even if they could, since that would release stinky sulfur fumes that no one would want to breath, and are in fact unhealthy. And the purpose of the demolition, which will of course cause tons of debris as does any major construction project, is not to enhance the environment. Barry Sternlicht, the new owner, is working on a land swap with the forest service so that they can build and sell condos in the Main Lodge area, surely at a tidy profit.

Shall we move on to Aspen, a destination resort that relies on air travel for most of its clients? Care to guess how many gallons of fuel are used to transport 10,000 people/week to the resort?

This article is a disgrace! Alternet, please remove it, or beware that your credibility will suffer as a result!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Melting the gobal permafrost
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 9, 2006 12:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
European mountaineers have been aware for some years that frozen mountains are collapsing - see the recent issue of Rock and Ice magazine for a good article. We also see that the artic ice is melting due to global warming - and what is mind-bogglingly ridiculous is that oil companies are viewing this as a good thing because it will be easier to drill for oil in the arctic! All the predictions made decades ago are slowly coming true (Navy submariners knew about thinning arctic ice over 15 years ago, but that info was 'classified' for ten years!). Well - maybe another year of Katrina-style hurricane activity - oh, but wait, CNN, Fox, ABC and CBS said that's just due to 'natural oscillations' - they even trotted out a few ex-tobacco company scientists to provide 'expert commentary'. They wouldn't LIE to us, now would they?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

kattmanduu
Posted by: kattmann on Feb 9, 2006 2:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live near Ski Apache New Mexico. We have had the claim of being the southern most place in the USA where you could ski on natural snow. NOT! this year and it has been getting less and less over the past 12 years. This year/season we have only gotten about 6 inches of real snow, and the rest has been man made. It seems to be a waste of our precious water to make a place for the rich to play when our forests are bone-dry and the fire danger is at the extreme level already. I recall when we had yards of natural snow in town, now it's dry. I work in the service industry. We survive on the tourists dollars and it's been about our slowest year, I would love to send you some money but I have bills to pay and my income is about a third less than last year. I am lucky to be able to keep my internet service and be able to take what ever actions I can. When times get better you will get some financial assistance from me. In the mean time I will take what even actions I can to help. Thanks ALTERNET for your help in getting the word out

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: kattmanduu Posted by: wilmot7