Words to Ignore

I found it to be well written but I disagree with global warming for the most part. I think that for one thing, humans aren't entirely to blame for the slight increase in temperature. Also, earth has only increased by a couple degrees in the past century or so. That is why I feel the global warming claims are a massive exaggeration.
 
It was sarcasm... more directed at the core of the park scene.

I'm not sure where you're getting introspection out of this, and if you don't like the writing style that's fine. It's stylized and that's subjective. It wasn't meant for the Wall Street Journal, it was meant for NS, and even then the fringe of NS. It is a commentary focused through an analogous modality, just a connection I felt fit.
 
I find myself falling on the other guy's side of the fence here regarding your writing style. As an Englishman, I myself bemoan the downfall and bastardisation of my mother tongue, a development I blame for the most part on the explosion and subsequent nature of 'American culture' (whatever that is). But I also think that excessively overcomplicating one's language in an argument/debate tends to detract from the point you're trying to make. Don't get me wrong, I do it sometimes to, mostly because it amuses me from time to time... jus' sayin'...

Regarding the thrust of your OP and 'debate' it has provoked:

There can be no doubt about the reality of global warming, and the impact it has had/ will continue to have on our dearly beloved snow. I've seen pictures from several different seasons during the '70's of my adopted alpine ski town. The snow level in resort was frequently the same height on the roadside as the top of the buses. Nowadays it rarely exceeds the top of the wheelarch. I'm no scientist, nor an automotive engineer for that matter, but II doubt the village buses have quadrupled in height...

Most of the 'debate' so far has been a succession of people reciting various eco-lifestyle 'claims'. I haven't really got any anecdotes regarding my lifestyle, but I will say that I think that money is the only languages the people that matter comprehend. Without doubt it is the responsibilty of the consumer to adapt his behaviour, the net effect hopefully being to persuade the producer to follow suit in the nature of the product he puts on the market. However, I believe the best and fastest solution is for governments to really pick up the ball and offer financial incentives that will encourage/compel companies to put more time and effort into 'greenifying' their products.

That is all. I don't really know what I'm talking about but felt compelled to weigh in with some worthless chitchat.
 
This. You do realize who the kids of NS are... right? Kids. Yeah there's some people who actually know the words you used but it's not really making your writing any better for them. If you're directing your piece towards NS (as you said you were in your previous post), then why would you over complicate your writing when it's going to be mainly 12-18 year old people reading it...? I dunno, it just doesn't seem all that logical to me.
 
I read it, and I wholeheartedly agree with the OP's view of the hypocrisy of skiing, that is, that we love snow, yet are contributing to its doom. However, I don't have the stance that in order to preserve skiing, none of us can actually ski. But, no mistake, it's a tricky issue. My ultimate hope is that this generation will find ways to combat global warming, while maintaining skiing as we all love. Until then, we can buy REC's (Renewable Energy Certificates), or plant trees, if you have the incentive.

Anyway, you are certainly over-assuming about how many people read this.
 
Exactly! Money is the reason why Copenhagen won't bring about any sort of a relevant solution to our problem. (Besides the fact that the beneficiaries of the polluting status quo have managed convince quite a few people that there may not even be a problem after all)

As you correctly point out, the consumer is where it's at - especially in this great country of ours - the U.S. of A. - where 2/3 (or more?) of the economy is fueled by individual consumption.

Applying that to skiing, let's go with kamikaze's idea about hiking. In fact, I got a pair of AT skis this season:)
 
Sorry again for the writing, I guess I gave NS a bit more credit than that. I do not think it was really over anyone's head, just better prepared than the average NS post. You're all responding, so obviously this isn't completely beyond the realm of discussion around here, just a touch different.

I ski inbounds and out of bounds, both by sled and skins. As I said, it was a critique.

I agree with Kollac and Rastafarider too, in that there needs to be an economic incentive. I think it needs to work in both directions though, incentive for development of new technologies and taxes on heavy polluters. I definitely think a carbon credit system is a good gateway measure. Internalize overlooked externalities. It is entirely possible that there is a moderate and economically feasible solution to our environmental issues, but at the same time, it's entirely possible that there is not. A lot of changes need to be made that haven't even entered the popular discussion.

As far as skiing goes, there is a definite edge to the big and powerful options that the industry's machines and infrastructure provide. You can't deny the incredible things that have been done with the advent of heliskiing and park-builders. And the popular culture somewhat reasonably, and somewhat through the hype machine, glorifies those options. But the fact remains, while they might be cool, and they might be helping the industry grow, they're not the sport itself.

I also maintain that self-destruction is undeniably cool. It runs through human history.
 
hahahahaha
"But what else are you going to do, tour? How excruciatingly slow and lame. You eat bacon, not granola" - goretex
gonna sig that
 
My mountain has windmills.But that's beside the point. To try to blame global warming on humans, let alone the minute percentage of humans who ski or snowboard is like saying standing on the coast of california and blowing will cause a tsunami in asia somewhere. the study of climate change is in it's infancy, and because of that, should be examined critically, and have all sides looked at with skepticism. 90% of the time scientific "facts" are proven to be wrong by generations to come. but I digress. Yes, skiers should respect their environment, try to make less of an impact, whether it be by carpooling, or not throwing empty beer cans underneath the lift for some poor animal to choke on and die. Whether or not we can change global warming, it is our duty, as the dominant species on the planet, to be respectful of the other one's. C02 may be bad, but animals and plants can adapt to that. What they can't adapt to are sharp metal objects in their wilderness, oil in their water, or the plethora of other wonderful things we do that are now being neglected as hoards of westerners turn more focus carbon emissions. Bottom line, be cautious, less wasteful, and think for yourself.
 
(just google laurentide ice sheet) from 110,000 years ago to about 18,000 years ago, north america was covered with ice 1 mile-2 miles thick....

and puny little humans with their chevy tahoes will destory all the glaciers on all the mountains forever, humans are a fly splatting on the windshield of earth's dynamic climate

le sigh
 
Planets around us are increasing in temperature as well. must mean that the sun is growing and probably going to blow up destroying our entire galaxy. It's a bitch i know but there isn't much you can do about it but wait to see whether shit hits the fan or not so you might as well shred, party and make the most of it just in case Earth does become a fiery mass of rock.
 
the level of complete bs posts about stuff like this on ns is honestly amazing i mean did you even show up for science in high school or did you just figure youd wing it?
 
Then again, one could suppose that it's all really the fault of those who allow themselves to remain in the sport with any aspirations outside of market forces. The sport was built by lumberjacks and floats on the success of developers. All of the soul and individuality claimed in snowsports' styles are really perfectly placed product promotions at an underutilized target markets of indy-fag-hipsters from Seattle, and yuppies from the Bay. So just remember, when you finally get to buy that sled so that bad park days can be turned to fruitful backcountry expeditions, you're gallantly doing your part to keep the American dream of prosperity alive, because infinite growth is the heavenly mandate of the land. But do us a favor and remember not to teach your kids too much about what powder used to be and remember that we're all digging our own graves.

You spelled yuppies wrong.

Just thought I'd tell you.

But really, you're quite spot-on with your comments... I have only one thing to say. We don't like skiing because it is built around self-destruction. We like self destruction because skiing is built around it.

Skiing gets to be more important than suicide. Sure, Kurt Cobain was cool. But was it because of his suicide? or was it because of his music?

You could argue both ways. For example, was Lincoln really that great a president? He did, after all, directly defy the Constitution by denying the writ of Habeas Corpus to enemies of the Union and hosting militarily "supervised" voting sessions in the border states, among other things.

But he was murdered, shortly after his side won the war. So we like him, because he died after being a part of something cool. Regardless whether it is suicide or not (in Lincoln's case it wasn't) we empathize and grow to like things that are terminated after doing something cool.

Did people like Lincoln in the short week between the end of the Civil War and his assassination? Yes. Did they like him and miss him even more once his death set in? Of course.

The same goes for skiing. We like skiing now, because it is truly the best sport in the world. Would I continue skiing without lifts, snow cats, and sleds? Yes, of course. Snow cats piss me off, because they ruin good mogul runs, and often enough, powder days. Does park skiing depend on them? Yeah, big kickers do, but jibbery and rails will always be better hand made. Not to mention that hauling a cat into the backcountry would ruin the powder landings we love Nimbus for so much.

How about sleds? This one's a bit harder, because we know how hard it would be to have two-day trips into the backcountry without them. It'd take far longer to accomplish the same thing. But would skiing survive without them? Sure thing. There are plenty of people who use their AT gear--bindings, skins, and the like--to get out there and ski.

Most difficult to give up are the lifts. Skiing's popularity among the masses would surely fall. But would a few die-hards still be out there doing it? Yeah. And would the number of these die-hards be far larger than it would have been without the invention of lifts in the first place? Yes, it would.

I know that without lifts, I would likely have never begun skiing. But if they were taken away from me right now, the first thing I'd do is get out and buy some Marker Dukes and climbing skins, and a bigger backpack + some avy gear. And I'd get out there and enjoy the unpopulated slopes of Squaw, and the empty terrain on Mt. Hood. Do people come to Hood in the summer because of the lifts? Yeah, but would they come if it weren't for them? I'd imagine that some still would. After all, the other, undeveloped volcanoes of Norcal, Oregon, and Washington still get skier traffic in the summers, just far less than the developed ones.

Though skiing does pull the proverbial gun closer and closer to its foot, it only pulls to the foot. And we know that a person with a bullet hole in their foot can still do pull-ups, write, and wildly flail their arms about, right? So skiing will likely one day suffer from a huge drop in popularity, and many of the smaller ski companies will probably go bankrupt, but the mountaneering spirit that drives a minority of skiers would never die. Just because something's crippled doesn't mean people wouldn't care about it-- look at Christopher Reeves. Everyone loved him as superman, and though he couldn't really do any of the mundane things we take for granted--walking, running, even crossing his legs--after his accident, he still had a wide following among his former fans.

The only thing we really have to worry about is the melting of the snow that appears to be happening, and that Al Gore insists is true. And while I know and believe that everything we as humans do hurts our environment and helps destroy the world, I also know that skiing will live on, forever, even if only on snowflex and on indoor slopes with small amounts of vert. But the way things are progressing in the technological world, who knows. Maybe when it truly becomes too warm for snow to ever fall, someone will put a roof over little cottonwood canyon, and block off the heat, and turn on the snow guns. I'm not saying I want that to happen, nor am I saying it will, but nothing is out of the picture.

Skiers are far too stubborn to die out.
 
My thoughts exactly. Definately some legitimate points in there, but you sounded a little proud of yourself for using big words and being deep.
 
I approve of all of this, if only because it's an honest to god thoughtful post. I want you to repost it in smaller blocks of text, so that more than a handful of people will actually read it.

 
im pretty sure hiking up to "earn your turns" isn't so bad. i feel like it gives the sport more of a personal achievement feeling everytime you do it. and for resorts, yeah they are sucking the life out of the sport but they are also putting a lot back into it. without resorts we wouldnt be able to prartice our spins for the backcountry, and there are atleast a few in bound runs at every resort that are pretty gnarly and give you good practice for when you are ready to hike up and prove to yourself that you are good at what you love to do.
 
dannggg! wwwssshhheeewww... that the sound of this thread going over my head. well i get it but uts way outta my league. ill just keep skiing.
 
so true, hiking for one run can be so much more rewarding than shredding in bounds all day. on the other hand, three feet of blower is pretty incredible as well.

It seems to me that the majority of greenhouse gas emissions are created by the two extremes of our sport. on one side we have the gapers who fly/drive half way across the country to ski on vacation; which isn't something we can do much about. on the other side, however are the pro and wealthier shredders who can afford to buy and maintain sleds and take chopper trips in BC every year. while it is in our power to change attitudes within the community and thus change these habits, i personally doubt that will happen. who of us wouldn't run a sled evey day and ski fresh, untouched lines if we could. and everyone (including me) who watches (most) ski movies only fuels the push for more pollution by pros. the only sollution i see is to push for cleaner fuels so we can enjoy the skiiing standards we are used to while polluting less.
 
really? what words did you have trouble with? i didnt see much that you wouldnt find in any newspaper. im just waiting for the inevitable onslaught of malapropism that will be the NS response to this guy.
and to mr rastafarianride or whoever: we americans have bastardized a great number of things. the office(the show, of course), the micro-beer, basically every type of food I can think of except the philly cheesesteak(which needs no introduction, or bastardization for that matter).
but the english language itself is such a butt-fucking-bastard language all by itself, that is so constantly and brutally disfigured every day, all over the globe, by brits, americans, canadians, aussies, kiwis, islanders, euros, africans and everyone else, that i dont think we bastardized anything in that regard. except the office. the fucking office.
 
after re-reading it... none, but amalgamated is pretty hefty, I was just thinking that it sounded a little pretentious when you think about his audience.
 
very well wirtten, you are either very well educated, or in need of a trip to the ER for an overdose...

anyways, I love irony, and you seem to have hit the proverbial nail on the head. That being the fact that the few things that fuel the progression of our sport, could also be its downfall, although I don't belive self destruction is cool. It seems similar to the persistant bitching that I hear in so many threads about the lack of media coverage for skiing (as well as the lack of a video game). But I belive that one of the greatest things about freestyle skiing is its uniqueness, and its lack of mainstream interest. I can say I think that it would be a sad day if Tom Wallisch ever sold out and made a skiing video game like Shaun White's snowboarding. So lets all admit that we actually LOVE IT when a gaper asks how we can do tricks on skis, instead of on a snowboard... becasue it makes us feel unique. This uniqueness also creates celebrities in our sport who are extrememly accessible, and personable because their egos haven't been inflated by the mainstream media coverage. So let's do skiing a favor and keep it under-ground.
 
So many things have been said or don in the debate concerning global warming. But who to trust and what theory to listen to, I don’t know. It is (anyway) extremely nice to se a valid debate on NS.



Good post – NS now with brains +k
 
Two points:
The overall impact of the ski industry's carbon footprint is minuscule compared to that of the rest of the polluting world. No grass roots effort from the ski industry is going to have an impact on CO2 emissions. IF global warming is happening, the only way to cut out stab wedges, and reduce emissions, is to have a top down reform from governments and cooperations. That said, if the ski industry were to go "Green" this may have social implications, a message might be sent to governments and cooperations that people are motivated to do something about carbon emissions. Ultimately action must come top down for any reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to be seen.

Secondly, a lot of the fuel consumed by the ski industry is diesel. This can be made to be carbon neutral by using bio diesel. A lot of research has show that algae based bio fuels have high, and scalable yields. In the near future, even now, it is possible to run an entire mountain's snow cats on bio fuels.
I am studying Energy Engineering in college, so if I get bored over break with this horrible east coast weather, then I might try to do some rough calculations of the carbon footprint of a ski area / the ski industry.
 
good point. i missed that one.

to the poster above me(i think?), i'm not sure that mr goretex was issuing a call to arms or anything. i mean, even IF this community carried some weight(which it really doesnt), i agree with you that an environmentally-conscious skier movement would be pretty futile. i think the objective of the passage was to point out some of the irony that the very effort to enjoy our snow is resulting in its demise. still, i think the overall analogy to self-destructive rockers is fallacious on the grounds that, while they didnt fully control their demise, it was really their decision to walk that path (or line, depending on your johnny cash affiliations). with skiing, its not as if we are a cancerous gas-guzzling clusterfuck of a sport surrounded by an eco-conscious world. we comprise a very minute portion of environmental damage, and this is all assuming that mankind is substantially affecting the climate change on this planet.
still, the post was awesome; it was thought-provoking, well-written, evoked some funny responses, and involved chris farley. if i were wearing a hat, it would be off.
 
Based on the electric consumption of the Vail ski resorts and DOE data, the US ski resort industry is the cause of around .1 percent of US carbon emissions.
Factor in China and it's 8 ski resorts, and between the US and China, .07% of carbon emissions are a result of skiing.
This is a very rough calculation with many variables, but I think it gives an order of magnitude to the ski industry vs overall carbon emissions.
 
Been around since the VERY old days of the site. Just not posting as much in years past.

 
Nice points. It's true that the ski industry is not at any great fault, but by principle it should be an outspoken advocate of industrial change. Aspen is, but then you have guys like Dick Bass trying to open new coal mines.

I like that you bring up algae as a fuel source. Carbon reclamation for plant growth is such a common-sense concept. It's what a lot of Tomato Greenhouses do, pumping back the co2 from the heating plants to aid the growth of the plants. I've read about algal biomass processing projects hooked up to power plants, working independently.. I believe even New Belgium brewery has one next to it. As a closed circuit system of fueling it just makes sense.
 
This is one of the best threads i've ever seen. It's a shame that half the people are too lazy to read it. It reminds me of the scholarly articles I have to read for all of my classes. Very well written.

And it sucks that it's all true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top