FEATURE: Green Snow - How winter sports affect the environment

[SnowJapan.Com#3 0]

A new feature, "Green Snow - How winter sports affect the environment", has been put online.

 

http://www.snowjapan.com/e/features/green-snow-factoids.html

 

"Global warming is an increase in the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere caused by the so-called "greenhouse" effect. Most scientists believe the warming is caused by human activity, especially the burning of fossil fuels, such as oil, coal and natural gas.

 

Earth's average temperature rose at least 1 degree in the 20th century, according to the World Meteorological Organization. But the rise has accelerated since 1976. Last year tied with 1998 for the warmest on record, and nine of the 10 warmest years have occurred in the past decade.

 

It's hard to find any scientist who disagrees the Earth's temperatures are getting higher. But global warming's cause is still under debate as well as what effects it will have on different regions of the planet."

 

http://www.snowjapan.com/e/features/green-snow-factoids.html

 

Please note that the views expressed in any Features on Snow Japan are not necessarily those of Snow Japan.

 

Discuss it here...

[damian 0]

 Quote:

cross-country skier Wendy Wagner said, "Ski racers are environmentalists. Some of it is related to self interest. No snow means less ski sales, less ski sales means manufacturers have less marketing funds to support elite athletes. It's a vicious cycle, with one more contradiction being that to travel to good snow conditions, skiers usually have to drive gas-guzzling SUVs. The next vehicle I get will be an SUV hybrid.”

>No snow means less ski sales...

>less ski sales means manufacturers have less marketing funds to support elite athletes....

>It's a vicious cycle

Way to go sweetie, good for you for working it all out. The fact that your game depends upon manufacturers, marketing and has an element of being 'elite' is half the problem in today's world.

And now, here's the bad news. The way human beings are wired mentally makes it almost impossible for us to collectively comprehend what is possibly facing us, let alone identify the key issues and act upon it.

1. Seeing and comprehending what might be happening is almost impossible, that's why so many people have so many trite responses and discuss it like its a controversial event on reality TV. We are in chronic denial and think we have the luxury of a personal opinion. Heads in the sand. Look around you, almost no one in the unwashed masses nor the educated masses actually cares, or is capable of caring, about what might be coming. If you think you care enough to act then you are in the 1% minority. The way we behave has not changed and nor will it through freewill. None of the following will motivate the majority to act: no more ski seasons, melting glaciers and acidic sea, even rising seas levels and dead coral reefs with depleted fish stocks and mass extinctions. Human life can and will go on amidst all of that, the fact that it might be an undesirable life is emotionally blocked from our collective minds. Its like being in a bad investment that just keeps getting worse and denial makes clarity of vision impossible. So we do nothing until something breaks and our mind is made for us.

2. Even if we had the ability to pull our head out of the sand, it would be impossible to change anything without cutting CO2 emissions 80% from current level. An impossibility without social command and ordering based on strict observance of CO2 purpose. As individuals, families, communities and small businesses you would only have freedom to act in so far as it produces 80% less CO2 than you currently do and it provides some form of social need. That means you don't do something until you are told you can do so.

3. Cutting CO2 from current levels is a laughable idea that seems to assume current CO2 output is stable at today's level, when it is in fact growing strongly every year. Without an almost instantly on-line technological solution, current levels are unstoppable and growing thanks to population and economic growth: these things simply can't be stopped without risking deep collapse and certainly not without a command system of government. CO2 output is forecast to grow massively in the next 50 years, and people talk about cutting them?! Its a fairy tale. To cut 80% from current levels we need to: i) stop all future increases and then ii) cut current usage by 80%. It is impossible unless we change such that every single thing we do is primarily concerned with not producing CO2 whilst providing nothing but the essentials of community need. All under the command and control of a higher authority. That means no personal car, no ski holiday's, no buying CD's and no flying to Guam to sell an small guitars. Are you going to voluntarily give it up? Why should I if you don't... why can't I have my bit? I only live for 70-90 years, I want to have my bit of fun, success, money, etc etc etc. That's the way we think.

If we don't act, the world is going to be incomprehensibly different in 50 years: 9 billion people is too many to feed with natural processes and CO2 will be out of control and there will be no crude oil or its derivatives. If we do act for the better then we will have to make society incomprehensively different to be effective. Come what may, 50 years from today will be almost unrecognisable. Even the spectre of 'only' 50 years is long enough away to de-motivate people yet close enough to push their heads further into the sand. One would have thought 50 years as a quantity of time would give urgency to peoples actions today. It would appear not. We will just squeeze through whilst our children will possibly be deprived of the luxury of dying from old age. (I don't use 'the children of today' as a sound bite figure of speech that is glanced at and not digested by those in denial. I mean literally: the toddler in nappies crawling across a loungeroom floor right now may well not die of old age).

In only 150 years we have managed to establish a capitalist's and social recipe for collapse at worst or severe disaster at best. 50 years is not such a long time. Its easy to remain in denial, after all Airbus are building the A340 and a new football stadium is going up in town. Why would people do that if they thought the future was so challenging? Because humans simply can't just stop, and they especially can't stop on the basis of "well, what's the point building a 500 person plane if we don't even have any oil or becaue of CO2 restrictions". Imagine if business and government cancelled all construction projects on the basis of "given the future, there is little point continuing with this development today". Without a command rule in place a strategy like that would cause uncontrollable morbidity of public emotion, evaporation of confidence, collapse of non-essential business (that's most of them) and good old fashioned panic.

I am thinking about becoming a popularist leader of some small state or country (with water and volcanic soil) and putting in place a structure of social rule which would ensure the survival of that state. People are too stupid and too greedy to be given choice, we have proven that. But do I hear you say its better to live like progressive civilised Humans today whilst we can rather than like subsistence strugglers just to sustain ourselves into the future. So I'm being dramatic? I don't think you have thought about what it takes to cut CO2 by 80% and are resting far to comfortably on the throw away line 'they will invent an alternative'. Yes, 'they' might, in fact will, partially meet the need with technology. But how pray tell do you expect 'it' to be globally rolled out in the next 10 years? It isn't just some new operating system for all network terminals!

Having the ability to go skiing in the future at a resort with 150km of groomed pistes and 5 restaurants is _utterly_irrelevant_. If that's your only concern then see point #1 above.

[SerreChe 2]

I found out those Hybrid SUVs are not that much greener. The hybrid feature is actually used to give it more power, not more miles

[NoFakie 45]

 Quote:

Originally posted by SerreChe:
I found out those Hybrid SUVs are not that much greener. The hybrid feature is actually used to give it more power, not more miles

You're right and wrong at the same time. In a hybrid Lexus or whathaveyou, the hybrid feature is there to basically to convince people who believe cars are all about performance that hybrids are a worthwhile technology. Petrolheads dominate every motoring column in the mass media, to say nothing of specialist magazines. For motoring journalists, fuel economy or reduced emissions are boring and a waste of time. Penis extensions are where its at. Performance hybrids are there to convince such people.

The same idea is behind the Tesla electric car company. They've made an expensive (*) but superquick sports car to convince people electric cars are a goer, and say they will then make a mass-market everyday one when folk are convinced.

(*) Its actually cheap compared to petrolhead cars with the same performance.

[SerreChe 2]

I see your point Mr. W. I guess if performance hybrids can make the technology an affordable one that can then be spun-off into more mileage in the long run then why not. But actually I think that in the US there is a big waiting list for the Prius and that this segment is now a decent percentage of Toyota's revenues in North America, so to a certain extent it is already profitable. There is actually so much goodwill attached to the Prius that they are thinking about spinning it off into a separate brand by itself (kind of like Lexus).

 

Last time I checked the extra investment in a hybrid was not worth it even current gas prices except unless maybe you buy a Prius or something similar.

 

There are other techonlogies out there that can reduce fuel consumptions (for example you can reduce the number of pistons used by your engine in urban cycle). I have always wondered why you could not combine more than one technology together: fuel+hybrid+piston control. I know very little about car technology, but I would like to know the answer to this.

[SerreChe 2]

There is no turning back on CO2 emissions. People want more freedom and leisure, especially in growing economies not more control. You should see what China has done to its rivers in the name of growth, shocking (not to mention the behaviour of people who think of them as open-air flowing dumpsters). Unfortunately the economy grows faster than the pace at which people can be educated...

[Ocean11 0]

> You should see what China has done to its rivers in the name of growth, shocking (not to mention the behaviour of people who think of them as open-air flowing dumpsters).

 

All developed countries went through the same thing. Japan used to look utterly shocking to people from Western countries after those Western countries had cleaned up their own similar mess.

 

The word 'environmentalist' seems to be used very loosely these days...

[SerreChe 2]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Ocean11:

All developed countries went through the same thing.

True to some extent, but not to the extent of the country mentionned earlier I believe. Europe has had its fair share of coal burning plants, dioxine-releasing factories etc... But never hordes of people dumping their plastic-laden trash in rivers (not that I know of at least).

[Rag-Doll 0]

I think we would be surprised at just how polluted the populated areas were 150 years ago – domestic use of coal for heating, universal dumping of raw sewage, little understanding of how heavy metals accumulate in the food chain, 150 years ago toxicity in general wasn’t well understood. I don’t think down town London in the 1850’s would have been particularly pleasant. The difference though is that what we’re seeing in China is the Industrial Revolution on a size several orders of magnitude larger than what was experienced in the UK and Europe. Add to that the non-biodegradable petrochemical products and it’s not a pretty picture.

 

 

Spud,

 

I like you’re post. It says some very good things about human nature…we can’t help ourselves. It’s the extra helping of tuna at the buffet, it’s smoking cigarettes, it’s binge drinking, it’s the over use of credit, it’s the desire to ski previously impossible lines(!). Humans have a remarkable power for denial of the possible consequences of their actions. The thing is though that we also have an amazing capacity to endure, improvise and to adapt. Oil will never run out completely, it will simply become more and more scarce and therefore more and more expensive, at the same time adjustments will be made to the way people live and use resources so that we can do without the expensive luxury of oil. It will probably happen on a time frame that will cause many problems for people and there will undoubtedly be losers (probably many) as a result of the adjustment, but it won’t be the end of the world and in some sense it’s happening already. This phenomenon will occur to a greater or lesser extent in every facet of our lives. We don’t live like our grandparents did (our food is different, our entertainment is different and our clothes are made from different materials), there is no reason why our grandkids should live like we do. One of the tragedies though is that much of the natural environment, whilst superficially maintained will be changed forever – the seas depleted and most large undomesticated mammals will be gone or very nearly so.

[jgraves 0]

This isn't directed at anyone or anyone's post. Just festering feelings that this feature article compelled me to put into words.

 

I am sick of hearing the same tired old anticapitalist, often misanthropic, doomsday rhetoric about greenhouse gasses.

 

I am not a scientist, but I have been an academic for the past six years. If there's one thing that experience taught me its that academics (scientists included) are just as (if not more) capable of tunnel vision about their own work and being influenced by other "academic studies" and brainless rhetoric as the rest of us.

 

Are greenhouse gases one factor of global warming? Yes. Absolutely. BUT

 

How many millions of square meters of greenhouse gas-absorbing vegitation is lost per year?

 

And the amount of greenhouse gasses mother nature spews into her own atmosphere from volcanic activity has got to dwarf the amount that a world of people do.

 

And how many tillions of square meters of black, solar-radiation-absorbing roads are there worldwide now where there used to be much cooler grass and dirt?

 

I wonder, has anybody ever done the math on the climactic effects of blacktop? Probably not. Roads do not have a corporate logo on them so they do not tend to invite the anti-capitalist wrath of environmentalists and social critics.

 

Clearly, something needs to be done, but "raising awareness" about greenhouse gasses is getting old. I mean, realistically, have any of you ever actually met anybody who is not aware of, not concerned with, or intentionally ignoring the global warming? I certainly haven't.

 

I recently posted a thread linking an article on CNN that spoke of several concrete steps American ski resorts are taking to combat the problem, including active government lobbying, installing gondolas in town centers to ski hills to decrease the # of cars (and hopefully roads) up to the mountains, installing new lift systems to increase skiable terrain and increase efficiency of their lift system at the same time. It read a little bit like a commercial, but there were some really interesting developments in there.

 

As a community of skiers, shouldn't we put our heads together to come up with real solutions to improve the situation and preserve a sport we love rather than beating the problem to death then self-rigtheously railing out at consumerism and the ignorance of humanity and giving each other hive fives for doing so?

 

Geez, what did I eat for breakfast this morning?

[NoFakie 45]

>Roads do not have a corporate logo on them so they do not tend to invite the anti-capitalist wrath of environmentalists and social critics.

 

There are lots of anti-road protests in Britain, mainly against new motorways. In urban areas, movements like Reclaim the Streets (UK) and Critical Mass (USA) are also specifically aimed at getting cars off city roads.

 

>Clearly, something needs to be done, but "raising awareness" about greenhouse gasses is getting old.

 

Raising awareness is never the ends, its just the first part of the means. Generally speaking, if you want to get something done, its important to have a strong sense of purpose. People slacken off otherwise.

 

>we can’t help ourselves. It’s the extra helping of tuna at the buffet, it’s smoking cigarettes, it’s binge drinking, it’s the over use of credit

 

The existence of advertising and general consumer culture suggest people need at least some encouragement to do the things you mention. Without wanting to sound like spuddy, some of them seem like typical Anglo-Saxon behaviour. Binge drinking and overuse of credit are not universal in the First World, or at least not to the extent you see in the USA/UK.

[SerreChe 2]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Tohoku bum:
And the amount of greenhouse gasses mother nature spews into her own atmosphere from volcanic activity has got to dwarf the amount that a world of people do.

And how many tillions of square meters of black, solar-radiation-absorbing roads are there worldwide now where there used to be much cooler grass and dirt?

Interesting points TB.

I am not sure about comparative data between the effect of volcanic activity and human activity on CO2 levels. I know that the year the Pinatubo erupted, the earth cooled down (blocking of sun rays) glaciers stopped re-treating and actually moved forward in many places, Polar bears got an extended hunting season and had more numerous and fatter cubs that were latter referred to as Pinatubo bears etc... Not sure about the benefits of car emission though. I guess it is a matter of which angle you look at it from. If you're a seal and the polar bears get an extended hunting season, then it is a disaster.

In terms of the impact of roads and their heat retaining properties, you be will be happy to know that some wards in Tokyo are aware of the problem and have been experimenting with new types of asphalt that minimize heat retention. Not sure where that is going though...

[r45 4]

 Quote:

have any of you ever actually met anybody who is not aware of, not concerned with, or intentionally ignoring the global warming? I certainly haven't.

Sure have.

Lots of people say they are concerned and claim to be interested but do next to nothing (or indeed nothing) about it.

[SerreChe 2]

I propose a gondola from Tokyo tower to the top of the Sock Monkey line.

[jgraves 0]

Here here! I second that motion SC!

 

And thanks for the info about the Tokyo gov'ts-- wasn't aware of that. I'll look into it and post what I find (and send the info along to my elected rep's back in the states).

 

 Quote:

Originally posted by r45:

Lots of people say they are concerned and claim to be interested but do next to nothing (or indeed nothing) about it.

That was part of my point. Articles and misanthropic environmentalist rhetoric makes people concerned but offer little meaningful solutions beyond "stop consuming" (usually with some slur against the US thrown in for extra measure) and does nothing but spread ill will.

 

Now that I mention it, I think it was Kofi Anan's speech last week that's been eating at me and set me off this morning. Anyone see it?

[Ocean11 0]

Tohoku bum, here are some links about the water retentive asphalt;

http://www.japanfs.org/db/database.cgi?cmd=dp&num=168&dp=data_e.html

http://www.japanfs.org/db/database.cgi?cmd=dp&num=495&dp=data_e.html

http://www.japanfs.org/db/database.cgi?cmd=dp&num=795&dp=data_e.html

http://www.japanfs.org/db/database.cgi?cmd=dp&num=1248&dp=data_e.html

 

"The water-permeable pavement system is a state-of-the-art technology developed by Obayashi, which got the idea from the traditional Japanese cooling method of sprinkling water on streets. In this system, rainwater that has seeped through the road surface is stored under the pavement and percolates back through the pavement by capillary action, cooling down the street by releasing heat through water vaporization. During daytime in summer, the surface temperature of water-permeable pavements is as much as 25 degrees Celsius lower than asphalt surfaces, and reflected heat is reduced by 20 to 40 percent.The infiltration of water through the pavement mitigates both the heat and the glare."

 

The other benefit of this not mentioned in the articles is in flood control. If all that black top is absorbing water, there's less of it going directly into drainage systems and overflowing.

 

Spread the word.

[jgraves 0]

Great links. Thanks.

[thomas_m 0]

Small peanuts in the grand scheme of things but there's a Colorado, US snowboard company attempting to be as green as possible. They run on 100% windpower...

 

http://www.venturesnowboards.com/index.php?inc=conservation.html

 

T.