J
Just read an interesting letter in our local paper and am looking for a resource to write a well thought out reply in our defense, any info or suggestions would be great
Pique, whistler newspaper
"It is a safe assumption that we who live here choose to live here because we love winter, nature, snow and recreational opportunities. It's just as safe to assume that this is true of the visitors that we cater to and depend on. By now, most of us and most of our visitors know that the biggest threat to these things we love is ourselves and our actions. If you "get" climate change, you understand deep in your consciousness that you have to make some changes. If you don't "get it," then you are responsible for reading and listening, because each and every one of us has to take a role in changing what we do. Not believing is no longer an excuse nor is it acceptable.
Some will say that their work or business depends on driving, and possibly we are all trying to cut down on automobile use and size, as well as on our home energy drain. Many of us however are having a very difficult time understanding the blatant use of motorized pollution for pleasure transport in the backcountry, to say nothing of the buying of Ford 350s and their cousins to transport these sleds and ATVs around. We understand that sledding is appealing, exciting, challenging and a mechanism to get you into the backcountry for skiing and riding. But does it make sense to an earth threatened by global climate change, caused by our carbon fuel addiction, to engage in an activity that has such high fuel consumption?
According to engine data from the California Air Resources Board, seven hours of two-stroke engine use produces more smog-forming pollution than a modern car creates in over 100,000 miles. Snowmobiles create up to 1,000 times more carbon monoxide pollution than a typical car. (Carbon monoxide is 14 times worse as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.) Snowmobiles discharge a staggering one-third of their fuel unburned out their tailpipe. Every winter, snowmobiles dump more than 100,000 gallons of raw fuel and 2,500 gallons of raw two-cycle oil into the Yellowstone National Park ecosystem. (Yes four stroke engines are a big improvement but are still staggeringly worse than cars, see below.) Now, with the U.S. having put severe restrictions on snowmobiling in Yellowstone and many other National Forests, we in Sea to Sky country welcome all to bring their sleds to our valley instead. We also provide several opportunities to use sleds or ATVs on tours provided by local businesses.
We are a welcoming community. But the growing use of and promotion of snowmobiling and ATV use feels like an advertisement that says "We don't get it." The unnecessary and high carbon footprint of backcountry motorized transport feels like a billboard advertisement saying "We don't care that we don't get it." It is not just that all this is completely contradictory to the Whistler 2020 site (which suggests that we in this valley do "get it"). It is also contradictory to common sense if we really want to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. It looks to us that those driving by with the sleds on the back of a truck totally accept that they don't care about "getting it" and are possibly proud of it. The commercial recreation companies look to us like they are saying "come pollute our valley for your pleasure before it is too late."
A brief look at the parking lots here shows that many do drive to go skiing. But if you do a quick back of an envelope calculation from the top of this letter, you find that the car can go for more than 10,000 kilometers to make up for an hour on a two-stroke sled. Change that into a four-stroke sled and you reduce the impact to only 1,500 km with a car. (Actually, we've been generous; the data says it is worse than this.) Most of the cars in the lots will have driven a tenth or less of that distance (a hundredth for locals). Remember too, that the day-skiers' pollution is minimized when he starts recreating (electrically driven lifts have a pretty low carbon footprint), the sledder or ATVer, upon parking (their truck or car) for the day, now maximizes their carbon footprint.
The real Global Warming question is how are each and every one of us going to reduce our GHG emissions by 30 to 40 per cent? Britain is already committed to a 60 per cent reduction and is actively talking about being a no-carbon economy by 2060. All this and more is necessary if we hope to mitigate climate change in time to prevent unmanageable effects. We don't think running a sled for recreation is part of that equation or an activity that the current society can afford.
So this is an appeal to give up the sled, bury it in the back yard and shoot the truck. (Selling either is just transferring the responsibility to someone else. Ideally, scrap it and recycle the parts.) If this sounds expensive, consider what this paper has already shown, the economic "crisis" is just a part of the environmental crisis. As our economy is clearly critically linked to the continuing health of our environment, we all need to "get it" soon, or shooting our trucks will be the least of our concerns. At this point, we still have the ability to mitigate the impacts of a changing climate, and we still may be able to control the drastic effects of our global addiction to fossil fuels. The easy first step is to minimize our manageable, unnecessary vices such as motorized recreation. Of course, we have to follow this with rapid and decisive action on other fossil fuel uses, but motorized recreation is optional. This is now common sense - we must reduce our use of carbon wherever possible, and wasteful recreation is an easy "candy" to give up. We'd be intrigued to hear how this analysis is incorrect, for this is a debate that began in the corridor, several years ago. A trip to the backcountry right now shows that the message is not getting through.
We are not holding ourselves up as having a particularly low carbon footprint or as environmental angels. Don't attack the messengers please. Yes we have cars, yes we fly. And even though we buy carbon credits we also know that "nature is not fooled" by what is an accountant's short-term trick. Neither carbon credits, or cap and trade or giving up plastic bags will get us to where we have to get to. The "I'm no worse than the next guy," or the "I ride my bike so my sled is OK," arguments are philosophical wishful thinking. We all have a long way to go before we will have reduced the apparent dangers to life on the planet, as well as to our source of joy in winter. This is not a "you first" appeal, but a "we need to go together" one. We cannot afford to keep compromising the environment in order to maintain our current lifestyles. We, all of us, need to start compromising our lifestyles in order to preserve the environment."
Pique, whistler newspaper
"It is a safe assumption that we who live here choose to live here because we love winter, nature, snow and recreational opportunities. It's just as safe to assume that this is true of the visitors that we cater to and depend on. By now, most of us and most of our visitors know that the biggest threat to these things we love is ourselves and our actions. If you "get" climate change, you understand deep in your consciousness that you have to make some changes. If you don't "get it," then you are responsible for reading and listening, because each and every one of us has to take a role in changing what we do. Not believing is no longer an excuse nor is it acceptable.
Some will say that their work or business depends on driving, and possibly we are all trying to cut down on automobile use and size, as well as on our home energy drain. Many of us however are having a very difficult time understanding the blatant use of motorized pollution for pleasure transport in the backcountry, to say nothing of the buying of Ford 350s and their cousins to transport these sleds and ATVs around. We understand that sledding is appealing, exciting, challenging and a mechanism to get you into the backcountry for skiing and riding. But does it make sense to an earth threatened by global climate change, caused by our carbon fuel addiction, to engage in an activity that has such high fuel consumption?
According to engine data from the California Air Resources Board, seven hours of two-stroke engine use produces more smog-forming pollution than a modern car creates in over 100,000 miles. Snowmobiles create up to 1,000 times more carbon monoxide pollution than a typical car. (Carbon monoxide is 14 times worse as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.) Snowmobiles discharge a staggering one-third of their fuel unburned out their tailpipe. Every winter, snowmobiles dump more than 100,000 gallons of raw fuel and 2,500 gallons of raw two-cycle oil into the Yellowstone National Park ecosystem. (Yes four stroke engines are a big improvement but are still staggeringly worse than cars, see below.) Now, with the U.S. having put severe restrictions on snowmobiling in Yellowstone and many other National Forests, we in Sea to Sky country welcome all to bring their sleds to our valley instead. We also provide several opportunities to use sleds or ATVs on tours provided by local businesses.
We are a welcoming community. But the growing use of and promotion of snowmobiling and ATV use feels like an advertisement that says "We don't get it." The unnecessary and high carbon footprint of backcountry motorized transport feels like a billboard advertisement saying "We don't care that we don't get it." It is not just that all this is completely contradictory to the Whistler 2020 site (which suggests that we in this valley do "get it"). It is also contradictory to common sense if we really want to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. It looks to us that those driving by with the sleds on the back of a truck totally accept that they don't care about "getting it" and are possibly proud of it. The commercial recreation companies look to us like they are saying "come pollute our valley for your pleasure before it is too late."
A brief look at the parking lots here shows that many do drive to go skiing. But if you do a quick back of an envelope calculation from the top of this letter, you find that the car can go for more than 10,000 kilometers to make up for an hour on a two-stroke sled. Change that into a four-stroke sled and you reduce the impact to only 1,500 km with a car. (Actually, we've been generous; the data says it is worse than this.) Most of the cars in the lots will have driven a tenth or less of that distance (a hundredth for locals). Remember too, that the day-skiers' pollution is minimized when he starts recreating (electrically driven lifts have a pretty low carbon footprint), the sledder or ATVer, upon parking (their truck or car) for the day, now maximizes their carbon footprint.
The real Global Warming question is how are each and every one of us going to reduce our GHG emissions by 30 to 40 per cent? Britain is already committed to a 60 per cent reduction and is actively talking about being a no-carbon economy by 2060. All this and more is necessary if we hope to mitigate climate change in time to prevent unmanageable effects. We don't think running a sled for recreation is part of that equation or an activity that the current society can afford.
So this is an appeal to give up the sled, bury it in the back yard and shoot the truck. (Selling either is just transferring the responsibility to someone else. Ideally, scrap it and recycle the parts.) If this sounds expensive, consider what this paper has already shown, the economic "crisis" is just a part of the environmental crisis. As our economy is clearly critically linked to the continuing health of our environment, we all need to "get it" soon, or shooting our trucks will be the least of our concerns. At this point, we still have the ability to mitigate the impacts of a changing climate, and we still may be able to control the drastic effects of our global addiction to fossil fuels. The easy first step is to minimize our manageable, unnecessary vices such as motorized recreation. Of course, we have to follow this with rapid and decisive action on other fossil fuel uses, but motorized recreation is optional. This is now common sense - we must reduce our use of carbon wherever possible, and wasteful recreation is an easy "candy" to give up. We'd be intrigued to hear how this analysis is incorrect, for this is a debate that began in the corridor, several years ago. A trip to the backcountry right now shows that the message is not getting through.
We are not holding ourselves up as having a particularly low carbon footprint or as environmental angels. Don't attack the messengers please. Yes we have cars, yes we fly. And even though we buy carbon credits we also know that "nature is not fooled" by what is an accountant's short-term trick. Neither carbon credits, or cap and trade or giving up plastic bags will get us to where we have to get to. The "I'm no worse than the next guy," or the "I ride my bike so my sled is OK," arguments are philosophical wishful thinking. We all have a long way to go before we will have reduced the apparent dangers to life on the planet, as well as to our source of joy in winter. This is not a "you first" appeal, but a "we need to go together" one. We cannot afford to keep compromising the environment in order to maintain our current lifestyles. We, all of us, need to start compromising our lifestyles in order to preserve the environment."
