*No, shutting down isn’t an option.
Auden Schendler, Vice President of Sustainability at Aspen Skiing Company and a board member of Protect Our Winters wants to hear answers to that question from Climate Progress readers.
He acknowledges that skiing has “limited redeeming value from a sustainability perspective.”
I would add that unless the world acts to reverse emissions trends very rapidly and sharply through efficiency, conservation, and clean energy, much of the U.S. skiing industry is likely to be rapidly collapsing by sometime in the 2030s, if not sooner. Peak oil (making air travel expensive) together with a shrinking season will seriously undermine profitability.
The latest science says that we are losing our snow mass — and the primary cause is human emissions (see “USGS: Global Warming Drives Rockies Snowpack Loss Unrivaled in 800 Years, Threatens Western Water Supply“).
And no, one snowy winter doesn’t change that, as USGS scientist and co-author Julio Betancourt explained, “The La Niña episode this year is an example with lots of snow in the north while severe drought afflicts the south. But, in the north, this year’s gains are only a small blip on a century-long snowpack decline.”
The lead author, USGS scientist Gregory Pederson, explained, “What we have seen in the last few decades may signal a fundamental shift from precipitation to temperature as the dominant influence on western snowpack.
What’s particularly worrisome is that we’ve seen these dramatic and harmful changes already — and we’ve only warmed about a degree Fahrenheit in the past half century. We are on track to warm ten times times that this century. At the same time, the Southwest is drying out.
I’ve been told that losing just another few weeks from the ski season would make many if not most resorts unprofitable.
So, what should a ski company that cares about sustainability be doing — in its last few decades of profitability?
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Transportation is the real carbon pig here. Slashing the carbon footprint of ski areas is simple. Eliminate parking and require visitors to use buses. The lifts and lights are electric and it is simple to up grade these to efficient technology and buy green tags for the remaining power. The buildings cold also use some investment in efficiency upgrades (insulation , calking, etc). The best thing they could do would be to for the built environment would be to lead efforts to develop community water sources for water source heat pumps. These ski communities are often a mix of private condos/homes, small stores/restaurants also with the dominate ski slope owner. They are perfect sized communities to create a common set of source/sink wells for ground source heat pumps. Give their cold environments air source heat pumps are not nearly as efficient as ground source units. Ground sources really benefits from scale. If Aspen is really interested in doing something they should show a little leadership and make these leadership investments (both time and money) in transportation, physical plant and community ground source. Of course these are also very good investments and will pay for themselves in short order. Failure to show this leadership is just bad business for your investors.
Indoor snowboarding powered by clean tech?
They’ve probably already thought about diversifying building use outside of what’s left of the snow season.
Vacationers formerly reached the Adirondack resorts by train plus carriage. A revival of regional rail plus electric livery service has a lot of appeal. Even if the snow resorts stick with their airports, taxis, rental cars, and delivery vehicles could still be shifted to rechargeables.
Well they could directly open a conversation with their customers letting them know that the great day that they had skiing could become a thing of the past if climate change continues unabated. They could set up clear markers on their slopes showing where ski runs will end in 10/15/20 years time if climate change continues.
They could partner up with suppliers of ski equipment and clothing to pressure governments to support action on climate change. This could include organizing a boycott of industry groups pedalling denial of the problem.
Good start. Simply talk to your customers, suppliers, and political reps. Talk to them about the risks of global warming and the benefits of clean energy. Your customers include some influential people.
Talk it up everywhere you can. Clean energy will make us and our children healthier, wealthier, safer, and more secure.
And it might save skiing! Clean energy now.
And thanks for helping.
these efforts seem very smart to me. everyone at a ski area is riding the lift over and over–use each tower as a platform for educational signage, including the story of what was once the highest ski area in the southern hemisphere, and is now mud and rocks
As a native 4th generation Coloradoan and one who lived in Aspen for over ten years (and Telluride for 5), I see very little of value coming from the ski areas. The lift prices are outrageous, as well as lodging. The towns cater to the wealthy and false values of status. The ski areas are responsible for much of what’s now wrong with much of W. Colorado – high real estate prices, overrun with tourists, high prices for gas and everything else, a sub-class of workers who make nothing and commute long distances, lots of illegals, etc. etc.
It will be a real great day for me when they close down, although I wish it were due to something besides climate change. Sorry, Auden, but your efforts are really just more propaganda. We’ve seen many examples of how the ski areas have supported rampant development, and Aspen was one of the worst.
You think Aspen is one of the worst? Boy, come visit Breckenridge, where I’ve lived for 10 years (and am a 3rd gen Coloradan–you got me by one!).
Vail Resorts consistently gets D’s and F’s for sustainability efforts as graded by various watchdog environmental groups. In Breckenridge, they still use old BlueBird school buses up and down a major hill to get from the parking areas to the base areas, and the Town has tried over and over to get them to abandon them, and they won’t do it.
Vail is all about real estate. Ski areas do nothing for them but give their customers something to do when they buy a home, timeshare, or condo from them. They got out of that business a long time ago. With Breckenridge, they fuel the bad-carbon-footprint fire by offering cheap parking and cheap season passes, and then throngs of people pack I-70, mostly one in a car, up for a day then back home again, making a 150 mile round trip every weekend.
Vail has been criticized for not being pro-bus, and not creating a similar jitney service that New Yorkers enjoy to get to the Hamptons. They’d rather lobby the state and feds to pay for a rail system on I-70, estimated to cost up to 30 billion and 20 years to construct. They poo-poo any idea of mitigating the massive amount of traffic that they put on the roads, and they go back to the state where a willing governor and senators pray to their feet, helping pass awful bills like ski area recreation bills that will further cram the highways (this just passed this week, thanks to Senator Udall)
I love the Colorado mountains, I love when people visit, and I love that they have a great time here. I also love skiing and everything my state has to offer people. But companies like Vail Resorts, run by a little tyrant former hedgefunder, don’t care one whit about killing the golden goose–they will extract every dime out of a community and a forest until their share price can’t go any higher.
Aspen is not a resort for day tripping, incidentally. It’s 5 plus hours from Denver, so the majority of visitors are long-term guests or they fly in. Buses are already jammed with workers coming from cheaper communities down Valley like Carbondale and Glenwood Springs. Same goes for Telluride.
Where buses make a difference are in ski areas that are optimal for day trips, such as Breckenridge, Vail, Winter Park, and so on.
Winter Park and the city of Denver just killed off the train service there, owned by billionaire Phil Anschutz, due to lack of ridership and some other sketchy reasons.
It’s a sad day in the mountains, and the POW organization is nothing but frost. And that frost will melt with climate change.
I guess I can take solace I live in one of the highest ski towns in the state, where snow will fall when it’s raining over in Vail, like it did much of last year.
Have to say, I agree with Ominous Clouds Overhead. Supersized ski centres to which people fly from all over the continent/globe are soon to disappear. They belong to the era of over-consumption, which soon will be history, along with such energy-greedy anomalies as ice hockey franchises in California and Florida, and indoor ski centres in the desert.
As a native of Quebec (CA), I can recall the days when ski centres were established and scaled to serve the local population. We skied on real snow, with no “trail-grooming” equipment, and very simple lifts. Consequent environment/climate impacts were much less.
Some ski centres may survive by scaling back to such operations – most of them will just go down the tube. The time has long passed when we might have “Protected Our Winters” – with some serious effort at CO2 reduction in the early 1990′s, say.
DaveW
Mountain Biking. Install bike racks on all your ski lifts.
Provide a discount to Guests that use public transportation on at least part of their journey to your location.
Advocate in all your Ads! Don’t remain silent as the world slowly boils.
Install car chargers so I can drive my electric car to the ski slope. I have enough range to get there, but I need to recharge before I go home. Since I’ll be there all day, being able to plug in my car while I ski would be ideal.
Install solar panels to to offset the electricity used by the resort. Most ski areas are up on windy ridges so a few wind turbines wouldn’t hurt.
I don’t think shutting down is a good thing overall. Most of the people who appreciate snow want to prevent global warming more that the average person.
Help fund conservation! Fish and wildlife are the canary in the coalmine. The ski industry, the fishing industry, the mountain biking industry, the camping and hiking industries all have one thing in common — the environment. If the ski industry wants to be sustainable, it needs to unite with these other specialty sport sectors and step up to conserve the environment. For decades, all of these specialty sport sectors have grown and have become very profitable; however, only fishing and hunting have paid for conservation. The bottom line is that all of these sport specialty sectors have benefited from the conservation of public lands by government agencies. And now with the dysfunction of goverment becoming painfully clear and the Tea Party wreaking havoc and attacking the existing regulatory infrastructure that protects the environment, some private sector leaders need to step up. Government agencies responsible for managing our public lands are becoming marginalized through budget cuts or a lack of capacity to address 21st century conservation issues. At this point, our only hope is with the businesses that have a direct dependence on the environment to unite and define a new form of community development that is based on resource conservation, not resource destruction.
Dear Mr. Schendler,
Thank you for asking this important question.
We are so far along on this slow motion train wreck, that our only hope of reacting fast enough is for Obama to speak to the nation, explaining what must be done about climate change, and why.
So, you can help most by asking all of your customers, suppliers and investors to call Obama at 202-456-1111, asking him to come clean, on prime time TV, about the climate.
Not only might this extend the run of the ski industry, it might also extend the run of the United States as a great power.
Do the other things too, but do this first!
Hire the people who make displays at Smithsonian, etc, to make some effective, repeat effective, global warming education stations all over the facility. Main display in the main chalet. Smaller interpretive stations scattered all over the mountain.
Power what you can economically power with clean tech, just because you need power.
Power other stuff to be hip, and fund it thru your community do-gooder part of your budget. Clean tech… with onsite technology…. that people can experience up close and sexy… all turned into an educational experience. How about wind & solar powered hot air blowers, so skiers can stop and dry out their gloves using clean tech?
And it would be sweet to pop off a lift on some windy ridge, and have a free cup of clean tech hot tea in some wind protected spot with a good view.
((But you cant offer too much more, because then I wont spend money at the cafe at the end of the run. Even the evil ski industry exists in a practical world reality.))
Oh yeah…. build dorms for your grunt employees who cant afford to live any closer than 40 miles away, and 4000 ft below.
> Hire the people who make displays at Smithsonian, etc
Cal Academy of Sciences in SF, yes; but not the Smithsonian.
(Joe, how about a thread asking which museum has the best displays on climate change & effective climate policy actions? Cal Academy looks pretty good on the science, though on policy, it’s got too much of a “personal footprint” focus.)
Demonstrate net value by showing extreme leadership:
- 100% electric power for buildings, vehicles, lifts, etc. Sourced from 100% solar and wind.
- diverse native reforestation on as much of your lands as feasible.
- DOUBLE offsets on all resort-related travel, etc.
If you can do that… While reducing the total carbon, hydrological, and biodiversity footprint of the resort and related travel FASTER than long term targets – at least 5% per year reduction, year after year (understand the effect of reverse compounding over time) then you may truly help the situation by supporting certified voluntary carbon markets, showing elite audiences what is possible, etc… While the snow lasts.
If it is too expensive to do that, and stay in business… Then if you don’t just need better consultants… You really do need to shut down.
Because for such an optional activity to be anything less than part of the solution, just for money, is really not justifiable.
Good luck!
Matthews nailed it:
“Because for such an optional activity to be anything less than part of the solution, just for money, is really not justifiable.”
Get on it ski slopes.
Convert your dead trees from pine bark beetle infestation to biochar. Offer customers a chance to buy offsets for their day on the mtn., presuming you can find a real and effective offset to offer. Maybe you can combine a biochar program and an offset program. Provide education on what the real cost of a day of skiing would be if all negative externalities were factored into the cost.
Educating skiers should be #1 priority, as discussed by Ennis, Shapiro & McKibben above.
For Tahoe area resorts, #2 should be instigating & promoting a “ski train” from the Bay Area.
My nonprofit buys renewable energy certificates wholesale from a wind turbine at the Berkshire East Ski Resort in western Mass. and we sell them retail to voluntary supports of green energy. Berkshire East produces as much wind power as it uses, and is now looking at solar. They can’t solve the problem on their own, but they’re doing their part.
Educate employees, and visitors about the importance of turning off your cars. Anti-idling ordinances can be enforced, people can turn their cars off while waiting in line at the bank. All those “outdoorsy,” folks won’t freeze to death… Turn off your cars, and listen to the “nature,” everyone came to see (and hear!) Educate and fine bus driver’s that let busses idle all day in parking lots…
All concerned with the future of Snowsports with action measures should visit http://www.mountainridersalliance.com. The proposed Manitoba Mountain restoration project in Alaska and Mt. Abrams in Maine are two movements in the right direction to bring skiing back to the people and not just the rich, and reducing it’s carbon footprint in the process.
Some interesting ideas in the article’s comments yet hardly a peep about energy efficiency. Resorts can get to zero net energy if they want to, but their first step is to invest in deep energy efficiency. Energy efficiency should be “first in the loading order” (i.e. before renewables). Otherwise, expenses for renewables and purchase of green power offsets can be wasted on unnecessary consumption.
I think they need to heavily invest in these three things, possibly in this order: Efficiency, Solar Power, Water Reuse. After they max out what can be done there, they need to focus on low-impact diets (vegetarianism), local foods (maybe they could organize a chared greenhouse grower), supporting local and national environmental agencies, and emphasizing re-use of euipment, clothes, and/or sustainable new equipment.
This is the question I keep asking myself … but its a complex subject and the answers don’t come easy. I recently read Yvon Chouinard’s ‘Let my People go Surfing’ and while I havn’t fully resolved our plan and policy going forward I do feel that a common fault on sustainability matters is that it is easily perceived as an idealist’s pursuit, but really it is the task of the realist.
Of course sustainability has a heavy bearing on environmental stewardship. Caring for and wanting to have a positive impact on the dire state of the natural world is imperative. But as a motivation alone it is overwhelming and daunting. More importantly, however, sustainability efforts of companies in the ski industry need to focus on small actionable steps that have a postitive impact on the bottom-dollar.
Take small steps, think inward and change the world one step at a time …
I think any ski company that doesn’t care about sustainability is in real trouble.
Here is a rough overview of what ANY company in the Snow Sports Industry can and should do to move towards sustainability.
* Be Honest. Educate your staff and customers that climate change is happening now and affecting the sport they love.
* Listen. Many skiers and boarders are already informed about climate change and have good, useful ideas on what can be done to reduce the company/organization’s carbon footprint.
* Act Now. Make those changes now that increase efficiency and reduce waste. Start simple, and do the easy things first, make the harder changes second. Success builds momentum.
* Learn As You Go. If change #1 works as planned, Great – go to change #2. If change #1 needs work, analyze and fix it, then move on to #2.
* Talk About It. Talk to your customers, staff, friends and competitors and let them know what you’re doing. Your staff and customers will see you as forward thinking, your friends may have more ideas and your competitors might just up their game.
* Rinse and Repeat. Sustainability is a process not a destination.
Along the way you might read the book “Getting Green Done”, there are several good war stories from the sustainability trenches. It’s a pretty good read for an “eco-book”. 8*)
I personally think that a few key elements need to be addressed in the way ski areas operate within their local communities and their role in developing new infrastructure to provide these communities with a more sustainable future.
First off, these corporations that lease public lands and turn a profit on them must be better stewards of this same land. Some of the government policies don’t place incentives in cleaning out beetle kill, but ski corporations shouldn’t be waiting for the Feds to push them to take better care of the forests and should instead become leaders in land management. Also, pushing for state and federal cooporation in building biomass facilities that can help power ski resorts and adjacent communities with local resources. Of course ski areas need to invest more in on site energy production from wind and solar sources, including solar water heating and distributed generation technologies that will benefit the company economically in the long run as well as the local communities that can draw any excess power produced from the ski resorts. In any case, these companies are becoming the primary holders of any significant capital in the mountain communities and instead of using this capital to develop more real estate, they need to recognize the growing demand for these energy sources and realize that there is an opportunity to make a small profit while developing new, clean energy sources that will help local communities and the global climate situation simultaneously.
Secondly, transportation infrastructure projects are essential for the sustainability of the mountain communities, as anyone who has had to commute on I-70 on a Friday can tell you. When i ran a snow cat at Breckenridge, on Friday nights we would comment on the pearl chain snaking into town, which was just a massive traffic jam that sometimes can begin over 60 miles away outside of Denver. Similar commutes to Tahoe and Park City from San Fran and SLC respectively show the need for developing a serious network of trains to service these tourist areas. I do not think, however, that the ski area companies (like Vail) should sit back and wait for these developments, but should rather step up with some necessary capital and take a lead in developing these projects. Instead, Vail puts up more condos and a gondola to no where at the base of Breckenridge that expands the parking system’s reliance on busing people from lots even further away.
Smart, sustainable development is possible in mountain communities if Ski corporations would accept their role as business leaders in multiple areas of industry, rather than just real estate development. Their capital, which they have gained largely from leasing public lands or developing others, should be pumped back into the communities that support their operations in order to provide a sustainable future for their operations and the mountain towns we all love to enjoy.
You’ve received some great comments already, and I’d like to add a few thoughts to those.
Yes, a ski corporation should advocate for renewable power generation broadly, and implement it on its own facilities to the greatest extent possible. Aspen’s own Amory Lovins recently helped recommission the Empire State Building for greater efficiency; he and many others of us could go over any ski operation’s energy and water use with a fine-tooth comb. Ideally, the larger companies would try to certify to the new ISO 50001 standard (along with the longer-established ISO 14001) and try to make the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. Beyond those resource uses, it should reduce & recycle everything possible in its supply chain, and try to reduce corporate air travel.
Of course, the Aspens of the world are heavily reliant on their customers’ use of air travel, and that is unavoidable under our current cultural model. A ski company that’s truly interested in sustainability would at least urge those clients to offset their air travel. It should also encourage other industry partners like local lodging facilities to green their operations. Genuine corporate sustainability is best insured by implementation of an Environmental Management System. This helps integrate its stakeholders’ goals into what the business does every day.
On the risk management side, I agree with those who would like to see western ski companies take the lead on mitigation of pine beetle damage, and preferably using some of that timber in biomass facilities (though there is an active, current debate on whether biomass should be considered truly renewable). Beyond that, though, the forest is likely to return as something different, under a warming climate regime, and land managers should revegetate with that understanding in mind. And even though the southwest US is predicted to dry and warm up generally, there will still be intense periods of heavy precipitation, so BMPs should always be used in anticipation of those worst-case scenarios. Our friends in the east had a first-hand reminder of those risks during the hurricane.
A prescient ski company would also be talking to USFS about leasing higher-elevation terrain, where that’s an option. It should consider ways to shade the slopes from premature melting, either with tree planting or through artificial (but sustainable) means. I can imagine the artist Christo doing a fabric sculpture over one of the main drags at Snowmass. And since deeper snow lasts longer, it would increase snowmaking, provided it’s renewably-sourced and reuses water.
{More specifically to the Front Range: yes, the Advanced Guideway System through the narrow Clear Creek valley would be expensive, but the cost would be more affordable as part of another bid by Denver to bring the Winter Olympics here, which there have been rumblings about recently. The AGS was included in the I-70 PEIS ROD that was released in March, and planning is proceeding. CDOT also wants to widen pinch-points and straighten curves, and all of that is being simultaneously coordinated with the needs of locals even as we speak. (Today’s meeting was snowed out, somewhat ironically.}
If a ski company can do these things, it deserves to advertise as a green company, especially to younger clientele. No individual or organization is going to do much to mitigate climate change by itself, but ski areas will be at the forefront of feeling its impacts. The ski areas that aren’t ahead of this curve will not draw much sympathy from the public as these impacts develop.
From a long-time skier, a member of the I-70 Coalition, the volunteer Project Manager for the Clear Creek Greenway on the local Open Space Commission, and recent Masters grad in Sustainability. Thanks for raising this topic, Auden and Joe.