5 replies to this topic

[RibStaThiok]

Saw this article and thought I would pass it along. I love the mountains, I love the climate, and I want what's best for the industry but I don't want to be told what I can and cannot do and that I must drive certain types of vehicles and what not.
http://www.9news.com...ustry/79489748/

[SkiDaBird]

I just look at it that we all have a responsibility to cut what emissions we can. Taking care of your car, driving less if possible, eating less beef, and turning down your heater are all small things that do add up and make an impact on your carbon footprint. My personal goal has been to drive less this year, and I'm going about 3 times as long without filling my tank as I have been. While that's probably a little extreme, everything helps.

[RibStaThiok]

Good deal. As for me... I won't be reducing my driving any.. driving is something i greatly enjoy and need. Gets me away from the city and suburbs, takes me to places up in the mountains where I can find peace and quiet and meditate, and just driving around at 2 in the morning when everyone else is asleep.. quite relaxing to me. But there are many other things I do to help conserve energy, recycle, hug a tree (then cut it down for firewood), whatever you wanna call it.

This post has been edited by RibStaThiok: 31 January 2016 - 10:57 AM

[teachme]

I do not want to tell people what they can and can not do, but what I want is for people to pay the true cost of their actions. See

https://en.wikipedia...iki/Externality

for a bit of an explanation. If someone chooses to drive a big 4x4 instead of a Prius, that person should pay the read cost of that bigger vehicle (indeed both should pay the full cost). The problem is how to sum it up and charge for it. If we could, then we could increase the quality of our world much more easily. Until we can, then I'm afraid that the next best solution is to 'tell people what they can drive'.

As for the original question, many resorts hare hooped! There will be fewer resorts and seasons will be shorter. Sad but true.

TME

[missouriskier]

teachme, on 31 January 2016 - 04:15 PM, said:

I do not want to tell people what they can and can not do, but what I want is for people to pay the true cost of their actions. See

https://en.wikipedia...iki/Externality

for a bit of an explanation. If someone chooses to drive a big 4x4 instead of a Prius, that person should pay the read cost of that bigger vehicle (indeed both should pay the full cost). The problem is how to sum it up and charge for it. If we could, then we could increase the quality of our world much more easily. Until we can, then I'm afraid that the next best solution is to 'tell people what they can drive'.

As for the original question, many resorts hare hooped! There will be fewer resorts and seasons will be shorter. Sad but true.

TME

I would suggest that rather than the government inventing some scheme to charge people for the environmental impact of their "big" 4x4 vehicle, the government instead help guide the auto manufacturers towards producing 4x4 crossovers, SUVs and trucks that actually burn less fuel. The technology's certainly there - just using reasonably-sized diesel engines would make them much more efficient, and I'm sure that additional technologies to save fuel can be used on these vehicles, also. I'm pretty sure that many consumers would like SUVs to be more fuel efficient, but the manufacturers (besides the Europeans) simply haven't tried hard enough to do so. There are some of us who just aren't going to ever drive a Prius - it's useless in my industry (construction), not as safe as driving a larger vehicle, and there's something to be said for having 4x4 if you're someone who drives in the mountains to ski. The environmental impact of producing the batteries is large, also, I believe.

[teachme]

Missouriskier,

All fair points. When I mean the full costs, I would include the full cost of making batteries and such. In reality I know it is impossible to actually calculate it. The 'cost' of electric cars is also dependent on the electric source. Burning coal to make electricity for cars is an issue. Diesel is not really a good option due to particle and sulpher emissions. Something could be done on making existing vehicles more efficient, but not really sure how much. The reality is no form of energy production if free of harm. Wind energy kills birds. Tidal power kills fish. Biomass takes food resources. Nuclear has huge long term risks. Solar may be the least bad option in some situations, but making them is not quite a nice process.

I drive a small SUV because I have two little boys and go camping and skiing a lot, so I understand - though I did make my choice with a large eye on fuel economy and get about 7.8l / 100 km outside of the city. I also ride my bike to work half the year and try not to drive unless needed. Yet I live in a city (Calgary) that forces me to drive more than I should need to. When I lived in Seoul, Beijing and Tokyo I could go weeks without driving. Now I can not go more than a day or two. This is the first time in my life I have not had a major grocery store within a 5 minute walk of my home.

The one this that is clear is that global warming is happening and humans are at least responsible for a good chunk of it. There are lots of ways we can go, but people respond to financial incentives more than any other. If we make things that are good for the environment less expensive and things that cause climate change more expensive, people will respond. We need both the carrot and the stick.

Oh well, back to thinking happy ski thoughts .....