37 replies to this topic

[WBSKI]

I am going to research ski areas in Western Canada and report on each s problems from global warming and estimate a "death date" of the ski area. If anyone has any good sources of info or information themselves, it would be greatly appreciated. I have already watched the Inconvenient Truth which was excellent but it didnt even touch ski areas.

[SkiBachelor]

I think the 'proposed' average climate change will be about three degrees every ten years.

[WBSKI]

Thats quite a bit. I thought it was in celcius at first and I was really woried! So that equivalents to approximately 240m of snowline change in 10 years. I dont think it will change that much for a while since it only changed a degree in the last century. By 2050 though, I bet thats possible, its still pretty controversial as to the amount of degrees changed it seems like.

[Callao]

Nobody can say how much the temperature will increase. or decrease. It's easy to plot any line on a graph, but seriously . . .
Hey, I've found another culprit to our global warming problem:
http://www.fao.org/n...0448/index.html



We just need to eat them sooner. I can't give up my beef.

[WBSKI]

Yep, I have heard about cattle, there are lots of things that are inefficient on energy right now. I remember Alberta last year, it seemed like there was always a coal power plant in sight, spewing out CO2. Personally, I when I get a car, I am only going to drive it to get to the hill or out of town, in town I can ride my bike or walk or ride a bus or carpool, I see many options. I also think that at the rate china develops, the CO2 rate for them is shooting up, with 1 billion people, same with India, we are going to have to set some really good incentives for North America, personally, I think we should raise gas prices with gas tax and electricity prices too, give people incentives to go green and they will do it.

[SkiBachelor]

You have no idea how raising gas prices would affect North America business'.

Everything would go up in price, but the railroads would benefit drasically if that happened.

[liftmech]

Maybe that would be a good thing. Rail lines are a more efficient way of moving people and goods. Economies of scale and such.

I'm not completely sold on the fact that we humans are the sole cause of global warming, but I don't think we can ignore what we are contributing to the atmosphere. It's been proven that the amount of CO2 in the air is much higher than it would be were we not pumping it up in large amounts. Being as we don't fully know about the natural warming/cooling cycles of the planet, however, who's to say we aren't already in a warming cycle and just piggybacking our effects on top of that?

[WBSKI]

True, SkiBachelor, but trains are much more efficient than cars or trucks for how much they will pull. What other solution is there? Ask people to do it? I doubt it would work. Ya, i think I agree with you Liftmech, combination of warming cycle and our own emissions.

This post has been edited by WBSKI: 30 January 2007 - 07:41 AM

[SkiBachelor]

There are several solutions that can be done by not raising gas prices. The biggest is maybe cars and trucks more fuel efficent and we're starting to see a lot of this today. We can also switch to cleaner engery sources like wind power.

I remember that when gas was $3.79 a gallon (here in Oregon) that it had a huge impact on tourism. People felt that it wasn't worth it to spend $2 more per gallon to go on a road trip which they might end up spending $40 more on gas. People are very price sensitive and that's why we see many items priced at odd prices compared to even (2.99 vs. $3) because they classify the $2.99 price as being in the $2 range, while at the $3 range they won't even buy it.

I moved this topic by the way since it was no longer strating to relate to Skilifts.

[Callao]

I'd have a hard time giving up the car either. How would I get to the lift? or the trailhead? Besides, raising gas prices more wouldn't stop people from driving. I lived in Alberta and the Kootenays for two years. Their outragous $$/liter didn't stop them from buying big and beautiful SUV's.
Plus, if we plotted the rising CO2 levels with global temperature, they wouldn't be perfectly matched. Maybe correlated, but not nearly enough to determine causation.

I have and idea! If our problem is excess CO2 in the system, let's get rid or it. I propose that we all bury large trees. Put that carbon back in the ground where it came from. The way I see it, all that petroleum (carbon) came from the ground where it was unable to circulate in the atmosphere. Let's put it back! Holy crap, I could start a movement out of this.

I could have so many hippie friends!

Attached File(s)

•  tree.jpg (2.5K)
  Number of downloads: 0

[poloxskier]

One of the many things that need to be addressed especially in the western US is the lack of reliable and efficient public and private mass transit. Colorado for instance was initialy covered with rail lines and almost all comunities in the mountains were accessed only by train or summer trails. Now there are only 2 mainline rail lines that only serve arround 20 communities and there is only one train traveling each direction a day. The trains out here are still present but they are at times more expensive than flying so almost no one uses them anymore. I think that if the train lines here were revived and made efficient and cost effective then we would see fewer cars on the road and more people using more environmentaly friendly transportation methods. There are bus systems but they have only really sprung up for the ski areas. I think that there is deffinately a better way than choking up I-70, especially since its at close to capacity and there is little possibility to expand it.

My $0.02

This post has been edited by poloxskier: 30 January 2007 - 10:52 AM

[Callao]

True, true. Efficient and cost effective are very important, but none of can deny that what people are looking for is really
Convenience.

[WBSKI]

While there is alot of buzz over wind power, it doesnt really generate much power most of the time and it would be almost impossible to replace all of the power stations with wind power.

I think a combination of nuclear power (lots of power, very little environmental dammage (yes, nuclear meltdown could happen but its very unlikely)), wind power, hydro and small scale geothermal could go along way. I think solar has a potential but it is not really developed enough yet for widespread use. Solar power roofs on every house if it got cheap enough would overall generate a lot of power on no new land.

Callao, i agree with you it is hard to give up a car, I would just try to use it less.

[WBSKI]

Callao, your idea of burying trees would use a lot of man and GAS power, what will bury them? Gas guzzling tractors

[poloxskier]

Callao, on Jan 30 2007, 10:29 AM, said:

True, true. Efficient and cost effective are very important, but none of can deny that what people are looking for is really
Convenience.

That is definately true but if you have an alternate transportation option that is not too inconveniet and more cost effective, like the train routes that used to cover the rockys, then you would find that lots of people would use it rather than driving. No it wont eliminate cars but people would go to other forms of transit other than cars.

[WBSKI]

In Europe, riding a TGV or Eurostar or ICE can be faster than driving a car and more relaxing, seems like a good idea to me.

[Peter]

I don't think cars will ever die in North America. But I am sure that as the end of oil begins to become reality, new technologies will appear that are actually practical for cars. Unfortunately we only have about 10 years to do something or the affects will be irreversible. I guess we'll just have to see if skiing will survive.

[Callao]

It is definitely an issue that has to be addressed. Transportation will never die---and if there was a better idea, we'd be converting. As for the trees, we could always strategically place them in a danger zone, and wait for a muddy landslide to bury them, or we could tie them to big boulders and sink them to the bottom of Mariana Trench. Just like in Lake Powell, the submerged trees would never decompose and release CO2.
What? Reality? Ok.
We'll not likely ever get rid of our SUV's, but there may be a trend that continues due to rising costs of travel, and that is simply, denser housing and denser urban centers. It's already happening in many of the world's larger cities--high rise apartment buildings as well as condos. This, I really believe is the real result of rising travel costs. By the way, money is not the only cost of traveling in these larger cities, but there is also the significant cost of time.

[Peter]

Why do you want to bury trees? Trees ELIMINATE CO2 from the air and produce Oxygen. If enough trees were planted, it would offset the CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels. The carbon is not harmful when it is in the trees, it is harmful when it gets in the air in the form of CO2. If we buried the trees, we would eventually create more fossil fuels, but humans won't exist by that time.

[LiftTech]

Callao, on Jan 30 2007, 01:33 PM, said:

I'd have a hard time giving up the car either. How would I get to the lift? or the trailhead? Besides, raising gas prices more wouldn't stop people from driving. I lived in Alberta and the Kootenays for two years. Their outragous $$/liter didn't stop them from buying big and beautiful SUV's.
Plus, if we plotted the rising CO2 levels with global temperature, they wouldn't be perfectly matched. Maybe correlated, but not nearly enough to determine causation.

I have and idea! If our problem is excess CO2 in the system, let's get rid or it. I propose that we all bury large trees. Put that carbon back in the ground where it came from. The way I see it, all that petroleum (carbon) came from the ground where it was unable to circulate in the atmosphere. Let's put it back! Holy crap, I could start a movement out of this.

I could have so many hippie friends!

Actually trees contribute to 25% of co2, but only when you cut and burn them.
Just stopping deforestation would help.

http://www.ecobridge...ntent/g_cse.htm
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gall...thsci/green.htm

Deforestation
After carbon emissions caused by humans, deforestation is the second principle cause of atmospheric carbon dioxide. (NASA Web Site) Deforestation is responsible for 25% of all carbon emissions entering the atmosphere, by the burning and cutting of about 34 million acres of trees each year. We are losing millions of acres of rainforests each year, the equivalent in area to the size of Italy. [22] The destroying of tropical forests alone is throwing hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. We are also losing temperate forests. The temperate forests of the world account for an absorption rate of 2 billion tons of carbon annually. [3] In the temperate forests of Siberia alone, the earth is losing 10 million acres per year.