Comments on: Backcountry Skiing News Roundup

By: Paul S.

Paul S. — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:53:14 +0000

I think “easily ameliorated” is a debate that is complicated enough we’ll never settle it here. :) I’m probably a knee-jerk environmentalist if anyone is, but I do agree that decreasing fossil fuel use has to be a slow process. Society of Automotive Engineers just completed the first Challenge X competition, where the goal was to minimize the carbon footprint from “wells to wheels” which is what we have to think about. I believe that the availability of Plugin hybrid powertrains for ALL mechanized forms of transport and local generation, although 30-40 years away, IS a pragmatic, and hopefully effective, solution.

Thanks,
Paul

By: Lou

Lou — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:12:11 +0000

Good points you guys, and thanks for the civility. As many of you know, I do believe the climate is warming, but just how much and why, and what the consequences are, now those are some open questions that I believe we as backcountry skiers should direct our attention to on occasion. Hence my bringing up the subject every so often. Also, remember we don't allow personal attacks here, so stay away from Randonnee's sled! (grin)

By: Randonnee

Randonnee — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:59:38 +0000

With all due respect to some valid concepts, pardon my pragmatism. I would point out that our global energy use is based on petroleum for the most part, and it is efficient, the negative effects are easily ameliorated, there is plenty of oil with new reserves explored regularly, and it is inexpensive even at $5/ gal of gas.

Further, when something that is an alternative energy source that is better in all ways comes along, it will be developed and marketed very quickly without artificial funding, legislation, protest, etc.

The use of petroleum allows all of us to live, ski tour, do what we do. And no, I do not work for big oil, my dad retired from and my brother continues in the nuclear materials industry.

By: Paul S.

Paul S. — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:12:55 +0000

Lou,
After taking a course this past semester where we discussed PV cells , energy conversion, and distribution, I think you are only half right. Yes, PV cells are expensive, but there are areas of the country where they makes sense (thankyou Arizona!) whereas here in New England, coastal dwellers could develop significant energy from tidal/wave generation, and people both on and away from the coast could do well with personal wind turbines. My feeling is that distributed generation at the individual level is key to improving our energy security, and the US/Canadian carbon footprint. What we really need is money going into product and platform development to allow everyone to generate, store, and sell energy into the grid system. Fortunately, soaring energy prices are doing just that, at both a private an public level.

my $0.02
Paul

By: Lou

Lou — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:56:00 +0000

…and how about feeding more starving children (or at least insulating your house better) instead of installing PV panels that take 20 years to pay for and are worn out by then?