Skiing the Snow Away

 I returned this last Wednesday from a (very) extended weekend in Tahoe. The snow was as good as it has been all year, and I had a few of the best ski days of my life.

Today, it is raining in Tahoe. At least that's what the forecast calls for and what the radar appears to show. It's typically for Tahoe to get a few rainy days a year, but my feeling is that this is getting worse. Global Climate Change projects that the winters will continue to get weirder and more extreme, so the good days of skiing are going to get fewer and further between.

I love skiing. It is what I am most passionate about. Having spent a number of seasons skiing everyday, I know that the more I do it, the more I love it. It some ways it's a curse, an obsessive addiction. I finagle my schedule to get up there whenever I can to get the best days. When I can't, I'm bouncing off the walls in SF knowing that others are going to brag about how good it was.

I also know that it's an addiction that's bad for the environment, mostly because of the driving. Every time I make the trip up and back, I'm contributing carbon in the atmosphere. Everyone of the thousands of skiers at each of the resorts has traveled to be there. The whole community, in fact, is based on this unsustainable system. Skiing = Travel = the worst segment of the economy for the planet.

I've joked with my wife about NOT teaching our son how to ski. I usually make this reference in terms of how crazy I get, but part of it also springs from my concern for the future of the sport, or even of snow. I single degree makes a big difference between rain and snow, and the Sierras are projected to raise at least a few degrees.

This is not just a single selfish concern, as the snow in California also represents the water we drink and grow our food with. The state is officially in a severe drought, and might remain in one even if we have an above average year. I've heard talk of tough water rationing for farmers this year.

So, what can I do. Again, the answer sucks: drive to the mountains less. I could also stay there longer when I do go up. (something I took advantage of this last trip, with 6 days of skiing) I could find a new sport?!!?

I guess I could also live in the mountains. I've thought about this frequently, but I've never found a career that could support me up there. I also worry about the whole community being unsustainable. Cities are inherently greener than suburbs, especially cold snowy suburbs. I feel like if I was ever to live outside the city, then I'd like to be able to grow some of my own food. Living in Tahoe probably rules this out, though the skiing certainly would be sweet.

I can also help to conserve water. I recently purchased a flow stopped for the shower, and I've turned off the flow every time I soap up. (See Soak & Soak Valve from GreenFeet.com) I think I should also get a timer to help further reduce the time I'm in there.

Until the next, actually snowy, storm...

Annual Carbon Calculation

PDF - my carbon calculation

I calculated my carbon emissions for 2008 and boy am I an earth-hater! 

I claim responsibility for emitting about 60,000 lbs (30 tons) of CO2.  This is about the equivalent volume of 5 hot air ballons and about the weight of 6 elephants.  For my lifestyle to be truely sustainable, these numbers should be close to zero. (carbonfootprint.org claims that the global average for a healthy planet should be 4,000 lbs.)  I am about 50% heigher than the average American who emits about 40,000 lbs (20 tons).  

More than 75% of my total goes to traveling.  I drove a fairly average number of miles last year, 10,000.  This was 18% of my footprint (11,000 lbs CO2).  My airline flights were close to 30% (18,000 lbs) of my total.  Although I really don't consider myself a huge airline traveler, they added up to a total of 13,000 miles.  Most of this in tern was a flight from SF to Maui (for a wedding), and another cross country from SF to CT (for a job).   My biggest source of all, however, was 3.5 hours of Cessna time, 34% (21,000 lbs).  While we were in Alaska filming this April, four of us were dropped off on a glacier above Haines and picked up a week later.  Even though this was split between four of us, I take full responsibility since it was my business making the film, I paid for it, and I know none of those guys are doing a carbon calculation this year.  

One thing I thought about when looking at this huge effect of traveling is that no one ever says that we need to fly less.  You always here to drive less or drive a hybrid, but rarely to not fly.  I'm not sure why this is? [Another note about the airline calculation: I used the BEF.org model which takes a hint from the IPCC and effective doubles the impact of airline carbon because it is emitted at altitude - where it can do more harm.  Most other airline calcs do not do this and as a result flying does not seem as bad.]

These 21,000 lbs attributed to the cessna did give me a little pause.  I had Bonnieville Environmental Foundation do the calculations for me as part of my carbon offsetting for the film, AK the Hard Way.  The premise of the film was to earn our turns the hard way, but we chose to use the plane to access terrain that was otherwise impossible to get to.  Because of all our gear, and the small plane, the pilot had to make two trips to drop us off and two to pick us up.  The total cost for all the flight time was $1,200.   This is about on par with the cost of all my traditional airline flights.  Because of the economies of scale, it makes since that large airlines would have about half the carbon per dollar of cost.  It really makes me wonder how large the carbon footprint is of the large ski film production companies who use helicopters for every run....

My home energy footprint was tiny, about 2,000 lbs.  Granted, we live in an apartment in the very temperate climate of San Francisco.  I use plastic to seal up the windows in the winter (Jan-July), have only used the heater once during the day in the last year, my wife turns it on sparingly (probably so I don't berate her about it), and we have no air conditioner.   

The result of all this is that our home energy is about one-fifth of the national average.  It's also nice to have a gas/electric bill of only $40/month.  

It's all business.  Much of my footprint can be attributed to my business of making ski movies and other videos.  The Cessna of course was part of that, but also about half of my driving, and at least half of my commercial flying.  My total would probably be less than 30,000 if I didn't have this as a business, and starting this year, I probably won't.  This year, I have decided not to make another ski movie.  One nice part about owning my own business is that I do get to actually count my carbon footprint.  I have yet to see an online carbon calculator that even asked what job you have let alone counts it.   Industry is a huge component of this carbon problem.  Some jobs, like my wife's, have their impact mostly through the buildings themselves.  But these are the same buildings that leave their lights on all night and have heating and cooling running constantly.  There's got to be an impact there. 

And what about all those lifestyle choices?  I eat mostly organic, very little meat, in season when possible, rarely go out to eat, recycle fanatically, and buy little to no new stuff.  No flat screen TVs, speedboats, or electronic gizmos.  There is one online calculator that asked these kind of questions (www.carbonfootprint.com, a British site) and I came out at 3,000 lbs.  I think that this could run as high as 30,000 lbs, so my lifestyle choices are making a difference.  It would be nice if these sort of estimates make it onto the America websites because this can be just as important as how much you travel.     

Other sources that I counted were my ferry travel, train travel, and hotel stays. Not much of anything here since they were infrequent.  Another large source however, was Water and Waste in California.  I found some numbers last year on the Air Resources Board and I used the same ones this year since the web link was not longer there.  It about 4,000 lbs of carbon per person just to get our water and dump our waste.  (ironically 4,000 is the global average needed for a healthy planet - and we use this just to drink and take out the trash!!)  None of the online calculators accounted for this.  

This brings up an interesting point about how these calculations are performed: top down or bottom up.  I'm confident that when we hear that the US average is 40,000 lbs that this come from the top down: we add up all the carbon across the US and divide by the number of people.  When I go online and calculate my carbon footprint, I do it from the bottom up.  I start with my home energy, add my auto miles, and flights and come up with a number.  This misses a ton (no pun intended) of secondary sources from lifestyle and ancillary sources. (many are mention above)  What about the truck that drives tomatoes 1,500 miles?  What about the building lights left on at everyone's work?  The plasma TV imported by tanker from China?  etc... This has the effect of skewing the bottom up calculations to under estimate - resulting in American's thinking they're not as bad as they really are.  This also has to do with the average being pulled lower by the million of Americans who are lower income.  Most middle class individuals who might be inclined to do their carbon calculation, are the types of people who drive and fly on vacations, but they also buy their share of stuff and affect the world proportionally to their income level.  I guess what I'm trying to say here is that all the other stuff we spend our money on and do as Americans affects our carbon emissions and our environment and it would be nice to have the calculations be a little more inclusive by including better ways to account for these. 

As for me, I need to practice what I preach a whole lot better.  My take-away for next year: TRAVEL LESS (doh!)