Comments on: How Green Can a Ski Team Be?

By: Harv-cat

Harv-cat — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 18:07:00 +0000

I think Jonn44 might have taken a bit harsh response to this but he is right that this is straight up “greenwashing”. Maybe the CGRP can chop wood all fall to promote biomass use instead of using natural gas for heating, can probably put that in the training log as well.

By: Hannah Dreissigacker

Hannah Dreissigacker — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 01:46:56 +0000

For both ethical and legal reasons, I am not and never have been funded through the foundation like the rest of the CGRP team. I am a member of the team in every other way, and I’m grateful to be able to train with such great teammates and coaching, while at the same time doing meaningful, positive work.

I’m hoping that as a team we can help to bring about more conversation like this within the skiing community about the negative and positive environmental effects of our sport. That is one of our goals!

By: caldxski

caldxski — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:55:27 +0000

Well, I’ve written some stuff for this website and it usually draws a large response. I have always been struck by the number of armchair coaches who seem to have opinions on various matters, but as far as I can tell, have never been out there in the trenches.
I had the same reaction when I read the comments from a person who goes under the title of “Jon.” He seems to have a lot of criticisms and so by writing this I’m asking him to
step forward and tell us all what he has done in the way of coaching athletes, or preserving the environment, or anything for that matter, which will stand up to the efforts that are being made by Judy Geer amd Dick Driessgacker. And so their daughter is joining this well-conceived effort and maybe she shouldn’t because of the tax laws? What’s going on here? Hasn’t Jon got anything better to do?
Jon, you tell me, and the rest of the folks out there. What have you done lately? Tell us what you are doing to cut down the carbon footprint and all that stuff. Tell us how you would manage a sports team that strives to make an impact in world competition.

By: Anna Schulz

Anna Schulz — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:49:57 +0000

And to be blunt in response, Jon44, your own criticisms might be more taken more seriously if Hannah Dreissigacker (family member or not) were not clearly one of the most qualified members of the Craftsbury Green Racing Project, both in terms of her skiing results and background in environmental engineering.

By: Jon44

Jon44 — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:23:18 +0000

P.s., another thought regarding focusing on what you can control–one transcontinental flight equals a year’s worth of leaving lights on / composting, etc. So, to the extent that they’re providing an example, they’re providing a negative example: “we’ll do what we can, so long as it doesn’t involve any real sacrifice.”

(And not to be too harsh on the Dreissigacker’s (I do think they mean well)–but isn’t ethical rule number one of any non-profit foundation, you don’t award grants to family members?)

By: Jon44

Jon44 — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:50:48 +0000

I agree that McKibben’s efforts to pressure government is very positive. I was thinking more about his advocacy of small-scale enterprise, eating local, and related ideas echoed in Reynold’s and Geer’s last comments (focussing on things you can control). The problem with a lot of these things is that people adopt an orthodoxy (“eat local”) that’s not based on fact / evidence (the EU did a study, for example, showing that there’s less environmental impact importing meat from New Zealand than buying local meat because of the insignificant impact of transportation vs. processing, etc.) McKibben gives other reasons for supporting the local approach (e.g., the luxury of being surrounded by small farms versus developments) and while these are real, it’s hard to see how meaningful this recommendation is in a world of mega-cities and fast-growing third world economies (again, where most of the causes of climate change are coming from.)

The other aspect of the Green Team that rankles a bit, is that it’s a bit of an example of “greenwashing.” There’s more than a little self-interest going on at all levels.

To be blunt, I’d take it more seriously if there was more original and substantive efforts being made (e.g., how about a hybrid ski bus from Boston to Craftsbury versus the “I’ve seen it a million places before” energy efficient light bulbs) and if the sponsors’ daughter wasn’t getting (tax-free) funding for after-college training, and the sponsors’ (private, for-profit) company’s new ski product didn’t feature so prominently in the text and pictures.

By: Nathan Alsobrook

Nathan Alsobrook — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:35:03 +0000

“Hypocrisy” is not the correct term to describe the Green Team’s dilemma. It’s possible to combat climate change without reducing your own carbon footprint to nil, just as it’s possible to combat poverty without donating all of your worldly possessions to the poor. As Jon notes, any human activity has costs. Tim Reynolds has it right – focus on what you can control to minimize, if not eliminate, your carbon footprint. I agree with Jon that personal actions are insignificant compared to large scale changes, but why can’t we have both? Climate change activism isn’t a zero-sum game; riding my bike to work doesn’t make me less likely to lobby my Congresswoman to take action on climate change. Lastly, it’s unfair to call Bill McKibben’s efforts “feel-good measures.” Governments don’t make the kinds of major changes we need without pressure from citizens. The efforts of McKibben and others are helping to create this pressure. How successful this approach will be is yet to be seen, but it’s a very legitimate way to achieve “real world” progress on climate change.

By: Jon44

Jon44 — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:03:47 +0000

While it’s heartening to see positive action and I’m glad they acknowledge the hypocrisy inherent in some of their activities, projects like these raise a lot of questions. For example, I think most people are starting to acknowledge that focussing on foods, and lighting of houses are such small contributors to climate change (as are most “act local” efforts) that they can function more as distractions from necessary political efforts. Further, in comparison, I wonder how much greehouse gasses Craftsbury contributes through using wood-fired stoves or through its main activity of encouraging people to drive long-distances to get to Craftsbury for events (e.g., lots of solo skiers driving 4 hours from Boston).

Not sure what the answer is other than to acknowledge that any human activity has costs, and short of euthanizing ourselves, it may be better to focus on things with more significant real world benefits (e.g., U.S. funding for clean coal technologies to be used in China and India) versus “feel-good” measures that have the veneer of virtue, but don’t really add up to significant change (a criticism I’d make of McKibben’s overall approach).

Jon

By: nordicmatt

nordicmatt — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:54:54 +0000

Look to see how race organizers and clubs are modernizing their fleets. Alaska organizations have been or are in the process of going from two-stroke to four-stroke snowmachines with reduced emissions and more power. Snow cats are now meeting the highest levels of reduced DIESEL (not gas) emissions (think Blue Tec). Choose air carriers by their average fleet age. Fleet modernization is important all around, especially when it makes economic sense.