SkiCo's Supreme Court Brief Paints Disturbing Picture Of Skiing's Future

November 16th, 2006 at 07:58am Post Staff 43

ASPEN, COLORADO (Post Time News)--The brief filed by Aspen Skiing Company in a case on global warming now before the United States Supreme Court paints an ugly picture of the fate of the resort as the climate in Colorado continues to warm.

"Over the past 25 years," according to the SkiCo brief, "Aspen has watched its total precipitation decrease by 6 percent, with snowfall decreasing by 16 percent (17 percent above 10,600 feet). Average temperatures have already increased by about 3 degrees Farenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) over the same period and frost-free days have increased approximately 20 days per year. The prognoses are in line with the historical trends. The impact of climate change is current, and well underway."

"In a nutshell," SkiCo director of environmental affairs Auden Schendler told Aspen Post. "It's not far off. It's already happening."

Former SkiCo chief executive officer Pat O'Donnell, replaced this week by Mike Kaplan, emerged as the chief spokesperson for the ski industry on climate change over the last decade, and his influence is present and accounted for in the brief.

"The present effects of climate change upon the alpine winter recreation industry--and businesses like ASC and the comunities of which they are an integral part--are very real," according to the brief.

For further details of the case, go to the National Defense Resource Council brief on Aspen Post.

Entry Filed under: Environment, Skiing, Snowboarding, Politics, Snowmass, Glenwood Springs, Vail, Aspen, Colorado, Telluride, Crested Butte, Pitkin County, Garfield County, Outdoors, Post Time News

5 Comments Add your own

1. Jeff | November 16th, 2006 at 8:26 am

Listening to Auden this morning. He conveniently forgets what Snowmass was like BEFORE it was called Snowmass -- before it was built. As an evironmentalist Auden might think we should dismantle Glen Canyon dam. By the same token, perhaps we should dismantle Snowmass ski resort and take it back to Aspen forest, elk and a few cows -- the way it used to be?

As for mining being worse then industrial tourism, sure, there were fewer trees, but Aspen is now a polluted town choked by noise and automobiles -- a town that has a deliberate traffic jam twice a day to discourage people from driving to/from the jobs that sustain the town. Saying that's better than mining is a specious value judgement.
2. alpha6 | November 16th, 2006 at 5:55 pm

More of the “snow if melting” crowd. I wonder how much emissions are being belched from those tens of hundreds of trucks that are being utilized with the building of base village has contributed to helping out our little heating problem? Don’t see anyone calling for a curb in private planes flying into the valley…how much crap do they spit all over the slopes?

The nerve of these guys crying about the melting snow when they are some of the biggest contributors to the problem. Until I see them do something more then kill more trees printing out things telling us how environmentally conscious they are, then I will start to take what they say about more seriously. Until then, you can find me on the slopes skiing…there may be an inch or two of snow less, but it will still be good.
3. Michael Conniff | November 17th, 2006 at 5:55 am

I'm going to try to post Auden's answers about sustainability at Snowmass if I can because I think he gave a pretty good answer: his idea is that Snowmass right no has no center and no economic base without skiing, and that Base Village will bring that to the community.

The other thing to consider is what's the option? Without skiing, Snowmass is a ghost town.
4. alpha6 | November 17th, 2006 at 7:32 am

True, but then so would the whole world without development. I just think it’s hypocritical of them to be doing one thing and talking another. Pretty much like what’s going on in Aspen with the Cracked up Canary Initiative, meanwhile people turn up the temp in the heated driveways cause the snow doesn’t melt fast enough.

I personally don’t believe that we, as humans, are affecting the climate in any significant way. Climate change has been happening for centuries without human intervention, all this is nothing new when viewed in the tens of thousands of years of the earth’s existence. Still, I don’t like to waste our resources…but the earth will be here long after we are gone.
5. Edward Troy | November 17th, 2006 at 11:09 am

We live in a society of profligate waste. CO2 has absorbtion spectra in the infrared. Maybe there is a connection, maybe not. Having faith in those who profit from the waste and say there is no global warming, maybe a good idea, maybe not. Those who say, there is no global warming, may understand the science better than the scientists, who specialise in those relevant disciplines, then again, maybe not. Maybe jumping off a cliff into rocks is good for us, maybe not. So why don't we roll the dice and jump, you can't prove it isn't good, until you land, ....right? I can hear the same parroted answers from Bush. Somehow that fine feathered friend possesing the most wondrous birdbrain in the oval office leaves me slightly sceptical, even if he is the greatest president between numbers 42 and 44.