New West Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming
All skiers yearn for the slopes to be white. Growing numbers wish they were green, too.
In response, dozens of ski resorts are trying to lighten their load on the planet (not an easy task, considering the forest-scalping and other impacts associated with ski areas). How are they doing?
The Ski Area Citizens’ Coalition (SACC) recently answered that question in its annual “environmental scorecard,” which grades western U.S. ski resorts on their overall eco-friendliness. With 100 percent as a perfect score, here’s how Montana’s slopes fared, ranked in order of letter grade and percentage points earned:
– Moonlight Basin Resort: B, 73
– Bridger Bowl Ski Area: B, 68.2
– Big Sky Resort: C, 65.2
– Whitefish Mountain Resort: C, 61.3
– Lost Trail Ski Area: C, 59.8
– Montana Snowbowl: C, 58
– Red Lodge Resort: C, 58
The SACC bases its rankings on a complicated series of criteria, including how resorts are protecting habitats, preserving watersheds, addressing climate change, and embracing sustainable practices.
Downhill ski operations always involve environmental impacts, the group acknowledges — but the report is not greenwashing, it says. The goal is “to differentiate between those ski areas that truly engage in environmentally sound practices versus those that merely claim to do so.”
Resorts at the head of the class were the ones that (among other things) stifled the urge to expand terrain, which wreaks havoc on ecosystems, involving everything from logging and erosion to wetlands destruction. Here, economics have been at war with the environment: in an effort to make money and attract dwindling numbers of skiers nationwide, some resorts have engaged in expansion schemes that involve unsustainable development, both environmentally and financially. (For more on ski resort bankruptcies, click here.)
For example, in Colorado’s Vail-Aspen-Breckenridge-Copper Mountain ski-tropolis, “skier numbers have increased 28 percent since 1985, yet skier acreage has more than doubled (a 107 percent increase).”
But other resorts are taking significant steps to minimize harm. Here are the SACC’s straight-”A”-winning top 10:
1. Squaw Valley – California (89.7)
2. Aspen Mountain Ski Resort – Colorado (86.1)
3. Buttermilk Mountain Ski Resort – Colorado (85.7)
4. Sugar Bowl Ski Resort – California (82.3)
5. Sundance Resort – Utah (82.2)
6. Alpine Meadows Ski Area – California (82)
7. Park City Mountain Resort – Utah (81.7)
8. Bogus Basin Mountain Resort – Idaho (81.3)
9. Aspen Highlands Ski Resort – Colorado (80.3)
10. Powderhorn Resort – Colorado (79.4)
Shredders can reduce their carbon ski-prints, too, of course. Easy options include some obvious ones: carpool when you go to the slope, leave the Hummer at home, and don’t buy plastic bottles of H2O. In addition:
–If you can choose where to ski, choose green. Check out the state-by-state lists at SACC or find a green resort in the handy database provided by the National Ski Areas Association.
– Check out Treehugger’s “How to Go Green” guide for skiing and snowboarding, which has all sorts of, well, tips. Or join the SkiGreen program, which offers carbon offsets for skiers, and more.
For more info, go to the Ski Area Citizen’s Coalition.
Splitboarding is the answer
This is just another attempt by the greenie weenie, politically correct crowd to boss people around as if they were sheep and tell them how to live their lives. Closely related to other totalitarian ideologies both religious and secular.
I have to agree with Mickey. While having a low impact will always be more desireable, what about the realities. Can these ski areas in Montana afford to “go green?” Places like Lost Trail, Snowbowl, Discovery, Turner, Maverick, etc can barely make it by and open each season as it is. We need to stop villianizing folks trying to get by, and support our LOCAL ski areas, regardless of their environmental stance. I would say most small ski areas managers give a damn about our environment. While these mega-resorts can afford to “go green” we need to embrace our local hills and do what we can to help out the little guy. This year at Snowbowl both chairs will have aluminum recycling can at tops, jsut something to help out a little bit.
“Splitboarding is the answer” ..to what??? you clogging up the lift line?? Shut up hippy.
I wonder how my mountain’s score would improve if we paid Al Gore a bunch of money.
Protecting habitats? Preserving watersheds? Other than Great Divide how many ski areas in MT DON’T operate under a Forest Service permit? Perhaps the FOREST SERVICE should be charged with protecting the habitat that ski areas have permits to operate on.
Really want to “go green” in your ski experience??? STOP driving hours to a mega-resort and start supporting your local mountain and encouraging its owners and management to become more environmentally responsible. WAKE UP and realize that riding a hill owned by a huge corporation is not unlike buying your goods at Walmart. Think about this next time you head off to BigCorporpateSkyMoutainClub in your subaru plastered with “support organic farming” and “coexist” stickers
CrazyAlice makes a good point. The highly flawed rating system by the SACC skews the rankings and distorts the reality of the impacts of downhill skiing in different markets and for different ski areas. First, several scores are based on planning documents. If a resort, for reasons of permitting, marketing, or simply forward thinking puts in their document a plan for a road, lift, or parking lot, they receive a lower score. That is like trying to collect taxes on the million dollars I have not yet earned. Most of these plans won’t see the light of day. Second, there is no consideration of the impacts from the market – the skier catchment area, travel times, community impacts. Here is one example.
Silver Mountain in Idaho received dismal scores based, in part, on land development and snowmaking. The development is highly clustered around the gondola base area and is actually infill but because they broke ground, they get a low score. The area has never had much snowmaking and now needs some capacity. SM is located in an area with no water shortages and cheap power – what’s the issue? The proposed golf course is on former Superfund cleanup land and will actually result in cleaner runoff and better air quality. Silver Mt has been a huge stimulus for the local economy and helped bridge the impact of the closure of the mines yet, they get no credit for helping to keep the area viable.
The scores, like all politically motivated ranking systems, ignores local conditions and treats all areas the same. Clearly, there is a difference between Bridger Bowl building a lift access road through already heavily impacted forest lands (and being dinged for it) and a large resort in Colorado building a new development but, the scores would be similarly low. The recent lift addition at Bridger has not only enhanced the skier experience, it has maintained the viability and economic diversity of the Bozeman economy – something I am sure the folks at SACC would value – but not with their scoring system.
The ski industry has major problems at multiple levels and should be called to task for many of their practices. But, it would be nice to see some valid science put into what is a useful and well-intentioned but scientifically highly flawed effort by the SACC.
Since when is a score of 89 an “A”? Assuming this is based on a 100pt system, they’ve set an impossibly high standard to hit. #10 is only a 79….btw – don’t read further into my post, as long as the ski area picks up the garbage in the spring, I’m usually happy with their efforts.
CrazyAlice – I like your style.
It’s nice to see some comments on here that appear to be anchored to the realities of living on this planet. I make a footprint everywhere I go and so do the people pointing at the footprints everyone else makes. It’s good to make them smaller, but not if that means spending your whole life raking away your footprints instead of living your life.
I too support CrazyAlice – you get an A!
This report is ridiculous. How can ski areas like Vail, Aspen, Jackson etc, with the monster-sized environmental footprint they have, score better than the little, local mom-and-pop areas?
SACC, Politically Correct, Smart Growth and Ridiculous are synonymous. Additionally SACC discriminates against poor people who can’t afford to ski at large, expensive resorts.
Interesting to see the comparison of customer growth and terrain expansion. Breckenridge wants to develop peak six, which would involve cutting of high, old growth timber that is one of the reasons the out-of bounders go there (the others are soilitude, beauty, and a profound silence. Perhaps Vail Resorts, as well as others, should look at the demographics and a growing desire to experience the peace of nature first hand (Read John Muir), and figure a way to provide limited access to these special places without spending megabucks. With four mountains, there’s enough ski terrain.
I would have to echo a lot of what’s already been said here. I applaud the effort of resorts in attempting to clean up their act. But, as usual, much of the “green” is superficial. That article on “Treehugger” is a perfect example. Most of the article focuses on “green” products (as do most of these types of articles), rather than on advocating using what you have, as though buying a recycled-content jacket is going to have any real impact at all when you ski at resource-intensive resorts 20-30 days out of the year. Which brings up the other glaring omission in the article – nowhere does it advocate avoiding resorts altogether and enjoying the backcountry instead. From mellow, cross-country to touring steep terrain, there are lots of ways that people can still enjoy skiing without contributing to the single most impactful aspect of the sport – the resorts. “Buying carbon offsets?” Give me a break. Everyone wants to go “green” but no one wants to substantially change their lifestyle. Good luck with that.