« Previous Story | The Industry Report Home Page | Next Story »

Schendler On Our Future: This Snowman Pulls No Punches

By J.D. O'Connor
March 31, 2006

IR asked him: What will global warming and the effects of climate change mean for the Ski Industry over the next ten to fifteen years?

Schendler: Half of me wants to say "wrong question." Ok, I'll say it. It's the wrong question because the ski industry, at least at high altitudes, will likely be fine in the short term. We'll probably see warmer, wetter shoulder seasons, and warmer nights which affects snowmaking. We might see more big big storms, and more long droughts. At least, that's what the climate models are telling us. The coastal resorts might continue to get pummeled with weird conditions. But over a ten year timeframe, we're not going to go out of business. (2050 is another story though)

I get asked the question: "What's going to happen to skiing?" more than anything, and the deal is that we're going to have a lot more to worry about than lack of opportunity to carve freshies. Climate change, as the latest issue of TIME magazine points out, is happening now, and has profound effects on everything from food production, to the spread of disease, to creating huge refugee migrations (New Orleans, Bangladesh); to the power and duration of storms and droughts.

So what the ski industry should be wondering is how broad scale impacts like these will affect our business. (That is), we might not have lost many skiers from New Orleans, but what about Florida and New York, also vulnerable to climate related catastrophe? How will the various and wide ranging impacts of climate affect the economy, and people's disposable income? Is the ski industry ready to accommodate these sorts of things based on its current model?

I think we need to become more resilient as an industry, which means becoming more efficient with operational costs (energy, labor) and leaner. And we need to diversify how we make money, if at all possible.

IR: What have resorts both large and small done to stave off/counter these effects and what should they be doing?

Schendler: Resorts are buying wind power, they're doing lighting retrofits, they're educating their guests. Very few - Alta is the only one I know of - are doing green building, which is crucial because buildings account for 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.

We're doing all that sort of stuff too, and it's nice, but it's not going to save us. At best, it gives us credibility when we do what really matters - which is lobby congress, the White House, and our state governments to do something from a policy angle on this issue.

I think the whole world, for the most part, doesn't understand the scope of this problem. Jim Hansen, the NASA scientist who has been studying climate since the 1970s, says we have ten years to take action, and that we have to cut greenhouse gas emissions 90 percent by 2100 or we'll be living on an entirely different planet. So we have to move. And the way the ski industry can be most effective is to use its clout as a high profile, sexy, cool business interest lobbying government. I've always said that when the ski industry is lobbying congress on climate as hard as it is on public land issues, we'll have arrived.

« Previous Story | The Industry Report Home Page | Next Story »

Email To A Friend

Comments

	I couldn't agree more. I hope our government comes to its senses soon, though given its past record I am not holding out much hope for this. Anyone who believes we are not contributing to the overall deterioration of the planet has got their head in the sand. The time to move is now.
	Posted by: Tara Patrick | April 2, 2006 12:42 AM

	Will the ski industry ever swing as much weight with the current administration as the oil companies and car manufacturers? I don't think so. Still its nice to read about someone doing something. ASC didn't have to move in the direction it is, but they examined the issue and did what they thought was right. First steps are often the toughest and it takes courageous people to make them.
	Posted by: Blair | April 3, 2006 06:38 AM

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately we will see no results if we expect the Government to solve the problem. All you have to do is look back to the 1970's for an example. We knew in the 1970's that oil was a limited resource and that we were way to dependent on it. The gas crisis emphasized that. We had a golden opportunity to develop alternative fuels and energy to decrease our dependence o oil. Instead, we ingnored it and catered to the oil lobbyist putting us into the mess we are in today. Now we are scrambling to do too little too late. I'm afraid a similar fate is awaiting us with global warming. Resorts need to diversify and start building Spring/Summer/Fall opportunities if they wish to thrive in the future. As much as I love winter, they probably won't look the same 20 years from now..

Posted by: Jeff | April 3, 2006 07:35 AM

This is an ongoing and confusing issue. Today in the Portland, Maine Press Herald newspaper, George Will's editorial noted that the opposite scenario was predicted during the 1970's. Science Magazine, Science Digest, The Christian Science Monitor, Newsweek, The New York Times and others cited statistics warning of the pending "ice age". Are we just reporting on the climate cycles as they happen, or can we really predict how the climate will change? I personally cannot say at this point in time, with real certainly, how the climate will change. I do know that climate change is continual - hot or cold - is it a flip of the coin?

Posted by: Greg Sweetser | April 3, 2006 09:13 AM

Greg's comment and point is well taken as this is a broad issue and we may presume too much at times. Still, it is easy to see that we as a species are contributing to at least the trashing of this planet and it doesn't take a NASA scientist to see what that will do over the long haul. It's time to do something. Our government needs to lead the way. Private industry and individuals will not be able to do it alone. Nice thread here... thanks.

Posted by: Jon Campbell | April 4, 2006 07:51 AM

Greg's point is a good one and deserves response. There is a great deal of confusion about climate science, even among well educated and well intentioned people. In part, this confusion comes from intentional obfuscation by the oil industry--Exxon, for example, spent $30 million in 2003 alone to promote disinformation on climate science. (That was reported by Mother Jones magazine last year.) Yes, there was speculation about global cooling in the 1970, but that wasn't backed by the rafts of science that support the case for anthropogenic warming today. The only basis for our action or inaction should be the science. And the fact is that every major scientific body in the world, and every government,including ours, is in agreement: warming is happening and is human caused. Additionally, all scientific models of climate change take into account normal climate variation, solar radiation, geologic and orbital cycles, etc. What we're seeing is so far outside the realm of "normal variation" that the scientific community can say with certainty this is new and different, human caused, and worth addressing.

Posted by: Auden Schendler | April 4, 2006 02:34 PM

This appears to be an active forum of discussion for this kind of thing so let's ask ourselves: What kind of cars are we driving? Are our homes needlessly expansive and sprawling? I see a growing level of concern evolving around this subject along with a seemingly inexhaustible demand for SUVs, more fuel and built to the property lines homesites. I'm looking for hopeful examples of change and don't see much. The ski industry seems to be ahead of the game as far as the adoption of alternative energy technology and environmentally sensitive approaches to life on this planet. Thanks, enjoyed reading this very much indeed.

Posted by: Paul Kilduff | April 5, 2006 09:56 AM

Contrary to what many are reading above, ASC has a long way to go. In times of global warming when asked what they would do if the snows came later and left earlier (keep in mind the Thanksgiving profits and the Easter spring skiing money) ASC representatives said "we will just make more snow." This is the reply in a valley where ASC has already depleted streamflows to levels which are destroying instream and riparian habitat. Their solution to global warming and staying competitive is to further deplete? Doesn't sound that forward thinking through my ears. A recent survey also showed that 80% of the property owners in the Aspen area have homes here because of the summers, not the winters. So, why all the hubbub about skiing? Because ASC (and others in the industry) are blowing their own horn and drawing attention to their own industry to increase profits.

Posted by: In the mix of ASC | April 14, 2006 01:34 PM

	Bought a Prius last year and happy with it so far. Did it for many reasons and none of them to be politically correct. Hoping to reduce my impact on the earth if only slightly. It is obvious we are creating problems for ourselves. My house? Well, certainly not a sprawling McMansion, but nice. Here's hoping we learn to curb our worst instincts before it's too late. S. Kerry Denver
	Posted by: Siobhan Kerry | April 17, 2006 08:38 AM

The posting above about ASC's position on climate change and insteam flows is confused, and I'd like to correct it. First, it's very very difficult to demonstrate financial gain from corporate enviornmental responsibility. In fact, we don't have evidence that guests will choose ASC over other resorts based on our environmental record. (We hope they will though, as nothing would be better than environmental improvements being drive by market demand!) Our position on climate change isn't that we'll "make more snow." Current modeling suggests a much more dire situation than can be handled by snowmaking, and ASC has a host of programs, from efficiency, to renewables, to political advocacy, that were progressive enough to be profiled in TIME magazine two weeks ago. Finally, Snowmass Ski Area does use water from Snowmass Creek for snowmaking. Two years ago, in collaboration with the local environmental community, we released a ten year plan to radically increase on-mountain storage and begin to decouple snowmaking from the creek. To my knowledge, this is the first time such an action as been undertaken by a ski resort. The paper that outlines that strategy is available to the public. I'd happily send a copy to the above blogger on request. Do we still have a long way to go? Yes. Will we always be an inherently destructive business? Probably.

Posted by: Auden Schendler | April 17, 2006 10:54 AM