Australia has any number of well known sports people. What sometimes surprises me is how few prominent skiers/ boarders – that is people connected with our mountains – actually speak out on environmental issues. This example from the excellent Wend magazine profiles extreme skier from the USA, Alison Gannett, and her advocacy work on climate change.
Alison Gannett–Adventures in Saving Snow
(author: James Mills)
There are plenty of people out there talking about climate change. But how many are actually doing something about it? Even those of us who spend a lot of time outdoors can be guilty of contributing to the destruction of the natural environment we love. We fly in jets from place to place for the sake of adventure. And many of us are still driving low gas mileage, carbon emitting SUVs. Our active lifestyles can really hurt the planet. So that’s why we can all take a few lessons from professional skier and environmental advocate Alison Gannett.
“I went to school for climate change and majored in education for environmental issues. And then I went to school for solar design for alternative home building,” she said. “At the same time, I had a professional skiing career, doing crazy things like the X-Games and jumping off cliffs for a living.” While she had two careers running parallel to one another, Gannett suffered a devastating crash at the X-Games and because she was badly injured and unable to compete, several of her sponsors immediately dropped her. That got Gannett to thinking.
“I realized how shallow a lot of my ski industry sponsors were,” she said. “I decided, wouldn’t it be cool to partner with companies that have more at stake and care more about than just selling clothing?” Though many of the competitors and colleagues thought she was crazy for chasing the more lucrative sponsorship deals, Gannett changed her professional priorities to work instead with companies who share her environmentally conscious values. “I want to chase ethics,” she said. “I want to work with companies that have the same beliefs that I do.”
It turns out that there are plenty of sponsors out there willing to support Gannett’s mission to raise awareness for the ongoing crisis of climate change. Blending her interests in sustainable living and an active lifestyle, she’s proven to be a very effective spokesperson for both. “As an athlete getting older, I’d have to say that I have better sponsor relationships now than I ever did,” she said. “And now working with the Save Our Snow Foundation and working with schools, working with Congress, working with the White House I’m saving our snow, saving our planet and making the world a better place.”
Allison Gannett is the kind of adventure athlete that walks her talk. While still leading an exciting life as a professional skier, she’s making a big difference in educating the general public on the realities of climate change. And through her work at the Save Our Snow Foundation and on her own organic farm in Colorado, she’s showing us what we each can to do to slow it down.
You can find Alison’s website here.
Mountain Journal 
February 5, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Yes, this is an interesting story. I find it rather depressing how few of those who visit the mountains to go skiing in the winter have any real interest in the history of human endeavour in the alpine region. It’s no use complaining about it, I guess – it’s just human nature. I do find it depressing, though, nonetheless.
A couple of years ago I wrote a bunch of poems that told some of these stories. When I searched for a possible publisher, the only magazine I could find was ‘The Voice of the Mountains’, published by the Mountain Cattlemen’s Association of Victoria (MCAV). I have never been a supporter of cattle grazing in the alps. On the other hand, I wanted my poems published. In the end, I submitted several, and one was chosen, I am pleased to say.
At that time, I did not believe cattle grazing would ever take place again in the high country, though obviously the MCAV had other ideas. How wrong I was!
It’s a tricky situation. There are now far fewer visitors to the alps in the summer months than was the case a hundred years ago, despite the higher population generally. Most of the winter visitors have no interest when there is no snow. This means, as I see it, that the electorate generally is losing touch with, and therefore losing interest in, the state of the alps. I still don’t support cattle grazing, but at least they bring a human presence to the alps in the summer.
Weeds run rampant now. The electorate does not demand that our politicians remove them, because they don’t really know they are there. To their credit, the cattlemen did at least visit lonely gullies and ridges, and have a good idea about what was going on. Relatively speaking, the alps are now empty in the summer. It’s a problem. Out of sight is out of mind.
February 5, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Did Alison Gannett learn some real proof for AGW when she did her studies then?
If so, please ask her these questions.
1 Where is the empirical proof that shows the causation factor of CO2 with respect of Global Warming?
2. Where is the statistical proof of Anthropogenic CO2? I’m sure Alison knows that correlations are never proof.
3. Has Alison during her studies, found enough evidence for the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis to be adopted over the null hypothesis?
Now not all of us will know what that all means, but any three of those could prove global warming.
So please ask her for me, because I have been searching for the above for a number of years now.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
February 6, 2011 at 6:36 am
Roger,
I want to encourage you to listen the my interview with Alison on my podcast The Joy Trip Project: https://themountainjournal.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/adventures-in-saving-snow/
There you’ll discover that she’s not so interested is proving that climate change exists, but rather offers solutions for how best to conserve energy and lead a lifestyle that is environmentally sustainable. Global warming not withstanding she has some good ideas for how to save money and reduce our dependency on fossil fuels
February 5, 2011 at 8:02 pm
(did i mention how boring climate sceptics are?)
February 5, 2011 at 9:45 pm
This article is as much about Alison’s frustrations with the shallowness of her sponsors as it is about global warming. Whether you do or don’t believe in climate change isn’t really the point. The fact is that many people do believe in climate change, and it would be foolish to simply dismiss them. They may be right and they may be wrong, but the sensible thing, surely, is to err on the side of caution. Evolution favours conservatism like this. We have ten times more liver, lung and kidney than we need, but the body has evolved with these huge reserves because sometimes – just sometimes – they are needed. Hope for the best, but plan for the worst. It’s just a safe philosophy to live by.
February 6, 2011 at 7:22 am
Stephen,
I am an alpine skier and treasure the real alps that we have here in my country. I have also spent a number of years in Alberta Canada where I slied and explored some of the mountains there.
But I am also an economist and at the risk of boring Cam some more, I really need to take you up on your assertion
“They may be right and they may be wrong, but the sensible thing, surely, is to err on the side of caution.”.
I wish that measures proposed for preventing Anthropogenic Global Warming as we are told, were just a matter of changing our light bulbs and using our bicycles more often. But this is not the case.
Here is what an economist sees. No fancy theories, just straight modern economic reasoning.
In the absence of sufficient alternative solutions/technologies, the only way western countries can ever attain the IPCC demands of CO2 emissions reduced to 40% below 1990 levels, (thats about 60% below todays) is to machine restrictions on the use of fossil fuels. Emission Trading schemes are an example.
As the use of fossil fuels is roughly linear with anthropogenic CO2 emissions, to attain a 60% reduction of emissions , means about the same proportion of reduction of fossil fuel usage, including petrol, diesel, heating oil, not to mention coal and other types including propane etc.
No matter how a restriction on the use of these is implemented, even a 10% decrease will make the price of petrol go sky high. In otherwords, (and petrol is just one example) we can expect, if the IPCC has its way, a price rise on petrol of greater than 500%.
First of all, for all normal people, this will make the family car impossible to use. Worse than that though, the transport industry will also have to deal with this as well and they will need to pass the cost on to the consumer. Simple things like food will get prohibitively expensive. Manufacturers who need fossil energy to produce will either pass the cost on to the consumer or go out of business. If you live further than walking distance from work, you will be in trouble.
All this leads to an economic crash of terrible proportions as unemployment rises and poverty spreads.
I believe that this will be the effect of bowing to the IPCC and the AGW lobby. AND as AGW is a hoax it will be all in vain. The world will continue to do what it has always done while normal people starve and others at the top (including energy/oil companies and emission traders) will enjoy the high prices. The IPCC will have succeeded in doing what OPEC have been trying to do all these years.
Neither this scenario nor any analysis of the cost of CO2 emission reductions is included in IPCC literature, and the Stern report which claims economic expansion is simply not obeying economic logic as it is known in todays academic world.
The fact that the emission reduction cost issue is not discussed in IPCC literature, leads me to believe that there is a deliberate cover up of this issue. Fairly obviously the possibility of starvation will hardly appeal to the masses.
You may also notice that I have not even included the IPCC proposed wealth transfers from western economies to less developed nations in this comment.
AGW is baloney anyway and any approaching holocaust is more likely to be of our own making and nothing to do with the climate.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
February 6, 2011 at 6:20 am
Thanks so much for sharing this interview with Alison Gannett. She’s truly an inspiring advocate for the environment. Please download the audio version of this story at: http://www.joytripproject.org/download/AlisonGannett.mp3
Cheers!
James
February 6, 2011 at 8:23 am
I was puzzled by your last comment, Roger, that ‘any approaching holocaust is more likely to be of our own making…”. What do you have in mind?
February 6, 2011 at 11:49 am
Stephen,
Please read my comment again more carefully.
“All this leads to an economic crash of terrible proportions as unemployment rises and poverty spreads.”
“Fairly obviously the possibility of starvation will hardly appeal to the masses.”
The great depression of the 1930’s was a symtom of about 30% decrease in economic activity. If fossil fuel prices skyrocket more than 500% we can expect a decrease far more severe than that.
Cheers
Roger
February 7, 2011 at 8:01 am
I’m really enjoying this high level discourse on such an important issue. There’s a parallel discussion going on at the Joy Trip Project Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Joy-Trip-Project/45300774388?ref=mf
Please feel free to chime in there as well.
thanks
James
February 7, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Fair enough, Roger. There must be heaps of economists who go skiing, though, yet you’re the only one to respond to the article on Alison Gannett. Has the subject got under your skin somehow? If you’re so confident that you’re right, why do you go to much trouble to enlighten the doubters?
February 8, 2011 at 6:42 am
Stephen,
Believers in Anthropogenic Global Warming fear that the world is likely to burn up and we will leave nothing for our children. Many acknowledge that the evidence is weak but argue “We should take counter measures just in case it is true”
I am pointing out that the counter measures are very likely to trigger a holocaust of the economic variety, and that this fact is not widely known. Therefore one should not act until if/when reasonable proof for Anthropogenic Global Warming is forth coming.
Our politicians will always do what us the people want them to do. Politicians are always looking for votes. If voters want the politicians/government to take on the IPCC demands, they will do it, regardless of the consequences.
The old adage “People always get the govenment they deserve” is so true.
But if the consequences of sucumbing to the IPCC and UN influence are well known, we will at least get a more measured and sensible approach and lessen the risk of an economic disaster.
I for one am not interested in seeing and enduring poverty and starvation for no good reason.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
February 8, 2011 at 7:33 am
What do you reckon, Roger, damned if we do, and damned if we don’t?
Human beings are extraordinarily adept at fighting their way out of big holes. I think we’ll get out of this one (if we’re in one!) one way or another.
As a skier, you must be aware of enormous climate changes in the mountains. I have seen photos of Hotham in the 20s and 30s, and they regularly got ten feet of snow, and more. A foot or two of snow at Harrietville was not so unusual back in those days.
The last really big year – and coincidentally my first year skiing – was 1968. I was at Buller that year, and we had to tunnel a long way down to the front door. The downstairs outside door opened to a wall of snow, and became a second fridge. We skied straight off the balcony every morning. Great stuff.
Of course, this doesn’t prove it was man made. It could be all quite natural, as you suggest. It sure is a great change, though.
Putting aside the whole question of global warming, what are your thoughts on energy conservation and recycling? I’ve thought since I was a kid that it makes sense to conserve hydrocarbons, given that they are a finite resource. It seems inevitable as the population rises that water will become more scarce, and should also be recycled.
Recycling just feels so good, I don’t see how it can be wrong. When all else fails, be guided by your feelings (and you probably should be guided by them even when everything else HASN’T failed!).
But there are always extremists on both sides. I remember visiting the office of a large conservation organisation in the late 90s and being shocked to see staff visibly scared that they would be flooded by rising sea levels in the year 2000. It’s not fair to judge any movement by its extremists. I’m sure there are extremist AGM (to use your acronym) denying economists, too. To be honest, I’m not even sure you are not one yourself!
Cheers,
Stephen
February 8, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Steven,
Please understand that because I give AGW theory a lot of well deserved criticism, does not mean I am not a friend of the planet.
In fact I am quite the opposite. Of course we should conserve and use wisely the increasingly scarce resources of our planet.
Of course we should not pollute mother earth and of course we should endeavor to clean up where we have already polluted etc
Some of the evils of the lobby for Anthropogenic Global Warming are not only the fact that there is no actual proof (and indeed there are many DISPROOFS of AGW), but they have also effectively hijacked the conservation/sustainability doctrine.
Not so long ago conservation etc meant looking after the planet as I described above. Now sustainability seems to primarily mean “dont put CO2 in the air because it is killing the earth and therefore this is unsustainable.”.
The fact is that these are entirely seperate issues.
Looking after the earth makes a lot of sense – bringing starvation and poverty upon ourselves by trying to reduce CO2 emissions when there is no reasonable evidence that it will do any good, makes very little sense to me.
Worse still that running after CO2 as suggested by the IPCC and others will divert and squander the resources needed to actually look after the planet.
Trust this clears your perception on what I am saying overall.
Did you read my blog? I hope you will and dont forget to browse through the many links catalogued of the right hand side.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnezealand.wordpress.com