In any discussion of Whistler’s responsibilities for climate-change emissions and the possibilities for significant reductions, a command of the key basic facts is useful. A (Resort Municipality of Whistler) website (https://www.whistler.ca/municipal-gov/community-monitoring/greenhouse-gas-emissions-0) states: “… per capita emissions [2017]… 3.6tCO2e/person, one of the lowest levels since monitoring began [in] 2000."
King County (Seattle and surrounding areas) estimates its per capita CO2e responsibility as about 27 tonnes; the state of Oregon’s estimate, 25 tonnes.
Whistler’s calculations of climate-change emissions excludes the majority of Whistler residents actual emissions responsibility—the greenhouse-gas (CO2e) cost of producing the food, concrete, vehicles, etc. used in Whistler but produced outside municipal boundaries—and also the climate-change effects of trips by residents (and visitors) beyond Whistler's boundaries, e.g. drives from and to Vancouver, flights from and to Europe and Asia.
(Whistler's publications frequently employ the ambiguous feel-good term “community emissions” to describe its presented CO2e numbers. Nowhere, to my knowledge, does Whistler state what significant emissions responsibility is excluded from these “community” emissions numbers.)
And to get a stunningly low “per capita” CO2e number, Whistler divides the emissions it has chosen to measure not by its resident population but by an estimate of daily average visitor population (roughly 22,000) plus its resident population (about 12,000) plus its temporary worker population (about 2,000). No other community in the world adds visitors to its residents to derive per-capita greenhouse-gas numbers.
Divide the total of Whistler's declared emissions (129,080 tCO2e) by its resident population and the total CO2e “community” emissions per resident becomes about 10 tonnes.
I asked a supposedly well-informed Whistler councillor who advocates making “climate action” a priority what she/he thought Whistler’s total resident per-capita greenhouse-gas responsibility was, and how much in percentage terms doubling Whistler's bus ridership would reduce Whistler’s greenhouse-gas responsibility. The councillor had not a clue.
I suggest doubling bus ridership within Whistler is unlikely to reduce Whistler’s total greenhouse-gas responsibility by more than a few per cent but the easier tasks of not encouraging short Whistler breaks from Asia or Europe, in general discouraging business-class air travel, and, further, encouraging bus rather car travel between Whistler and Vancouver could have a significantly greater impact on world emissions than getting more people to employ buses rather than private cars for travel within Whistler.
Support for the above assertions: round-trip business class Vienna or Beijing to YVR has the same climate impact as about eight tonnes of greenhouse gases emitted at Whistler’s elevation; an economy flight, about 2.7 tonnes. And Snowmass (within greater Aspen; similar in lifestyle to Whistler) estimates its aviation fuel emissions as 3.9 tonnes per capita—more than the total of Whistler’s declared per-capita emissions.
I suggest if Whistler truly wants to act rationally to lessen climate-changing emissions, its first priority is to cease and desist circulating misleading statistics regarding its own greenhouse-gas-emission responsibility.
Again, King County and the state of Oregon estimate their total emissions footprint is well above 20 tonnes of CO2e per capita and Whistler claims “per capita emissions… 3.6tCO2e/person."
It is highly improbable that the average Whistler resident has a substantially different emissions responsibility than the average King County or Oregon resident.
Jon Petrie
Vancouver
