Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

An appeal to give up sleds

It is a safe assumption that we who live here choose to live here because we love winter, nature, snow and recreational opportunities. It's just as safe to assume that this is true of the visitors that we cater to and depend on.

It is a safe assumption that we who live here choose to live here because we love winter, nature, snow and recreational opportunities. It's just as safe to assume that this is true of the visitors that we cater to and depend on. By now, most of us and most of our visitors know that the biggest threat to these things we love is ourselves and our actions. If you "get" climate change, you understand deep in your consciousness that you have to make some changes. If you don't "get it," then you are responsible for reading and listening, because each and every one of us has to take a role in changing what we do. Not believing is no longer an excuse nor is it acceptable.

Some will say that their work or business depends on driving, and possibly we are all trying to cut down on automobile use and size, as well as on our home energy drain. Many of us however are having a very difficult time understanding the blatant use of motorized pollution for pleasure transport in the backcountry, to say nothing of the buying of Ford 350s and their cousins to transport these sleds and ATVs around. We understand that sledding is appealing, exciting, challenging and a mechanism to get you into the backcountry for skiing and riding. But does it make sense to an earth threatened by global climate change, caused by our carbon fuel addiction, to engage in an activity that has such high fuel consumption?

According to engine data from the California Air Resources Board, seven hours of two-stroke engine use produces more smog-forming pollution than a modern car creates in over 100,000 miles. Snowmobiles create up to 1,000 times more carbon monoxide pollution than a typical car. (Carbon monoxide is 14 times worse as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.) Snowmobiles discharge a staggering one-third of their fuel unburned out their tailpipe. Every winter, snowmobiles dump more than 100,000 gallons of raw fuel and 2,500 gallons of raw two-cycle oil into the Yellowstone National Park ecosystem. (Yes four stroke engines are a big improvement but are still staggeringly worse than cars, see below.) Now, with the U.S. having put severe restrictions on snowmobiling in Yellowstone and many other National Forests, we in Sea to Sky country welcome all to bring their sleds to our valley instead. We also provide several opportunities to use sleds or ATVs on tours provided by local businesses.

We are a welcoming community. But the growing use of and promotion of snowmobiling and ATV use feels like an advertisement that says "We don't get it." The unnecessary and high carbon footprint of backcountry motorized transport feels like a billboard advertisement saying "We don't care that we don't get it." It is not just that all this is completely contradictory to the Whistler 2020 site (which suggests that we in this valley do "get it"). It is also contradictory to common sense if we really want to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. It looks to us that those driving by with the sleds on the back of a truck totally accept that they don't care about "getting it" and are possibly proud of it. The commercial recreation companies look to us like they are saying "come pollute our valley for your pleasure before it is too late."

A brief look at the parking lots here shows that many do drive to go skiing. But if you do a quick back of an envelope calculation from the top of this letter, you find that the car can go for more than 10,000 kilometers to make up for an hour on a two-stroke sled. Change that into a four-stroke sled and you reduce the impact to only 1,500 km with a car. (Actually, we've been generous; the data says it is worse than this.) Most of the cars in the lots will have driven a tenth or less of that distance (a hundredth for locals). Remember too, that the day-skiers' pollution is minimized when he starts recreating (electrically driven lifts have a pretty low carbon footprint), the sledder or ATVer, upon parking (their truck or car) for the day, now maximizes their carbon footprint.

The real Global Warming question is how are each and every one of us going to reduce our GHG emissions by 30 to 40 per cent? Britain is already committed to a 60 per cent reduction and is actively talking about being a no-carbon economy by 2060. All this and more is necessary if we hope to mitigate climate change in time to prevent unmanageable effects. We don't think running a sled for recreation is part of that equation or an activity that the current society can afford.

So this is an appeal to give up the sled, bury it in the back yard and shoot the truck. (Selling either is just transferring the responsibility to someone else. Ideally, scrap it and recycle the parts.) If this sounds expensive, consider what this paper has already shown, the economic "crisis" is just a part of the environmental crisis. As our economy is clearly critically linked to the continuing health of our environment, we all need to "get it" soon, or shooting our trucks will be the least of our concerns. At this point, we still have the ability to mitigate the impacts of a changing climate, and we still may be able to control the drastic effects of our global addiction to fossil fuels. The easy first step is to minimize our manageable, unnecessary vices such as motorized recreation. Of course, we have to follow this with rapid and decisive action on other fossil fuel uses, but motorized recreation is optional. This is now common sense - we must reduce our use of carbon wherever possible, and wasteful recreation is an easy "candy" to give up.  We'd be intrigued to hear how this analysis is incorrect, for this is a debate that began in the corridor, several years ago. A trip to the backcountry right now shows that the message is not getting through.

We are not holding ourselves up as having a particularly low carbon footprint or as environmental angels. Don't attack the messengers please. Yes we have cars, yes we fly. And even though we buy carbon credits we also know that "nature is not fooled" by what is an accountant's short-term trick. Neither carbon credits, or cap and trade or giving up plastic bags will get us to where we have to get to. The "I'm no worse than the next guy," or the "I ride my bike so my sled is OK," arguments are philosophical wishful thinking. We all have a long way to go before we will have reduced the apparent dangers to life on the planet, as well as to our source of joy in winter. This is not a "you first" appeal, but a "we need to go together" one.  We cannot afford to keep compromising the environment in order to maintain our current lifestyles. We, all of us, need to start compromising our lifestyles in order to preserve the environment.

Bryce Leigh

Al Whitney

Charlotte Whitney

Whistler

Enough already

Many times I have wanted to express my displeasure with council and our mayor, but I have held my tongue. All sorts of promises made at election time, so I put my faith back in Ken Melamed.

Unfortunately, I cannot be quiet any longer. You have unfortunately pushed me over the edge and I am very upset.

My first complaint is the mayor and council voting themselves raises. Also knowing that the RMOW employees receive increases every year. That is very upsetting when some that work in the healthcare profession have not seen a penny increase in at least eight years, that I am aware of.

You have made many, many decisions that have appalled me, such as replacing perfectly good fire trucks (would love to see what the mileage is on them). Now you are going to spend taxpayers’ dollars to purchase Olympic tickets — $37,000 worth! Oh yes, and let’s give them to our municipal staff as rewards. What a grand idea! Then saying that the money is coming from the hotel tax! I have heard that line before. I guess it is your standard when you are trying to cover up spending taxpayers’ money. It’s truly amazing how much money is generated from the hotel tax.

Now, on top of all this, let’s go purchase some 350 Arc’teryx jackets for the municipal staff to wear. How about purchasing us some scrubs? They are an essential for our jobs but we have to purchase them ourselves (even though we haven’t seen an increase in years and are making less than the majority of municipal workers).

Somehow this just isn’t working for me anymore… Meadow Park front desk employee in a paid-for uniform (including a jacket now), with a list of perks, making more than a healthcare worker who purchases their own clothes and does what they do for the love of the job.

And Bill Barratt, I don’t care what your budget is, it doesn’t mean you have to spend it! Your budget is there because the taxpayers are continuing to have to pay for all this nonsense. I for one have had enough!

Bobby Sandkuhl

Whistler

Welcome to the real world

At the council meeting on Tuesday, April 6, a motion was put forward by staff to spend approximately $37,000 for 185 Olympic tickets, of which 20 are for the men’s gold-medal hockey game. The motion was passed almost unanimously and with little discussion, except for dissent from Councillor Thomson, who felt that the money could possibly be spent in better ways. I was surprised at the reaction of the majority of the councillors, considering the reasons given for buying the tickets in the first place.

I would imagine that many of the dignitaries invited to take advantage of this generosity could easily afford to buy the tickets using their own funds. As for tickets that will be gifted to municipal staff in the way of raffles, contests or whatever means, in order to create excitement about the Games or to reward them for work done in support of the Olympics, are these people not already fairly compensated for their work through their salaries?

To extend this gift to others such as “employee, businessperson or citizen of the year” seems generous but unnecessary in my mind, because it is my understanding that they have already been recognized for their contributions or attributes through the workplace, community, or other organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce, etc. My concern is that too many of these tickets will remain within the walls of municipal hall.

The total cost of the tickets may not seem like a large amount, but it is more a question of principle, and at times of restraint like the present, it irritates many of Whistler’s citizens to see funds being spent in this manner. Whether it comes from the hotel tax revenue or the community taxpayers’ purse seems irrelevant, as there must be considerable overlap of funds for these two domains.

I don’t doubt that there are some individuals in the community who have made exceptional contributions in the way of time, ideas, etc. in an attempt to make the Games a success, so my suggestion would be: retain a small number of tickets to reward these special people for their efforts, publish a list of any dignitaries for whom any of the tickets are intended, return the rest to VANOC and let the municipal staff try their luck online on June 6, with the rest of us, who have been unable to acquire any tickets so far, and would be pleased to pay for them.

“Welcome to the real world Whistler!”

Sue Stangel

Whistler

Sustainability on the road

Earth Day came and went but not for those in White Gold or Spruce Grove with no Public Transit during the day or at night.

It was nice of Emma to state that the RMOW saved taxpayers dollars by cutting transit services for the next six months. A more simple solution would have been to run the combined bus from the village towards Alpine and Emerald via Nesters Road past the schools, day care and Nesters Market, then across Highway 99 (at the lights) and through White Gold and Spruce Grove for the rest of the route.

It would have added an additional five minutes each way and the cost of the gas for that time period. It would hardly have left any mark on the environment or cost the taxpayers much and would have provided service to two communities in Whistler all day long for the next six months.

There is nothing sustainable about the “environmental” impact of transit cuts, resulting in more cars on the roads and highway. The “economical” impact extends to those who can no longer reach employment, or face the added costs of alternate transportation to do so, and the loss of sales to Whistler businesses because they cannot be reached by transit. The “social” implications for all those truly in need of that service is it limits their abilities to interact and be part of a society and their own well being!

Mayor Ken Melamed ( Pique April 9 th ) stated that public parking is a privilege, not a right to taxpayers. So my question would be, is public transit a privilege?

Ridership and availability of transit services go hand in hand, and so does the sustainability of Whistler and its communities.

Hugh Tollett,

Director, The Whistler for the Disabled Society

Earth Day thoughts

Why doesn't our wonderful post office having paper recycling? Whenever I go in I notice the amount of paper in the garbage where the mailboxes are.

I have been advised to call the main line of Canada Post. I tried twice but couldn't seem to get through to a warm body. I was just transferred around. Couldn't the property manager of the building just install a couple of blue boxes?

I hope everyone had a Happy Earth Day and one more thought to all of our hard working store owners: If you have your doors open and your heat or A/C on you are, sadly, part of the problem not part of the solution. Don't worry we will visit you without the open doors.

Kathy Smith

Whistler

We need to take leaps

I attended Tzeporah Berman's talk, Leadership to the Green Economy in Tough Times, held by the Whistler Forum last week and of course with an election looming, this topic is definitely on many minds.

I appreciate Ms. Berman's passion and I share her frustration.  I agree that our timeframe is altogether too frighteningly short, and saving the planet from the effect of greenhouse gases needs to be dealt with yesterday.

However, I disagree that we as individuals should not be engaged to bear the load and the opportunity to make the necessary changes in order to facilitate the enormous shift required to solve our energy problem.
We use too much energy inappropriately and unnecessarily. We need legislation that inspires individuals to curb unnecessary consumption. We need a campaign to "wake everyone up," and place the burden squarely on citizen X's shoulders.

So what should we do? We need to dramatically increase the cost of electricity, oil, propane, ethanol and gas. We need to make it painful to use these devastating sources of energy irresponsibly.

Individuals need to be motivated to do all the very simple things necessary to reduce energy use. The changes are easy and can save 35 per cent of energy costs, and that means 35 per cent less energy used.

Higher fuel costs will inspire many to get a fuel efficient vehicle and cut another 50 per cent of their energy consumption.

The biggest impact we can make with one tiny change is, don't eat meat. Animal farming causes more green house gas emissions than all transportation in the world combined.

Our goal should be to see individuals installing their own wind and solar IPPs, and/or geothermal heating systems. We need tax incentives, zero interest loans, and government grants to individual homeowners to help pay for the cost and installation of these technologies from the increased revenues the fuel surcharges will provide. That would be Leadership Towards a Green Economy in Tough Times. These actions would stimulate the production of the products that we need in order to create a sustainable future.

What else can we do? Ms. Berman urged all IPPs, including micro hydro power. I cannot imagine trying to rush hydropower IPPs. Not without sufficient biological research. You would think we would learn from our recent history - a history that includes the use of DDT. Monsanto (as if DDT wasn't enough) bio-engineered GMOs, creating poverty and a plight of disease-resistant bugs, factory farming, logging practices that destroyed our fish habitat and salmon runs, which led to the restocking of salmon mono-culture species that were unable to survive the sea lice of, yet another brilliant idea, salmon farming... need I go on?

We have no idea what changes hydropower IPPs may cause in streams. Creating power and shipping that power in energy-losing transmission lines is embracing the past. Let's embrace the opportunities to create a better world. Let's embrace evolving, not devolving. Science and technology are potentially the greatest art forms of the 21st century. Let them create new ways to harness energy.

Yes, the world is always changing. Let it change to become a planet that is not fueled by hydrocarbons, nuclear fission or hydro power that creates habitat loss, but rather a planet where solar, wind and geothermal power is used to create mini power plants in everyone's home. There will be no transmission lines because everyone - every office, every company, every vehicle, is energy independent and off the grid.

Carbon tax? A small step in the right direction, but we need to take leaps. Politicians are supposed to be leaders, not sycophantic cowards.

Inge Flanagan

Whistler