The Ski Area Citizens’ Coalition has the latest shit list. They give all of the ski resorts environmental scores based on impacting roadless areas, logging, plus energy consumption, efficiency, and source. Copper Mountain in Colorado took home first place among the worst offenders again this year, and some resort called 49 Degrees North Resort in Washington came in at 7th worst. Well done 49 Degrees! You might be a relatively unknown among heavy hitters like Copper and Breck, but you’re putting your name out there and getting the job done.
1 (F) Copper Mountain Ski Resort - Colorado 31.9%
2 (F) Sun Valley Resort - Idaho 34.3%
3 (F) Tamarack Resort - Idaho 35.6%
4 (F) Breckenridge Ski Resort - Colorado 36.1%
5 (F) Mt. Spokane Ski and Snowboard Park - Washington 37.4%
6 (F) Arizona Snowbowl - Arizona 38.6%
7 (F) 49 Degrees North Resort - Washington 39.9%
8 (D) White Pass Ski Area - Washington 41.3%
9 (D) Brundage Mountain Resort - Idaho 41.8%
10 (D) Crystal Mountain Ski Area - Washington 45.6%
1 (A) Aspen Mountain Ski Resort - Colorado 85.7%
2 (A) Buttermilk Mountain Ski Resort - Colorado 85.2%
3 (A) Sundance Resort - Utah 82.2%
4 (A) Park City Mountain Resort - Utah 79.1%
5 (A) Squaw Valley USA - California 78.3%
6 (A) Alpine Meadows Ski Area - California 77.4%
7 (A) Aspen Highlands Ski Resort - Colorado 76.7%
8 (A) Bogus Basin Mountain Resort - Idaho 74.8%
9 (A) Mount Bachelor Ski Area - Oregon 74.8%
10 (A) Telluride Ski Resort - Colorado 74.3%
ByRocky Thompson
While I think it s a good thing to encourage ski areas to be more environmentally responsible, I feel like the annual Ski Area Citizens
What a crockofshit. Every ski resort in and of itself by virtue of operating lifts and heating lodge buildings and everything else involved in operating a mountain is a vast energy and resources hog. If these douchbags really want to make a statement then they should be the first ones to “earn their turns” and skin up the mountain from now on. What a bunch of whiney little eco-nazis
I ve been watching PCMR consistently blowing snow for the past 3-4 weeks, including a couple weeks when it was in the high 40 s and 50 s. And they were number 4 of the ten best?
There also appears to be some correlation (with a couple exceptions) that the “best” resorts are more expensive than the “worst”.
This rating scheme is heavily skewed towards avoiding expansion of ski areas, period. If you look at the “How We Grade” section, you ll see that this group is targeting really a single agenda: don t grow ski areas. (Of the 100%, about 60% of the points are strictly due to expansion, or the lack thereof.) Many of those areas with top scores probably haven t expanded in years; Crystal Mt Washington just did a big expansion (sort of, it added what was backcountry terrain to in-bounds terrain) - hence it s in the bottom. I m also a little suspicious of their statement that there are only 2% more active skiers now than in 1978, and using that to justify the lack of a need for new available terrain. I suspect if you measured the amount skied in skier-hours, or total-miles-skied you d see something very different. Mind you, faster & larger chairs impact this as well. This group just doesn t want ski areas to grow, which you can agree with or not. Regardless, I think there s room to be suspicious of their methodology and reasoning. Not surprising, the ski area association has their response too: http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/SACC-talking-points-2008.pdf (Note, I do not work for them, I m just presenting their perspective.)
There are several issues at play here (whether or not SACC is a reputable authority on these matters, whether or not they re methodology is flawed, who s really funding the research, etc.), but the important issue is whether or not our favorite ski areas are fulfilling their environmental responsibilities. It seems the SACC doesn t want resorts to expand. I much prefer skinning up and skiing down to resorts, but I can t really take my 12 year old sister into avalanche terrain and expect her to tackle the 14ers with me. Resorts definitely have their place, and as businesses, need to be allowed to innovate and grow. Even if you disagree with that, I m sure anyone reading these posts would agree that resorts would do everyone a big favor by cutting the volume of waste produced in their food services. Not everyone needs a styrofoam cup and plate with plastic knives and forks. Perhaps a discount for people who bring reusable bottles and mugs with them? Serving food on real plates and giving me real silverware seems like a small request when I m dropping $18 on a hot chocolate & toasted bagel. Besides, maybe if we cut pollution a little bit we could stall global warming and they wouldn t have to make as much fake snow.
Ha, what a JOKE! These wimpy ass enviro nazi s need to get a clue. First and foremost you are a SKI group, thus you should first rate these mountains on skiing level or terrain. Then you can take into account the environmental affects done by these resorts. But putting Buttermilk in front of anything is probably one of the funniest things I have seen in a long time.