Getting to the countryAll travel undoubtedly creates emissions and therefore all travel can have a negative impact on the environment and contribute to climate change. However, Responsible Skiing is about minimising the negative impacts and maximising the positive impacts, and Responsible Skiing can really contribute to the survival of mountain communities and their local economies.
Therefore, when travelling to the country, it is the selection of the mode of transport that can make a real difference. There is finally consensus amongst governments and scientists about the impact of CO2 emissions on climate change. Whilst CO2 estimates and calculations are difficult to work out and various organisations use different formulae, the message is always the same; we need to take different decisions now to avert the worst effects which ultimately, of course, directly impact ski resorts. Resorts and tour operators can really help with their information, policies and offerings but it is skiers themselves who make the choices. |  What do you think about travel? Contribute to our discussion forum
|
Plane versus train?
Air travel is constantly mentioned in relation to tourism and CO2 emissions – and with good reason. Whilst it forms a relatively small percentage of overall emissions now, it is set to grow fast, and since the emissions occur at altitude, it is argued that they have a greater effect. The airlines and manufacturers are taking steps to address the issue - investigating cleaner biofuels and more efficient engines and practices - but the fact remains that the emissions per person from flying are huge. Choosing not to fly is the single decision that will have the biggest effect on the overall impact of a ski holiday.
For example, a return trip to a resort such as Grindelwald in Switzerland produces around 160kg of CO2 emissions, whereas getting there by train would emit around 20kg per person. It must be said that flights do vary; charter flights are operated at full capacity and the low cost airlines have a very high load factor, which means that emissions are divided amongst more people lowering the amount per person. Also airline fleets vary, some are much younger and therefore cleaner and greener than others. Nonetheless the emissions are simply much higher and if we all choose not to fly, then the tour operators will adapt accordingly.
When comparing a flight against other options such as the train it is important to add on all the other elements that make up the total journey time. The flight time itself is short, but once you have added on the check in time, going through customs, collecting baggage and the transfer at the other end – it all adds up - and suddenly the flight isn't quite so quick after all.
Train services are continually improving, with the faster Eurostar times, better connections within Europe, new high speed lines such as Brussels-Cologne, an efficient TGV network and several sleeper services. Taking the train can not only reduce emissions but change the whole holiday; the journey becomes part of it rather than just something to be endured.
For the skier, timings can often mean extra time on the piste or perhaps an overnight stay in a city that really adds to the trip. Comfort-wise, you can get up and move around, not worry about luggage payments and weight restrictions and, of course, avoid the airport!
What about driving or going by coach?
Calculations of emissions of travel by car have lots of variables too – the type of car, fuel used and number of people carried – therefore it is difficult to give a single view. Nonetheless, as a guide, using information from the government’s TransportDirect site, the emissions for a 600mile journey (roughly from a channel port to the Alps) are as follows; small car with 1 person: 123kg, large car with 1 person 248kg per person and by coach (full) just 29kg per person. Therefore, even if a small car was ‘fully loaded’ with two people and luggage or a large car ‘fully loaded’ with 4 people – the emissions are still more than double that of a coach or a train.
Therefore, if travelling by road, undoubtedly taking a coach is the better option environmentally (and much better than flying). Going by coach is more relaxing, more scenic and there are no worries about customs or luggage or difficult road conditions. There are also no extra costs of fuel, tolls or parking and it does not contribute to congestion in the resort. However, there are fewer operators offering a coach all the way now and the duration of the journey is now the same as taking the train.
What about ‘Carbon Off Setting’ to compensate for the journey?
In the last couple of years, it has been a simple and popular idea to offset for flights – in the hope that this both eases guilt and erases the damage done. However, early enthusiasm for this is waning since there are two major difficulties. Most projects that are invested in such as planting trees might have a future impact – but the problem is happening now and needs to be resolved now. Secondly, the projects need to be new activities that would not have happened otherwise. In many cases they were already planned – but the funding is just coming from a different route. Combined with the fact that there are offsetting companies out there making some large profits – it just isn’t as easy as everyone first thought.
And of course, offsetting does nothing to reduce the actual emissions that we ourselves are producing – which is what needs to happen and soon. So by making a better choice – such as taking the train – we can do just that. And if skiers want to do something else in addition, why not look at protecting the forests that are there – such as preventing rainforest destruction or our own woodland at home. This protects our climate but also biodiversity and often communties too.
Air travel is constantly mentioned in relation to tourism and CO2 emissions – and with good reason. Whilst it forms a relatively small percentage of overall emissions now, it is set to grow fast, and since the emissions occur at altitude, it is argued that they have a greater effect. The airlines and manufacturers are taking steps to address the issue - investigating cleaner biofuels and more efficient engines and practices - but the fact remains that the emissions per person from flying are huge. Choosing not to fly is the single decision that will have the biggest effect on the overall impact of a ski holiday.
For example, a return trip to a resort such as Grindelwald in Switzerland produces around 160kg of CO2 emissions, whereas getting there by train would emit around 20kg per person. It must be said that flights do vary; charter flights are operated at full capacity and the low cost airlines have a very high load factor, which means that emissions are divided amongst more people lowering the amount per person. Also airline fleets vary, some are much younger and therefore cleaner and greener than others. Nonetheless the emissions are simply much higher and if we all choose not to fly, then the tour operators will adapt accordingly.
When comparing a flight against other options such as the train it is important to add on all the other elements that make up the total journey time. The flight time itself is short, but once you have added on the check in time, going through customs, collecting baggage and the transfer at the other end – it all adds up - and suddenly the flight isn't quite so quick after all.
Train services are continually improving, with the faster Eurostar times, better connections within Europe, new high speed lines such as Brussels-Cologne, an efficient TGV network and several sleeper services. Taking the train can not only reduce emissions but change the whole holiday; the journey becomes part of it rather than just something to be endured.
For the skier, timings can often mean extra time on the piste or perhaps an overnight stay in a city that really adds to the trip. Comfort-wise, you can get up and move around, not worry about luggage payments and weight restrictions and, of course, avoid the airport!
What about driving or going by coach?
Calculations of emissions of travel by car have lots of variables too – the type of car, fuel used and number of people carried – therefore it is difficult to give a single view. Nonetheless, as a guide, using information from the government’s TransportDirect site, the emissions for a 600mile journey (roughly from a channel port to the Alps) are as follows; small car with 1 person: 123kg, large car with 1 person 248kg per person and by coach (full) just 29kg per person. Therefore, even if a small car was ‘fully loaded’ with two people and luggage or a large car ‘fully loaded’ with 4 people – the emissions are still more than double that of a coach or a train.
Therefore, if travelling by road, undoubtedly taking a coach is the better option environmentally (and much better than flying). Going by coach is more relaxing, more scenic and there are no worries about customs or luggage or difficult road conditions. There are also no extra costs of fuel, tolls or parking and it does not contribute to congestion in the resort. However, there are fewer operators offering a coach all the way now and the duration of the journey is now the same as taking the train.
What about ‘Carbon Off Setting’ to compensate for the journey?
In the last couple of years, it has been a simple and popular idea to offset for flights – in the hope that this both eases guilt and erases the damage done. However, early enthusiasm for this is waning since there are two major difficulties. Most projects that are invested in such as planting trees might have a future impact – but the problem is happening now and needs to be resolved now. Secondly, the projects need to be new activities that would not have happened otherwise. In many cases they were already planned – but the funding is just coming from a different route. Combined with the fact that there are offsetting companies out there making some large profits – it just isn’t as easy as everyone first thought.
And of course, offsetting does nothing to reduce the actual emissions that we ourselves are producing – which is what needs to happen and soon. So by making a better choice – such as taking the train – we can do just that. And if skiers want to do something else in addition, why not look at protecting the forests that are there – such as preventing rainforest destruction or our own woodland at home. This protects our climate but also biodiversity and often communties too.
The way forward...
1. Tour operators need to ensure that the flights offered are with airlines that are as efficient and green as possible – through load factors, airline fleet and efficient practices.
2. Tour operators must look at ensuring all holidays have a rail option where possible and sell this as part of the holiday.
3. Tour operators need to reconsider coach trips for ski holidays.
4. Airlines to continue to pursue green technologies but in the meantime work with the international air traffic organisations to improve practices such as holding patterns, routing etc.
5. Resorts need to detail clearly all the options for reaching the resort – featuring not only flights, but train and coach routes too.
2. Tour operators must look at ensuring all holidays have a rail option where possible and sell this as part of the holiday.
3. Tour operators need to reconsider coach trips for ski holidays.
4. Airlines to continue to pursue green technologies but in the meantime work with the international air traffic organisations to improve practices such as holding patterns, routing etc.
5. Resorts need to detail clearly all the options for reaching the resort – featuring not only flights, but train and coach routes too.
All of these elements should be addressed in order to contribute to Responsible Skiing
