Mountain Project Logo

Sustainable Climbing.

Alan Nagel · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2008 · Points: 5

There should be mention of ReStop/wag-bags. Not half so awkward or intimidating to use as we're likely to start off assuming. Very efficient/ecologically sound, especially in dry mountain conditions where poop can last a very long time.

They are encouraged in the Tetons, for example, and the Climbers' Ranch provides them as a voluntary choice.

How many other mountain parks are providing them?

Scott Ebner · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2011 · Points: 10

I understand my carbon foot print. The challenge for living a lifestyle that is inline with how our/my (American culture) is set up means I need transportation. I have chosen a place (Prescott, AZ) where it is possible for me to limit my use of a car to get to the areas I regularly climb. Our energy crisis is a topic for another thesis.

I think it's fair to say that the sport has a high carbon footprint, but that doesn't mean you can't follow LNT while out there. Granite Mountain Wilderness has one of the highest environmental ethics of any wilderness. We have banned any new bolting, except in the case of replacing old home made bolts. These bolts have attracted lightning causing deterioration and scaring of the rock.

As LNT suggest I leave things the way I found them. If a climb has loose rock I consider that a factor of the grade and leave them where they lay. For me it's all about the ethics of the area and how the FA was done. If they did not pre-place gear or clean the route then why should I.

Another problem in the SW is gassing cracks to rid them of rattlers. This has a large effect on the micro ecosystems that exist in those areas.

I would look into feedback loops and consider the ecosystem of the immediate climbing area. Prescott College teachers might be able to help you on this subject. Many of them can attest to the ecological history of our climbing areas and how they've changed due to climber influence.

Good luck and don't get discouraged.

Carl Sherven · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2007 · Points: 210
Scott Ebner wrote:.....We have banned any new bolting, except in the case of replacing old home made bolts. These bolts have attracted lightning causing deterioration and scaring of the rock......
Literally, lightning strikes? I'm not trying to be a dick here, but I work with electrical systems, and this seems pretty wild to me. Granted I don't study lightning, so this might be really basic to someone who does. Does a bolt somehow act as a lightning rod, even though it's only a couple inches from the face, surrounded by other features, located on a vertical face, and only goes a few inches into the rock? Can you send me to an article about it, or even a picture of the damage? I'm interested to read about this.
daway Schulman · · Seattle, WA · Joined Feb 2011 · Points: 0
james-va wrote:Hi, Joe -- interesting thesis topic. I'd just add that for perspective, climbers are probably more sensitive to their environmental impact than most groups. I'm not sure you'd see this same degree of self-flagellation among boaters or snowmobilers, for instance, and I'm just speaking candidly with full awareness that some of those folks are incredibly environmentally conscious, and some climbers aren't.
And herein lies the most paradoxical aspect of climbing and other outdoor pursuits. Mountain biking and hiking opened my eyes to the beauty of the outdoors, and climbing was just the next natural progression for me. It is my appreciation of the great outdoors raised by these sports that inspired me to try to live as environmentally conscious as possible.

My main point is that although it is easy to see and measure the negative environmental impact of these outdoor pursuits, it is almost impossible to measure the positive impact they have had by making people more environmentally conscious.
Kirk Miller · · Catalina, AZ and Ilwaco, WA · Joined May 2003 · Points: 1,824

Worthy of note, routes that top out often lead to erosion on summit areas as well as additional erosion in descent trails. Routes that end in anchors limit erosion to the base of the routes.

Scott Ebner · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2011 · Points: 10
welded chain from Lizards Head, Granite Mountain area

Not the greatest photo, but you can see where the link is welded. The scaring on the rock is actually from rust.
Johny Q · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2011 · Points: 35

Sustainable is a hoax. There has never been a sustainable society in the history of the human race. Replace sustainable with long term viability and there is an issue to talk about. What is more viable in the long term: People sharing bolts with PD, or every "climber" amassing a $2,000.00 trad rack so they can practice what they see as leave no trace ethics? As stated before, carbon footprints are the key to the long term viability discussion. What we really need to do is compare the data that comes fromt he production of trad gear vs. the data that comes from the production of steel bolts and biners to see why type of climbing creates more pollution and is less viable in the long term. It really shouldn't matter what peoples perception of what is more long-term viable is, but instead what evidence says about it.

Martin le Roux · · Superior, CO · Joined Jul 2003 · Points: 401

Odd that no-one's mentioned damage to the rock itself. Maybe not a big deal for granite or quartzite, but popular routes on softer rock like limestone can become polished to the point that they're barely climbable.

Brice Harris · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2011 · Points: 0
Eric Whitbeck wrote:Are you sure there has never been a sustainable society? The Apache had a pretty low population and may have been able to sustain their existence if Europeans and others had left them alone. However, I agree with the point in general about current populations being unsustainable. Nonetheless, the op said nothing about sustainability. He simply asked which had the lowest impact. There is a difference.
You should read the book 1491 before you talk about native society and their sustainability. Excepting a few small bands of nomads, natives were much more agrarian and expansive, to the point of developing massive hydro-project for farming, than many modern texts give them credit for. Given time, they would have developed at some level the same way the Europeans did. Likely there were more natives in America than Europeans when Columbus came over.
Johny Q · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2011 · Points: 35
Eric Whitbeck wrote:Are you sure there has never been a sustainable society? The Apache had a pretty low population and may have been able to sustain their existence if Europeans and others had left them alone. However, I agree with the point in general about current populations being unsustainable. Nonetheless, the op said nothing about sustainability. He simply asked which had the lowest impact. There is a difference.
Sustainable: 1.able to be maintained:

The Apache preyed on the agrarian civilizations of the SW, the Pueblo Indians, and were largely a hunter-gatherer society. As such, they are not a very good example of sustainability. They had a very large area and had to constantly move so that they did not deplete their food sources (hunting, gathering, and raiding the Pueblo's agricultural production.) Because of this they were affected by the same weather and geologic forces that make and break civilizations since the dawn of time. The fact that they were recent arrivals the the SW and had arrived through migration over a land bridge speaks to their inability to maintain themselves without constant movement.

A point could be made for the Pueblo Indians being sustainable, but we all know what happened to their ancestors, the Anasazi, and thus, they were not really sustainable either because of the effects of geologic conditions that were outside of their control.

So, the question is: did these civilizations have better long term viability because of their low population density and customary practices than say a modern Chinese City? Well, yes, and that is the point, but neither civilization could sustain themselves forever and thus are not really a sustainable. The reason I bring this up is that this word, sustainability, is not a good way to look at human behavior. It is not an accepted term in the science community and has been replaced with the concept of long term viability, a much more appropriate term when discussing human civilizations and the effects of our behavior in general.

Sorry to be nit picky, but this is the term that the global warming debate hinges on and we need to replace it with a new term that is more accurate.
Johny Q · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2011 · Points: 35
Eric Whitbeck wrote:"Well before you even start spouting dribble about the sustainability of "clean climbing" you are going to have to leave the car at home and walk or bike to your favorite destination. I wont even listen to the leave no trace trad ground up dribble unless they either walked or biked to the crag. As far as I am concerned, the biggest impact we have results from driving all over the place to get to the crag, as a result there are very few climbers practicing leave no trace climbing." Bill Ballace He actually did not and you bit his head off over something he never mentioned. Read guideline #1.
He did title the thread "sustainable Climbing", maybe this is why people replied they way they did. Perhaps it should be re-named LNT for clarity.
BrianH Pedaler · · Santa Fe NM · Joined Aug 2009 · Points: 50

To the OP: Please define "sustainable" as you use the term in your thesis. Is it the result of a cost benefit analysis? If so what inputs and assumptions do you use? What time frame are you using?

Or is "sustainable" some sort of code for "we kinda, sorta reduced our carbon footprint, so now I kin haz cheezborger?"

Given the expensive plastics we wrap ourselves in, the incredible use of other petroleum products (ropes and slings are made out of oil, just like Gore-tex and all your other miracle fabrics), discussing "sustainability" WRT to climbing seems rather fey at best or downright disingenuous at worst.

So before we do your work on this thesis, show the work you have done defining what you mean by this key concept.

DannyUncanny · · Vancouver · Joined Aug 2010 · Points: 100

If something is not sustainable, then it will not be sustained... duh.

The thing that bugs me the most about modern environmentalism is the subversion of "science" as the new religion. People are actually basing there day-to-day actions and choices on third-order and further removed effects. Their personal choices impact their "environment" through an infinite number of pathways and mechanisms which as a whole are more complex than can possibly be understood by them. Intelligent people are actually trying to improve the environment by stabilizing the temperature by reducing the amount of a certain molecule in the atmosphere by reducing a certain process by lowering demand for a certain product by purchasing a competing product at the grocery store. Each step has an infinite number of other consequences and the total effect of that choice on the environment will be dominated by other mechanisms and pathways not considered. The overall effect is about as close to unpredictable as is possible. On top of that, actually defining what the environment is to each person and the reasons that it needs active helping is a whole other debate.

Johny Q · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2011 · Points: 35
DannyUncanny wrote:If something is not sustainable, then it will not be sustained... duh. The thing that bugs me the most about modern environmentalism is the subversion of "science" as the new religion. People are actually basing there day-to-day actions and choices on third-order and further removed effects. Their personal choices impact their "environment" through an infinite number of pathways and mechanisms which as a whole are more complex than can possibly be understood by them. Intelligent people are actually trying to improve the environment by stabilizing the temperature by reducing the amount of a certain molecule in the atmosphere by reducing a certain process by lowering demand for a certain product by purchasing a competing product at the grocery store. Each step has an infinite number of other consequences and the total effect of that choice on the environment will be dominated by other mechanisms and pathways not considered. The overall effect is about as close to unpredictable as is possible. On top of that, actually defining what the environment is to each person and the reasons that it needs active helping is a whole other debate.
This, is exactly the reason why we must clarify our discussion. If we use words like sustainable then the discussion goes nowhere fast and no decisions will be made. Sustainable? Our world is too complex for that word and it is a vestige of the past. How about: what is more viable in the long term? Certinly not your SUV, see what I mean??

Conservatives use this term, sustainable, as a bludgeoning device against the green movement, and they are right to do so, because much of the green movement is based on emotion. However, it does not have to be this way. Change that one little word and the argument clarifies itself and evolves into a discussion that can actually be addressed where problems can be solved. Keep that one little word, and that word will be used as a battering ram against conversations of what is best for our environment and for the people of the world.

Oh, and if you care that I misspelled a word, go screw yourself. This is a new age, a living language, and I don't edit my on line rants, so deal with it dorks of minutia.

That means you Huggy Bear!
Orphaned · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2007 · Points: 11,560

Thought-provoking discussion.

It seems like sustainability could be viewed as an ideal - approachable but not achievable. Maybe some worthwhile questions are:
1) What are some benchmarks of sustainability? Levels of some pollutants in air/water? Static populations of certain animals? Per capita energy consumption?
2) Even if humanity cannot attain sustainability, is it worth it to approach sustainability?
3) Specific to Joe's original post, is LNT a valuable tool for approaching sustainability?
4) What would approaching sustainability look like, in terms of achieving benchmarks? My guess is something like this:
--- Invalid image id: 107285524 ---
5) I'd ask you to view this as climbers: If you work to achieve a climb and succeed, it's natural to ask what lies beyond. I get that this seems ludicrous, but:

--- Invalid image id: 107285538 ---

Joseph Stover · · Batesville, AR · Joined Dec 2005 · Points: 690

Rather than worrying about "sustainable" climbing, it might be better to worry about "sustainable" lifestyle: reduce, reuse, recycle. Maybe nothing is truly "sustainable" in whatever ideological sense we invent... but lowering the rate of a resources consumption will make it last longer.

I somehow feel that worrying about vegetation trampled at the base of climbs from crashpads pales in comparison to the environmental destruction from factory farming, gas guzzling, and leaving the faucet running while you brush your teeth.

JoeMuggli · · Waite Park, MN · Joined Sep 2011 · Points: 0

I appreciate everyone's input. If I can think of some other questions regarding whats been discussed i'll post them. As of now I ask you to keep bringing new ideas and concepts into the discussion. Thank you

BrianH Pedaler · · Santa Fe NM · Joined Aug 2009 · Points: 50
Johny Q wrote: much of the green movement is based on emotion.
Huh? Certainly some of the advocacy attempts to use emotion as a persuasive tool, but the conclusions about the need to reduce carbon emissions are supported by very solid science.
Jason N. · · Grand Junction · Joined Mar 2011 · Points: 10
David Sahalie wrote:LNT and Sustainable have nothing to do with each other. Case in point: It is widely accepted, even by self-righteous trads, that chain anchors are better than the oil-based tat left on trees and around rocks in the mountains. this tat is removeable, that therefore LNT, but looks like shit and is dangerous. chain is permanent, but these same trads will whine like stuck pigs, like pre-pubescent Adam Ondra failing on a 15a, when they see permadraws. news-flash: it's the same thing trados! the oil that goes into producing 20 peoples qucikdraws, many left to rot in the sun, is a way bigger impact than the permanence of chain and steel carabiners. and, steal is way less of an environmental impact than andonized aluminum in assorted gay-ass colors. if you want to be sustainable, stop reproducing. every fat republican American made is 10 or in India or Africa. i fly everywhere without a second thought while sitting next to fat-ass housemoms with 2.5 kids complaining that their HFCS soda isn't being recycled by the airline.
I wonder if a thread goes by where trad vs. sport isn't brought into the mix somehow...
Jason N. · · Grand Junction · Joined Mar 2011 · Points: 10
dan ben-horin wrote:I apologize because I have not read the entire thread, but wanted to see what some fellow climbers thought about a specific point. I don't have an opinion on either side, but what do others feel is more sustainable? 1) To have fixed hardware at a site - we all can determine the pros and cons for this, or... 2) For all climbers to bring and use their own gear. Think about all the material resources that go into the manufacturing and distribution of these products. Here we are just speaking of environmental sustainability, we must also look at the economic sustainability. With all of us that are spending our hard earned cash on gear to protect a climb, it is much less expensive to only use a set of draws or toprope a route than plug it full of trad gear. Again, I cannot say that I stand on either side of this argument, but I do think of this when I see fixed draws on a route that are still in good shape or when I hear the sport vs trad arguments.
You bring up good points, however, I doubt any one is choosing sport over trad for that reason alone.

Ultimately, when considering the long term viability (or sustainability or whatever you want to call it) of any activity, all you can ask for people to do what they can. Flaming people doesn't solve anything. If taken far enough, everyone lives a little bit of a hypocrisy in their lives but it's still admirable to do your best. If someone gets their kicks out of plugging gear, perhaps they are making up the difference in other parts of their lives. Who knows. Point is: think about your impact, and do what you can.
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

General Climbing
Post a Reply to "Sustainable Climbing."

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.