Sustainable Climbing.

BrianH wrote: 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.

Good stuff. . . I needed a giggle!

Maybe not a perfect fit, but the LNT strikes me more often when I'm in the soft rock areas in UT when I see the that folks have top-roped and/or lowered off anchors and cut deep grooves in the rock. In the space of 25 yrs I return to areas that were once "relatively pristine" to find rope grooves as much as 14 inches deep running down from the anchors. I do what can to teach those around me the better way [rap'g], but the grooves remain and grow. I'm sure they write me off as a wierd old geezer, but we've defaced/weathered some areas WAY faster than it should have been. Having this discusssion should make all of us more careful, but we need to continue to get the word out.

Umph! wrote: Good stuff. . . I needed a giggle!

Well, it would be nice if you could reciprocate, I could use a laugh too.

Take only memories, leave only bolts

Buy local (e.g. your local REI, Starbucks, or In N Out Burger)

Go plant a crag

Johny Q wrote: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.

Hmm, that'd actually be a really interesting study. Off the top of my head I'd tend to think trad climbing would have a smaller carbon footprint than sport climbing, depending on the source of the raw materials and the manufacturing process of both. I'd say that because once a cam or nut is manufactured, shipped to a store, then purchased by you it can be used over and over again until its service life is complete, say 15 years. In that 15 years said gear can be used all over the place multiple times on god knows how many routes you'd do in that time.

Compare that to bolts, which once manufactured, shiped and purchased, then have to go through the extra step of being installed (bigger carbon footprint if you're using a power drill) and can only really be used on that one route and that's it.

ssimonson09 wrote: Hmm, that'd actually be a really interesting study. Off the top of my head I'd tend to think trad climbing would have a smaller carbon footprint than sport climbing, depending on the source of the raw materials and the manufacturing process of both. I'd say that because once a cam or nut is manufactured, shipped to a store, then purchased by you it can be used over and over again until its service life is complete, say 15 years. In that 15 years said gear can be used all over the place multiple times on god knows how many routes you'd do in that time. Compare that to bolts, which once manufactured, shiped and purchased, then have to go through the extra step of being installed (bigger carbon footprint if you're using a power drill) and can only really be used on that one route and that's it.

Keep in mind that every trad climber always needs more trad gear and trad gear is a perect example of a good that possesses nearly unlimited marginal utility. Furthermore, the production of Aluminum carries with it more pollution than the production of steel because it is more refined than steel and takes some extra steps/compounds to create. It also would matter how many crags exist, how many routes would receive PD, and how many people would use those routes instead of purchasing trad gear. Likely an impossible equation, nullified by driving to the crag in the first place. Fun to argue about though.

ssimonson09 wrote: Hmm, that'd actually be a really interesting study. Off the top of my head I'd tend to think trad climbing would have a smaller carbon footprint than sport climbing, depending on the source of the raw materials and the manufacturing process of both. I'd say that because once a cam or nut is manufactured, shipped to a store, then purchased by you it can be used over and over again until its service life is complete, say 15 years. In that 15 years said gear can be used all over the place multiple times on god knows how many routes you'd do in that time. Compare that to bolts, which once manufactured, shiped and purchased, then have to go through the extra step of being installed (bigger carbon footprint if you're using a power drill) and can only really be used on that one route and that's it.

As a manufacturer I´ve been vaguely involved in this (in Germany we´re supposed to do a audit). The actual manufacture of the gear is such a minor part of the whole carbon footprint that it is effectively irrelevant.
Looking at gear itself trad gear scores poorly against bolts all the way through in manufacturing because of multiple material sourcing, complex processing, anodising etc and the recycling costs, since there is no recycling scheme for the horrible mixture of materials it is a) unsustainable and b) labour and therefore energy intensive. Bolts on the other hand are simple to make and efficiently recycleable and in fact at the end of their life worth money, the free market price of scrap saving us establishing a recyling system.

Where trad climbing is thought to be poor against sport climbing is the ratio of accidents, that helicoptors carbon footprint being rather large to say nothing of the hospitalisation but we don´t really have enough information on this.

The real planet killer though is thought to be alpinism at least in Europe, flying beer up to a centrally heated mountain hut by helicopter really makes a typical days cragging, trad or sport, look purity itself to say nothing of sustaining the typical alpine town infrastructure in a climatically challenged area. (Don´t even think about Himalayan trips if we are going to calculate per person!)

My company actually gets an almost perfect score on the carbon footprint/sustainability scale since we recycle 97% of all our waste, our end product is easily recycleable and our energy is CO2 neutral and renewable but since it is part of a totally wasteful and ultimately pointless leisure activity I´d be reluctant to claim it was in any way `green´or sustainable.

Jim

Thanks for some of your insight Jim, it was interesting to get a manufacturer's perspective. I'm fascinated by what is considered a "perfect score." When thinking in terms of a carbon or ecological footprint, I think of sustainable as taking away from this planet at a rate that we are putting back in.

Even if the manufacturer is recycling all of the materials that go into production, other resources are being consumed, i.e. energy, water, etc. Have you heard of any companies making efforts to put such resources back into the environment? I think that may be the future of what we consider "sustainable." To shift our end goal from net equal resource consumption - which is currently so far out of reach - and raise the bar even higher to a goal of restoration, where we are actually producing resources to give back to the earth.

Thank you everyone that has posted in this thread, it has been motivating to read through and collect ideas to determine where we as a community have some holes.

If you look at the natural resource side of things, it would be managing the access to provide an optimal balance between access and natural environment. The biggest issue is over use, too many people trying to access the most popular spot. Being from the east coast, a similar example can be found in the Adirondack Park (issue i'm most familiar with). Too high a density of users in a certain spot will impact the resource everyone wants to access. This was the case with the back country camping areas in the Adirondacks. In the late 70s the woods around the back country wilderness camp sites were denuded because everyone was foraging for firewood for the "ideal" back country experience. The NY State DEC made some unpopular decisions, no fires in certain areas, limits on group sizes for overnight, and day use, etc. The reality is that currently the same areas that were barren in the late 70s and 80s have now recovered (at least the under story of the forest) and the number of yearly users has increased since the 80s, yet the use patterns have changed for the better. The second consideration is the access part, hardening trails to help protect the environment from the people. Those fancy rock steps and bog bridges aren't to keep people's shoes clean and dry, but rather to protect sensitive environmental areas like steep hillsides and wet lands.

On the other hand, tropical Storm Irene demonstrated that what man has taken 100yrs of over use to destroy, nature will completely re-configure / change in the span of 12 hours.

A second side note, and more related to climbing. I heard / read someone who was a frequent Gunks climber observe that you could tell Acid Rain reduction was really working because the Lichen at the Trapps was taking over the climbs again, even some of the trade routes.

In reality, the only constant is change, we are fools to believe otherwise.

Just some thoughts.

For my part, I try to establish crags people can ride their bike to then establish one good trail, shore up belay stances to reduce further erosion and install chain anchors. These efforts minimize the effect crowds will have on the place but are largely unnecessary if I was only going to climb the route once and not ever tell anyone else about it. Trails, bolts, route cleaning, anchors and belay stances are more "sustainable" for years of visitation but in the end, each cliff looks different than when I or most any other FAist first arrived but I guess America looks different than when Columbus arrived.

I love mountain project but I wonder if it is leading to more impact in more places. It used to be that almost no one would find out about new routes until the next edition of the area guidebook came out in print and the only routes to get published were those the author knew about. With MP.com FAists can get the info out about their routes so quickly that a cliff can go from its pristine state to a popular crag in a few days time. Also, the ability to self-publish crag information and establish oneself as a First Ascenscionist among the community, and the associated ego boost, probably leads to more people establishing more routes which may provide variety for climbers in the area but leads to more bolts, more trails, more chalk, more gear, more driving and all of the other impacts discussed in this thread.

In spite of these impacts, it seems climbers a more "sustainable" group than others in society. Climbers, as a general statement, lead active lifestyles and it could be said that they probably use less healthcare and hospital resources throughout their lives because they stay in shape and have the mental stimulation of climbing and the sense of accomplishment that goes along with it to stave off depression/substance abuse/crime etc, which costs the healthcare system and society as a whole.

Screw it, lets just take up gardening and knitting sweaters with fur shed from our pets.

dan ben-horin wrote:Thanks for some of your insight Jim, it was interesting to get a manufacturer's perspective. I'm fascinated by what is considered a "perfect score." When thinking in terms of a carbon or ecological footprint, I think of sustainable as taking away from this planet at a rate that we are putting back in. Even if the manufacturer is recycling all of the materials that go into production, other resources are being consumed, i.e. energy, water, etc. Have you heard of any companies making efforts to put such resources back into the environment? I think that may be the future of what we consider "sustainable." To shift our end goal from net equal resource consumption - which is currently so far out of reach - and raise the bar even higher to a goal of restoration, where we are actually producing resources to give back to the earth. Thank you everyone that has posted in this thread, it has been motivating to read through and collect ideas to determine where we as a community have some holes.

Are you talking about selective sustainability where we try to keep the earth in the condition it is today as opposed to 100years ago, 500 years ago or any other abitrary date?
In a universal sense everything is sustainable since the amount of energy or material is constant.

My definition of sustainability is the idea of preserving these areas for continued use in the future. So is there and or are there ways in which one can climb sustainably, to ensure the future generations that same crag, boulder, or multi pitch climb? or will the popularity of these spots and the sport continue to limit where we can climb now and in the future? thanks again for your input!
-Cheers