Warmer winters costly to ski towns

Recently, I learned of a recent study by researchers Daniel Scott and Robert Steiger who claim that climate change is creating major damage to the American ski industry. Nothing unexpected, as I have been expressing my concern on the matter in recent blogs. 

Based on 226 US ski resorts, they’ve found out that ski seasons are getting shorter by about a week, on average. While this isn’t good news for skiers, it’s also costing the industry some $252 million every year as fewer people ski and more artificial snow is needed. This, however, is just a harbinger of things to come in coming years. 

Depending on how much global emissions are reduced, which is something that doesn’t look good at the moment, ski seasons could be two months shorter by mid century, with financial losses increasing from $657 million to $1.352 billion annually. To make things worst, the study says snow cover and season length will decrease at lower elevations. 

Since the 1970s, climate change has been rearing its ugly head. Now it’s quite clear that the trend is for real. Since 1981, there’s been an average global increase by about 0.18°C every decade. This was a reversal from the slow cooling trend observed over the previous 7,000 years, where temperatures fell by 0.01°C every century. 

In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), affirms that these changes are directly caused by human activities. Clearly, the ski industry is running out of ammunition and even improvements in snow-making won’t suffice. 

Today, some Colorado communities that live from ski tourism, like Boulder County, San Miguel County, and the City of Boulder have sued ExxonMobil and Suncor, accusing them of contributing to climate change and causing them harm. The communities demand compensation for the harm already done and for future adaptation costs. Even the conservative US Supreme Court decided not to step in, allowing the case to continue in state court. 

The above-mentioned financial losses due to climate change are based on two main factors, decreased revenue from fewer skier visits and higher costs for producing snow. Obviously, these figures don’t account for the true economic impact as skiers’ spending goes far beyond the slopes and include a variety of goods and services at their destinations. 

At that level, this spending stimulates more business, increases personal income, creates jobs, and boosts government revenue. Factoring in these broader economic effects, especially with an economic multiplier for ski tourism spending, would increase the loss to these communities. My take on that study is that it still underestimate the severity of global warming on the future of skiing...