Fighting climate change (Part Two)

Yesterday, we open our toolbox and looked at the tool we could use to “significantly“ more the needle and see which methods are most effective. Today, we’ll try to rank them by their long-term impact. So let’s get started. 

1. Education and scientific literacy, even though their impact is in the long-term, are a necessary step that must become the backdrop to our effort to rein in climate change. 
2. Economic incentives that reward cleaner choices, like tax credit, rebates for renewable energies or devices using them. Technological innovation that can range from cold fusion, thermal energies all the way to turning dangerous materials into new sources of energy. 
3. Government policies and international cooperation. This is super important as individual countries’ action are meaningless and ineffective when the entire world must play from the same sheet of music. Short of a unanimous movement, nothing will ever work. 
4. Leading by example works very well for families and it should also work at the planetary level. Shaming bad actors should be part of the toolkit too. 
5. Consumer pressure and boycotts can work if they are well explained, fully understood and well followed. Continued peaceful public activism instead of violent revolt, that has little evidence of producing durable environmental progress and often causes additional social harm. 

Climate change presents a classic collective-action problem. Every nation benefits if everyone acts, but each has either a temptation or an incentive to let others bear more of the cost. Overcoming that dilemma requires making climate action not merely a moral obligation but also an economic and political advantage. 

History suggests that societies change most rapidly when environmental responsibility aligns with prosperity, security, and technological progress rather than relying on moral persuasion alone. Ultimately this issue is about human nature as much as climate science: How do we persuade billions of people and hundreds of governments to cooperate for the common good? 

There is no single answer, but the evidence suggests that the greatest progress occurs when education, innovation, sound economic policy, and effective leadership reinforce one another rather than acting in isolation.

Fighting climate change (Part One)

There is only one planet, yet more than 200 nations share responsibility for its future. Although nearly all governments acknowledge the importance of protecting the environment, they differ greatly in their willingness and ability to act. Some place economic growth, national security, or political considerations ahead of climate policies, while others simply lack the financial resources to make the necessary transition. 

The challenge is therefore not only scientific but also political, economic, and moral. So the question is, what actually can move the needle? History tells us that no single approach is sufficient. Progress usually comes from a combination of forces.

On paper, education is probably the most powerful long-term tool. It changes how future generations think, vote, consume, and innovate, unfortunately, it works very slowly. Leading by example can be surprisingly influential. When one country, city, or company demonstrates that reducing emissions can coincide with economic prosperity, others are more likely to follow. 

The dramatic fall in the cost of solar panels and wind power is partly the result of countries investing early and proving these new technologies can surprisingly work well at scale. This said, economic incentives are often more effective than moral appeals. Businesses and consumers respond to prices. Carbon taxes, emissions trading systems, tax credits for clean technologies, and subsidies for renewable energy have generally produced measurable changes because they align environmental goals with financial interests. 

It’s true that consumer pressure and boycotts can influence corporate behavior, especially when large numbers of people participate. Companies often react faster to changing customer preferences than governments do. However, boycotts are usually effective only when they are sustained and widely supported which need to be well explained and perfectly understood. 

In theory, international agreements like the Paris Agreement help establish common goals and encourage transparency, but they rely largely on voluntary commitments and peer pressure rather than enforcement. One big hope, held as a “Hail Mary”, is technological innovation that should ultimately be one of the strongest drivers. New technologies become attractive when they are cleaner and cheaper. 

The rapid adoption of electric vehicles, improved batteries, and renewable energy illustrates how innovation can change markets without requiring everyone to make sacrifices. Finally to end that list of tools, there’s always public protest and civil disobedience have historically drawn attention to important issues and sometimes accelerated policy changes. 

Their effectiveness depends on maintaining public support. Peaceful movements tend to have a stronger long-term record than violent revolts, which often polarize societies and distract from the underlying issue. 

Tomorrow, we’ll try to see, which of tools seem the most potent...

Thank you Exxon-Mobil!

We are currently experiencing a hot weather spell in Park City, and while the temperatures are far from excruciating compared to those experienced in the Salt Lake Valley and many other places, we’ve been blessed, so far, without much smoke in the air except for 2 or 3 days in June. 

But when one look at the climatic devastation around the world, from the gigantic forest fires in Europe to the flooding in many places, global warming remains more than ever the humongous elephant in the room. 

Of course, no one is talking about what currently ails the planet and is going to be humanity downfall as the eyes are turned towards wars everywhere and politician’s eccentricities but chickens always come home to roost, which clearly means that meaning that past actions, particularly humanity’s wanton plundering of our planet will eventually catch up with all of us and what we experience is just a sampling. 

This is in spite of the fact that for decades, many members of the fossil fuel industry have tried to convince us that a causative link between fossil fuel use and climate warming couldn’t be made because the models used to project warming were too uncertain.

Recently, it’s been showed that one of these fossil fuel companies, ExxonMobil, had their own internal models that projected warming trajectories consistent with those forecast by the independent academic and government models. What they understood about climate models thus contradicted what they led all of us to believe. 

This is why I’ve decided to say every time I greet someone during our morning walk, if they happen to answer “It’s gonna be another hot one” I always use my follow up answer “Thanks to Exxon-Mobil!” 

Park City’s last patch of snow

Same thing every year. June 16 holds a special significance to me. On that day in 1985 as I was house-hunting and had rented a large camcorder to shoot a movie of the house we bought in Park City, for my wife to see and hopefully, get her stamp of approval. 

There was a bull-eye window in the house, and through it, I accidentally captured Jupiter Peak with a tiny snow patch left just below the summit, just like you can see on the picture below! 

What’s amazing is that this winter was our worst snow year ever, and yet after an excellent 1984-1985 snow season, we have as much snow left this year not to mention even more around the main bowl and Portuguese Gap, thanks to some cool weather in April, May and June. 

Amazing isn’t it?

 

Disappointing skier visits!

At long last, I just heard about Utah’s skier visit numbers for the 2025-2026 winter season. At just 4.8 million (an amount rounded up it seems, to suggest a bit less in reality) this represents a drop of 26.2 % for our 15 ski resorts compared to the previous season, a significant decline, even more than Colorado’s down by 24%. 

It was also a large drop-off from the record-setting 7.1 million visits recorded when Utah received a record-high snowfall during the 2022-2023 season. A Ski Utah spokesperson said that “...The big takeaway from this year is that it really is just an anomaly, and the ski industry here in Utah is really at the mercy of Mother Nature.” 

I wish I could agree that it’s just an “anomaly” when in fact, I believe, it’s more the beginning of a trend, showing that global warming is here to stay, should be taken much more seriously and won’t go away any time soon. 

Historically, Utah experienced its lowest snow-pack on record, which reflects the amount of water in new snowfall, but many resorts also struggled to maintain operations because of record-warm temperatures throughout most of the winter. Long, warm periods between storms and warmer precipitation that produced more rain in higher-elevation areas than is the case typically, while also making it difficult for them to produce artificial snow. 

What this dismal season tells me is something about politics. Short-sighted politicians are woefully unable to address long-term needs, like global warming and have no problem sacrificing long-term solutions for short-term gains. Not only in the US where Trump and his republican allies are turning their back to the environment, but also in Europe where the sacrifices required from a sound climate protection strategy seem unaffordable in their short-term lens.

Jesus and a hot planet

I used to communicate with Jesus through Skype, but since this service is closed, we’ve both switched to WhatsApp. A week ago, as Europe was under an unseasonable heat wave, we talked about global warming. The conversation went like this: 

Go 11: Hi, Jesus! How are things upstairs? 

Jesus: Not bad, we’re trying to cool France and England at the moment… 

Go 11: As I tell my countrymen, that early heatwave is good training for the time they get to Hell 

Jesus: You might be kidding, but we have the same cooling problem in Heaven. The facilities are very old. Poor insulation, leaks everywhere with the heat that seeps from downstairs. It’s becoming a problem there too… 

Go 11: What are your plans for earth warming in the future? 

Jesus: We’ll probably relocate part of the population to another planet. I mean the Evangelists. I was thinking of sucking them up with a big hose over another spot… 

Go 11: You meant like the rapture? 

Jesus: That’s exactly the idea… 

Go 11: What do you do with the rest? 

Jesus: You mean the other seven and a half billion? 

Go 11: Yeah, if you say so… 

Jesus: We’ll let them roast and use them for fertilizing planet Earth 2.0 

Go 11: And you’ll let the creation start again? 

Jesus: Not quite like the first time, we’d do it the Charles Darwin way, it’s more credible 

Go 11: What about the Evangelists, then? 

Jesus: We’ll suck them over to Mars and let them fight out with Elon Musk, that might bring some good entertainment value!

Four years worth of EV

Hard to believe, but I’ve been driving an electric car for more than four years! Time fly it’s true but when things go well it goes even faster, at least that's what my wife thinks as she still can’t believe we’ve had that car for so long. 

Consumption? Tires, probably, windshield wipers and cleaner and that’s it. Nothing aside from these. A touch screen replacing a multitude of buttons spread all over a cockpit takes some time to get used to, but once learned it’s no longer a problem!

The automobile starts on command regardless of how cold it’s outside, when I don’t forget to preheat it in my cold garage it feels warm and ready to take me anywhere I want to go. Its safety and self-driving features are both wonderful and addictive. 

After recently driving an ICE car for 1,300 miles, I would never switch back to a fossil fuel powered car or even a hybrid. There are also more and more chargers around, so refill anxiety is no longer a problem and the only negative about owning the car I own and love is that I still hate Elon Musk...

Skiing north of Hell…

In the past couple of days, I made a distinct effort to go skiing to really see how the conditions were like at Park City Mountain. On Sunday, I skied the Park City side and had some good runs around the Thaynes chairlift, and on Monday decided to check out the Canyons side and was disappointed when I realized that Ninety-nine-90 had just been shut down for avalanche danger. 

Disappointed I returned home, skiing to some of the worst slush snow ever experienced. This was almost hell, that’s why I called this episode “Slightly north of hell!” Frankly, I feel terrible for our visitors that had to ski in such terrible conditions. I looked at the Ski Utah calendar and saw that Park City was still planning to stay open for skiing until April 20, just to beat its Deer Valley neighbor by one day (it plans to shut down on April 19).

The best I can guess is that skiing will be on virtual snow (at least in Park City, that spreads the artificial white stuff as thin as it can to save money!) I also noticed that Snowbasin, out of respect for its ski patrons, already closed on April 22. 

On my last chair ride that day, I chatted with an older Indian gentleman who, based on the current conditions, thought that he wasn’t seeing much more than 5 more years of skiing in Park City, adding that “When the earth will be doomed, there will be voices saying that it took only 2,000 years for the human specie to destroy the planet… What a shame!”

Blaming the symptom or the cause? (Part Three)

With today’s world population over 8.3 billion and expected to grow to 9.8 billion in 2050 and then peak from 10.3 to 11.2 billion between 2080 and 2100, its growth rate would have to steadily decline in order to reach these, thanks to global fertility rates dropping almost everywhere. Many countries are now worried about shrinking workforce, aging populations and economic contraction which would suggest that partially, the future environmental challenge will not totally be “too many people,” but partly how the existing population chooses to live or survive depending on its material “progress”. 

Well, AI will come to the rescue and replace a vanishing labor force. We also all know that the subject of population is fraught with delicate issues and has a dangerous history. This in fact is one of the biggest reasons why institutions like government and NGOs avoid openly breaching that taboo subject. Blaming overpopulation has historically been used to justify racist policies, forced sterilization, anti‑immigrant rhetoric that target specific regions or ethnic groups. 

Because of this, scientists and policymakers, with the notable exception of Trump and his supporters, tread very carefully. They focus on systems rather than people and claim that if the world suddenly had 2 billion fewer people but was still burning fossil fuels, deforesting like crazy, continuing over-fishing and still using industrial agriculture the planet would still be in trouble. Situation shows that beyond the well-meaning declarations and broad pledges, very little that’s been seriously done in that direction as we seem woefully incapable of meeting our short-term goals. 

Of course, if we humanity was serious about changing energy systems, land use, and consumption patterns — even with the current population — the planet might recover with an intensity proportional to the kind of sacrifices no one is willing to make. Without exceptions, sacrifices hurt and are hard to make, particularly in our comfortable, cocooned society. 

We need an accident or a crash in order to be forced to change or accept the seemingly unfair governmental restrictions, like we did during Covid-19. This explains why the focus is on the “symptoms” because they’re actually the mechanisms of environmental damage. 

With a “comfortable” developed world unwilling to give up any element of its comfort, the proposed remedial efforts are for naught and I still believe that we’ll need to crash into the wall of an inhabitable planet to realize that we might have irremediably damaged it.

Blaming the symptom or the cause? (Part Two)

Demographers are telling us that the global population may peak around 2050–2100, and growth rates are already falling in most regions. According to the United Nations, the world population is projected to reach 9.8 billion in 2050 and then rise toward a peak of 10.3 to 11.2 billion between 2080 and 2100, depending on fertility. 

This is supposed to mean that the future environmental trajectory will depend more on how people live than on how many people exist and that energy transitions, land management, and consumption patterns should matter more than raw population numbers, but will they? This would require getting away from fossil fuel dependence, industrial agriculture, deforestation, urban sprawl and wasteful production systems that are all the dominant causes of warming and biodiversity loss. 

This, in my view, remains a huge question mark. It remains obvious that population increase puts pressure on land use, water demand and habitat pressure. At this moment, it’s fairly easy to claim that one billion additional low‑consumption people have far less impact than a few million high‑consumption people, but who can guarantee that with time, a low poor people’s per‑capita footprint is not going to catch up as their economic situation improves? 

Society is extremely dynamic and with information circulating like never before the “bad example” of runaway consumption we display isn’t going to influence the poor in the good direction. Sure, if the population is a multiplier, it’s hard to put most of the burden on the symptoms. 

These are viewed as the “drivers”, our fossil‑fuel energy systems, our industrial agriculture, deforestation, mining and extraction, consumption patterns and waste systems. All are seen as the lower hanging fruits. Clearly, a growing population makes these drivers bigger, but if it’s not creating them, it’s a bit cavalier to speculate that it can’t amplify them. 

If we removed the drivers but kept the population the same, the impact would drop dramatically but it doesn’t as for instance the Trump administration is no longer motivated to fixing the drivers and the European Union has other priorities against a predatory Russia. We also know that the biggest environmental damage comes from a small fraction of people in the planet’s wealthiest nations. For example, the top 10% of global consumers produce nearly half of all emissions while the poorest 50% produce less than 10%. 

Countries with declining populations (Japan, Italy, Germany) have very high environmental footprints and conversely, countries with fast‑growing populations (many in Africa) have very low footprints. Still if given the opportunity through economic development these same countries would emulate their richer “models”! In the next blog, we’ll explore how a slowing world population might help, so please, stay with me!

Blaming the symptom or the cause? (Part One)

I have always wondered why planetary pollution, climate warming and biodiversity destruction are never blamed on overpopulation, but instead on elements resulting from specific aspects resulting from human population on earth. To me, it always felt as if we were treating the symptoms instead of the cause. Still, many disagree with me, and say I missed one key nuance in the way in environmental science, population is not the “root cause” in the simple way it appears, even though it’s an important part of the equation. 

They say the real root causes are more complex, as overpopulation may be part of the scientific discussion, but is rarely framed as the “main culprit” because research shows that the drivers of planetary damage are not sheer numbers of people, but the unequal and highly concentrated patterns of consumption, emissions, and land use. 

Did I mention that without a growing population, that of the economy and the religions would be hindered as well? 

The counterpoint to my beliefs is that the biggest environmental impacts come from consumption, not headcount as a small percentage of the global population produces the majority of emissions and waste and wealthy nations with stable or declining populations have the highest per‑capita environmental footprint. In contrast, poorer, fast‑growing populations contribute far less to climate change. 

This is why experts argue that consumption patterns, energy systems, and industrial practices are the primary drivers of climate warming and biodiversity loss—not population size alone. Sure, die-hard environmental scholars claim that population‑blame has often been tied to racist or xenophobic narratives, policies targeting specific regions or groups and attempts to shift responsibility away from high‑consumption societies. 

This sounds nice and good, but in my view is an obsession with fixing the seemingly easy and intractable (the symptoms) and neglecting the harder and main part (the cause). In a next blog, I’ll try to dig deeper into these arguments and honestly see if the position I’ve held for a long time holds any justification.

A future for the multi-resorts model? (Part Two)

If warm winters like this one happen to become the norm, passholders might hesitate to renew, especially casual skiers who only get a few days in. At the same time, requests for refund or credit are likely to grow, adding pressure on companies to soften rigid policies. As a result, senior pricing, local pricing, and more flexible products could become bargaining chips. 

Divestment is also quite plausible: Vail, Alterra, Powdr, and Boyne may shed low‑elevation or chronically unreliable mountains. This is already happening in Europe, where abandoned lifts are becoming a common sight everywhere. In the longer term, if the model does survive, it will have to mutate significantly. We should expect fewer small and, or low-elevation resorts, in the mega-pass networks. Instead, the investments will continue only in those high-altitude, snow-secure destinations. 

Making more snow will still remain difficult to accomplish in a phase of diminishing returns and water freezing temperature stubbornly remains set at 32 degrees! 

Perhaps more productive solutions to improve cloud-seeding could help by leveraging AI, but I might be getting ahead of myself! 

Will poor snow years force concessions like senior and super-senior passes? Possibly, there is room to see leverage here. If and when renewals drop, companies will have to respond. 

Historically, ski corporations only change pricing structures when they face public backlash, and anticipate a measurable revenue loss. A bad winter added to climate anxiety could create exactly that pressure on them. I’m not saying that skiing is dying tomorrow, but it will be consolidating as well as stratifying, and will take a different face. Skiing may continue at high elevations, in colder climates and will shrink and shrivel everywhere else. 

To survive, the mega-pass resort model will concentrate around fewer, more reliable snowy locations. It will be in some ways like the airline industry with fewer players, fewer routes but higher stakes. In addition, ski towns will have to creatively offer more non-ski revenue (mountain coasters, summer tourism, winter biking, ice driving schools and other events). Dynamic pricing may also have to replace the “all-you-can-ski” model. 

Unless climate warming really takes the “hockey stick” route, the multi-resort model won’t go immediately away, but will be headed toward a contraction phase. The big companies will protect their strongest assets and quietly offload the weak ones. And yes, a slimmer renewal cycle could finally force them to rethink rigid policies and offer more flexible or senior-friendly pricing. 

If anything, the next 5–10 years could be the most transformative period the ski industry has seen since the invention of snowmaking and of high speed chairlifts. I remain far less optimistic than the whole industry that remains in full denial as it seems trapped by its huge investments and its lack of appropriate action!

Have multi-resorts passes a future? (Part One)

In my opinion, multi-resort passes like Epic and Ikon are likely to get pummeled if our weather keeps on misbehaving as snow failed to deliver on time this season and in sufficient volume. If the missing element was just precipitation, I wouldn’t worry so much, but the growing warmth that’s in line with global warming is a much more concerning sign that doesn’t bode well for winter snow activities as we know them. 

I wouldn’t be surprised if companies like Alterra, Boyne, Powdr’ and Vail Resorts begin divesting some of their resorts at winter’s end. The net result of a poor snow year might create a reluctance to renew passes next year and also be the straw that breaks the camel’s back of these mega-resort networks that might have to mollify some of their rules, like creating a senior priced pass among other concessions. 

There’s no question that the ski industry is wrestling with exactly the same anxieties I’ve just described. The data backs up my intuition with warming winters, erratic snowfall, and rising rain‑on‑snow events. All are already reshaping the economics of ski resorts, especially those below mid‑mountain elevations. 

Whether we want to admit it or not, climate change is already destabilizing the traditional ski model worldwide. Fresh reporting shows that in Switzerland, for instance, ski resorts have boosted numbers through multi‑resort passes too, but there’s a widespread acknowledgment that melting glaciers and snowless winters threaten the long‑term viability of the model. 

All over Europe, resorts below 1,200 meters may need 100% artificial snow by 2050 just to remain skiable and a major European study warns that a quarter of ski resorts could face snow scarcity every other year with just 2°C of warming. So far the Epic, Ikon, and other multi‑resort entities may survive thanks to their geographic diversification: If Tahoe is dry, maybe Utah, Colorado or even New England is better. This spreads the risk. 

Their massive cash flow intake from pre-season sales get them revenue before snow falls. The system remains robust as brand loyalty and fear of missing out will continue to force skiers to buy early “just in case”, so just one bad season won’t break them. If this might prove to be true in the short term, my concerns would become very real in the mid term and that’s what we’ll explore tomorrow...

Atmospheric river’s downside (Part Three)

Just to remind my readers, I wanted to know how atmospheric rivers were affecting our winter snowpack in the mountains of Park City as well as our flood risk at high altitudes. Atmospheric rivers behave like a high-pressure fire-hose of moisture. 

While they bring heavy rain to the coast, their impact changes dramatically once they hit the "vertical wall" of a mountain range, with a complete list of risks and benefits. First, in coastal areas, the primary threat is volume of water and its intensity. Because coastal temperatures are usually well above freezing, 100% of the atmospheric river’s moisture falls as rain. 

There’s the risk of flash flooding as the ground quickly becomes saturated, leading to immediate urban flooding and mudslides. This situation doesn’t last too long and often ends shortly after the "river" passes, as the water drains quickly into the ocean. 

The mountains present a different set of circumstances that specialists call "Orographic Lifting". As the atmospheric river hits the mountains, the air is forced upward. This is called orographic lifting. As the air rises, it cools rapidly, causing it to "wring out" even more moisture than it did at the coast. This means that mountainous regions often receive double or triple the precipitation seen at sea level.

There’s also a "Double-Edged Sword" effect for snow-pack at high altitudes where the atmospheric river becomes a game of temperature. These storms are typically warm, which creates two very different scenarios. First there is the good news also known as the "Big Gulp". 

If the storm is cold enough, it can drop 5–10 feet of snow in a single weekend. Some of these "drought-buster" events have been known to provide the bulk of the Western US water supply for a full year! Then there is the bad news, which seems to be happening more and more as we advance into climate change. It’s known as the “Rain-on-Snow”event. 

This is a big flood risk for mountain communities. Because ARs are warm, the "snow line" (the elevation where rain turns to snow) can climb much higher than usual, to 9,000 feet compared to Park City’s 7,100 feet. The Result is that warm rain falls on top of an existing deep snow-pack. The rain doesn't just run off; it melts the snow beneath it, releasing weeks' worth of stored water in just a few hours. 

This creates catastrophic "riverine" flooding downstream. This is what happened a lot until now and why I’ve been skiing so little this season!

Atmospheric river history (Part Two)

While the term "atmospheric river" didn’t exist in the 19th century, we have clear historical evidence of them causing massive disturbances. Such occurences began with the the great flood of 1862, the largest flood in the recorded history of California, Oregon, and Nevada. 

It was caused by a "family" of back-to-back atmospheric rivers that turned California's Central Valley into an inland sea. Before that, by studying tree rings and sediment layers, scientists have identified "mega-AR" events occurring as far back as A.D. 212, suggesting these have been a consistent feature of Earth's climate for millennia. 

In the last decade, our understanding has moved from "discovery" to "categorization." In 2019, Dr. F. Martin Ralph and colleagues at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography developed the AR Scale (1 to 5). Much like the hurricane scale, it helps the public understand if an incoming atmospheric river will be "beneficial" (filling reservoirs/ending droughts) or "hazardous" (causing floods and landslides). 

Overall, scientific studies confirm that atmospheric rivers are becoming stronger, wetter, larger, and more frequent in recent years, leading to more intense precipitation, and the primary reason is human-caused climate change. 

A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, fueling these "rivers in the sky" with extra water vapor from oceans, resulting in more extreme rainfall, flooding, and wind events, particularly impacting the US West Coast. Combined with steadily increasing temperatures, this will lead to less and less snow in the US Sierras, Cascades and Rocky Mountains. 

Since I live in Park City, a mountain region, I want to know how atmospheric rivers specifically affect our snowpack and even flood risk in our mountain town compared to coastal areas and this is something we’ll discuss in our next blog, so please, stay tuned!

Atmospheric river primer (Part one)

This early winter has been marked in the American West with a prevalence of meteorological “atmospheric rivers”, something we’ve discussed many times in this blog in recent years, and since it ruined my early ski season, I was curious for how long this phenomenon has been a known weather factor? 

Although the term "atmospheric river" (AR) has only been part of the scientific and public vocabulary for about 30 years, the weather phenomenon itself has been documented and studied under different names for centuries. The name "atmospheric river" was coined in 1992 (and further popularized in a 1994 study) by two researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT): Reginald Newell and Yong Zhu.

As both were analyzing global data from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, they discovered that over 90% of the moisture moving from the tropics toward the poles was concentrated in narrow, fast-moving "filaments" that covered less than 10% of the Earth's circumference. 

Before Newell and Zhu’s naming them this way, these storms were well-known to meteorologists and residents of coastal regions, but I remember them as being called "Pineapple Express", referring to atmospheric rivers that originate near Hawaii and hit the U.S. West Coast. 

Some called them the “Warm Conveyor Belts", a term used in the 1970s to describe the flow of warm, moist air within a cyclone. Other weather forecasters called it "Moisture Plumes" or "Tropical Connections", to describe the visible bands of clouds on satellite imagery. 

The reason Newell and Zhu chose “Atmospheric river” was because these bands carried an astounding amount of water, as a single strong atmospheric river could transport roughly 15 times the average flow of the Mississippi River! Tomorrow, we’ll review the historical weather events involving this phenomenon... 

Hey, taxi!

When the next Winter Olympics return to Salt Lake City in 2034, I’ll be just 86 years old and might need a quick and easy commute to watch all the venues, so if you’ve seen these science-fiction schemes in which air-taxis help people hop from one place to the next, by taking to the skies instead of using a self-driving car (which I hope, might work perfectly by then), then air taxi will be the perfect mean of transportation! 

This past Tuesday, an agreement was signed by BETA Technologies, an electric aircraft manufacturer, and 47G | Utah Aerospace & Defense, to bring air taxi technology and charging stations to Utah. These new electric air taxis would have the ability to fly up to five passengers — or up to 1,250 pounds of cargo. According to BETA Technologies website, the taxis can reach a full charge in just under an hour and can travel over 350 miles per charge, reaching speeds of about 155 miles per hour. 

On November 13, BETA Technologies completed the first flight of an electric aircraft built on its scaled production line. Within a year, BETA set up shop in its 200,000 square foot manufacturing facility in South Burlington, Vermont, and fully installed tooling, an organized supply chain, and manufactured propulsion systems — to rolling an aircraft off its production line, getting a certificate of airworthiness by the FAA, and flying it. 

The air taxis, which garnered support from the Utah Department of Transportation and the Governor himself, are expected to run statewide in time for the 2034 Winter Olympic Games. By early 2026, the plan is for Utah to be moving cargo in them before transitioning to people. 

A spokesperson for BETA said that “From early next year onward we start with cargo, medical logistics, and then we move into passenger flights over the next years. By the end of the decade here we’re flying cargo, medical passenger, both in… conventional takeoff — landing airport to airport — and vertical takeoff, landing going from vertiport to vertiport in quiet, clean electric airplanes.” 

We’ll see if the plan develop in time for my using it, if and when I should reach my mid-eighties! 

Enough garbage cans?

The 2022 Global Waste Index, ranked the biggest waste-producing nations in the world. South Korea, Denmark, Germany were the top 3 among the best, that is, the least dirty. France was ranked 14th while the US stood at the 25th spot in a field of 38 ranked nations. Canada was the worst as 31st and Turkey dead last.

The above picture shows how some households in Park City contribute to America’s dirty label. The five gray trash cans pictured here contain 16 gallons (60 liters) and the two large brown ones are used for recycling. In our household (2 people) we only use one of each and although we empty it weekly, it would take 3 to 4 month to fill it with household waste! 

Eight months out of the year, we also compost our green waste. Needless to say that we wonder how a single family house like that one can use so many waste containers… Our landfill for Park City and Summit County is located in Three Mile Canyon, and as I write this, it’s almost at capacity. 

The landfill processes about 42,000 to 52,000 tons of waste each year. It only has about 80,000 tons of capacity remaining. Where will the refuse go when it’s filled up?

New Delhi, Utah?

On Tuesday, the (bad) air quality in Park City climbed to 181, worse than New Delhi, India at 163 this same day! An air pollution like this is clearly unhealthy and represents smoking 3 cigarettes that day. Thank God, we aren’t at a full pack yet... 

This was caused by shifting winds bringing smoke from a 20,000 acre fire, just 30 miles away from Park City to move into town as the case has been for the past three of four days. At that point, on Tuesday evening, the fire was 21% contained. 

As a small storm system moved into the area, the smoke inversion settled into the surrounding valleys, including Park City, along with ash in some areas. 

Winds are variable, changing directions throughout the day. This requires firefighters to pay close attention, as wind direction and fire behavior can be erratic.

Hopefully the firefighters efforts will be successful despite a weather that remains stubbornly clear and sunny...

What air do we breathe?

Over the years, the entire world has become conscious about the importance of air quality, to the point that many new companies have been created, older have expanded in providing salutary measurement of air conditions throughout the world. 

More recently, these companies have been providing convenient smartphone apps that can tell us instantly how good or bad the air quality is where we live, in places we’d like to go or anywhere our friends or relatives live. 

Where we live in the US there’s AirNow, a service from the Environmental Protection Agency, but if lone lives anywhere in the world there’s also a convenient app from IQAir, a Swiss air quality technology company, specializing in protection against airborne pollutants, developing air quality monitoring and air cleaning products. 

That company was founded in 1963 by brothers Manfred and Klaus Hammes, who introduced an air filter system for residential coal furnaces and oven in Germany to help reduce black dust build-up on the walls behind ovens. 

Manfred Hammes, a lifelong asthma sufferer, noticed that the filter reduced his flare-ups during the winter months. 

Klaus Hammes continued through the 1960s and ’70s, to adapt the air filter for other heating systems such as radiators, baseboard heating and forced-air heating and cooling systems. In 1982, Klaus Hammes relocated the company headquarters to Switzerland. 

If clean air is important to you, make sure to download the app available for iPhone or Android.