•••
I have enjoyed nordic skiing for the past 55 years and have been dreading for several years the article in the Star Tribune "Making snow, from the groundwater up" (Dec. 12). Most skiers recognize that our ski season is getting shorter and warmer because of our changing climate. There are a few metro ski areas that have snow-making equipment to satisfy the needs of members of the ski community who are quite happy to do laps on any type of snow. Mother Nature has been very stingy this year, with December showing barely any snow so far and temperatures hitting 50s some days. Most skiers know that this is the new normal. The Star Tribune article states that using groundwater to make snow is not sustainable, nor is drawing down lakes to feed our skiing habit. In addition, it requires a tremendous amount of energy to run the snow-makers and machines to move and groom the snow.
Many skiers spend upward of a $1,000 to $2,000 for ski equipment, waxes and clothing, but how many skiers would agree that the current scheme is not sustainable? Would we be willing to pay a ski fee to cover all the snow-making and environmental costs? Perhaps we should use our energy and dollars to lobby for climate mitigation so that our children may perhaps be able to one day thank us for doing our part to save some remnant of a true Minnesota winter.
Mike Menzel, Edina
•••
To follow up the exchange of opinions about individual or social responsibility for climate change ("Yes, Virginia, you can trim a tree and still fight climate change," Opinion Exchange, Dec. 12, and "Pollution is our responsibility," Readers Write, Dec. 14): Project Drawdown and others have estimated, as well as I understand them, that about 25% to 30% of the needed drawdown actions for our current crisis can potentially be accomplished by voluntary action by individuals and households reducing their own carbon footprints. At least that would be so if we all agreed to do it, and all acted concurrently. That's a very big and unlikely "if." Obviously, the personal carbon footprint only gets us an inadequate part of the way to a desirable climate future.
The balance must come through our personal choices to influence government policy at every level, nonprofit initiatives, corporate choices and technological innovation. Our role as individuals is certainly to influence our neighbors by modeling the changes needed, but we could say it is at least three times more important to join in shared efforts to persuade and pressure corporations like British Petroleum and high-CO2-emitting nations, like ours, to phase down and out on oil, gas and coal use.