Turning the Ski Slopes Green

  • Ski resorts are one of a growing number of businesses trying to be more sustainable (Photo by Baileypalblue, source: Wikimedia Commons)

Back in February, President Obama proposed $150 billion to employ people in “green collar jobs.” The idea was to create jobs that benefited the environment. But he also wanted to boost the economy. A ski resort wanted to be one step ahead. So it hired a new employee to help its 2,500 acres “go green.” Irene Noguchi reports:

Transcript

Back in February, President Obama proposed $150 billion to employ people in “green collar jobs.” The idea was to create jobs that benefited the environment. But he also wanted to boost the economy. A ski resort wanted to be one step ahead. So it hired a new employee to help its 2,500 acres “go green.” Irene Noguchi reports:

(sound of rustling cans)

Ross Freeman crawls into a giant recycling container. His legs are sticking out.

He holds a long rake and shuffles the cans inside.

“We actually fill this thing up to the brim with recycling. Ends up being 2,000 or 2,500 pounds of recycling we send off the mountain every 10 to 12 days.”

(sound of mixing cans around)

This is part of his job. Ross Freeman is the eco-steward at Stevens Pass. It’s a ski resort tucked in the Cascade Mountains in Washington state.

His official title is “Environment and Sustainability Manager.” Stevens Pass created that position last year, when it wanted to make itself more eco-friendly.

John Meriwether is director of planning and environmental services at the resort. He’s worked here for 16 years.

“The ski industry has changed a lot. And really, the biggest change I think is them realizing how much global warming is affecting their business. The industry as a whole makes a lot of snow and one degree difference in the climate can change that.”

Meriwether says ski resorts are pushing more money into fighting global warming.

Stevens Pass pledged to offset all its emissions with energy credits. It’s the only resort in the Pacific Northwest that does this.

Ross Freeman’s work is on the ground. He drags out furniture that can’t go in the landfill. He recycles rubber wheels from the ski lifts.

“Then the next moment I’m up in the office designing a policy for vehicle idling, then I’m applying for grants, applying for industry awards, then I’m out in the food and beverage world, talking to cooks and chefs in the kitchens to figure out how we can be more efficient and waste less food.”

All this is part of the resort’s efforts to meet the national “green” standards. The National Ski Areas Association has 21 environmental guidelines it wants resorts to follow. It’s called Sustainable Slopes. The Ski Association says 190 resorts endorse it, including Stevens Pass.

Ryan Bidwell is the executive director of Colorado Wild. It’s an environmental group that grades ski resorts. He says endorsing the Ski Association’s Sustainable Slopes guidelines is different than actually following them.

“To be a part of the Sustainable Slopes program, a resort just has to say, ‘Yeah, we agree with these principles.’ They don’t actually have to take any action. Sustainable Slopes contains a whole laundry list of fantastic ideas that
resorts can and should be doing, but there’s no accountability in the program.”

Bidwell’s group grades ski resorts on everything from recycling to the effect on old growth forests. So how “green” was Stevens Pass on the environmental score card?

“Stevens received a ‘C’ because it has some expansion plans that would extend the resort into currently undeveloped areas and would impact those sensitive areas. So they lose a few points on that side.”

But Bidwell says hiring an eco-steward like Ross Freeman is a step in the right direction.

(sound of feet crunching the snow)

Freeman says there are only a few jobs like his. But he hopes more ski resorts will start hiring folks like him when they go green.

For The Environment Report, I’m Irene Noguchi.

Related Links

Capturing Carbon Dioxide From Coal Plants

  • This is an artist's concept of how the FutureGen coal-burning power plant would look. The FutureGen power plant would confine the carbon dioxide that it generates and store it deep underground. (Photo courtesy of the Department of Energy)

We’re hearing more and more these days about global warming and how human activity is believed to be changing the climate. A lot of the blame has gone to pollution from coal-burning plants that produce electricity. Now, the U-S wants to build a plant that would capture and store the pollution… if it can find the right site. The GLRC’s Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

We’re hearing more and more these days about global warming and how
human activity is believed to be changing the climate. A lot of the blame
has gone to pollution from coal-burning plants that produce electricity.
Now, the U.S wants to build a plant that would capture and store the
pollution…if it can find the right site. The GLRC’s Julie Grant reports:


The U.S Department of Energy is chipping in 750-million dollars to the
build what’s called the FutureGen coal-burning power plant, and a
consortium of power companies is contributing an additional 250-
million. That’s a billion dollars of investment.


It’s exciting to Craig Stevens. He’s a spokesman with the Department of
Energy.


“FutureGen could revolutionize the way we use coal in this country and
around the world.”


We get most of our electricity from power plants that burn coal and belch
out greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide. But Stevens says
FutureGen would be a cleaner coal-plant…


“And that’s important because today, we in the U.S have a 250 year
supply of coal reserves. It is our most abundant fossil fuel. These
electric plants actually burn coal to produce electricity for millions of
Americans. One of the things we want to do is to use this coal in an
environmentally sensitive manner.”


The hope is that FutureGen will capture the carbon dioxide it generates
to store it deep underground. Scientists plan to purify and liquefy the
CO2, so it’s a water-like substance. Then they want to inject it into the
earth. They plan to dig wells 9000 feet deep for CO2 storage. They also
want to use the space left behind from old coal mines, oil and gas wells.


Geologist Neeraj Gupta is with Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus.
He’s been researching what’s known as carbon sequestration since
1996…


“And that time this was just the beginning of an idea that you can take
carbon dioxide emissions from large industrial sources, you know, such
as power plants, and you can purify that, to make like a pure CO2s
stream. And, just like you produce oil and gas from the deep geologic
formations, you can take that CO2 and inject it back into the ground into
those same or similar deep geologic formations.”


Gupta says in the same way fossil fuels are trapped deep in the earth,
carbon dioxide could be trapped underground for millions of years, but
there are a lot of uncertainties.


Dr. Rattan Lal is director of the Carbon Management and Sequestration
Center at Ohio State University.


“Uncertainties are… is there going to be leakage? Either at the place
where it’s being injected or several miles away where there might be a
geological fracture in the rock strata.”


Lal says areas that have the right kind of rock layers and are not prone to
earthquakes, would be the best places to experiment with a project like
FutureGen.


Mark Shanahan is director of Ohio’s Air Quality Development
Authority. He thinks his state might be the perfect place because it has
the right kind of geology. At the deepest levels, the rocks aren’t entirely
solid. They’re porous, like a sponge, but with microscopic holes.
Scientists expect those tiny holes to absorb the CO2…


“The second thing is that that porous geology has to be beneath another
formation that is not porous, so the non-porous formation serves as a cap
on top of your CO2. So, once you put it into the porous formation, it
can’t go up.”


So the CO2 is trapped underground… hopefully permanently. Other
states, besides Ohio, think they also have good places for the plant.


The Department of Energy is currently reviewing proposals and plans to
pick a site by late next year. The agency wants to have FutureGen up
and running by 2012.


For the GLRC, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

CAPTURING CARBON DIOXIDE FROM COAL PLANTS (Short Version)

With concerns about global warming, the government wants to build a power plant that would capture emissions – if it can find the right site. The GLRC’s Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

With concerns about global warming, the Government wants to build a
power plant that would capture emissions – if it can find the right site.
The GLRC’s Julie Grant reports:


The U.S Department of Energy is chipping in 750-million dollars to the
build what’s called the FutureGen coal-burning power plant, and a
consortium of power companies is contributing an additional 250-
million. That’s a billion dollars of investment.


Craig Stevens is a spokesman with the Department of Energy. He says
there are 250 years worth of coal reserves and this project would burn
that coal without polluting the air…


“If we can find a way to use coal that has zero emissions into the
atmosphere through geologic storage – actually pumping the carbon
dioxide into geologic formations – we can go a long way toward using
this coal but also saving our environment.


Stevens says the DOE is looking for a site that is safe to store carbon
dioxide deep underground.


The agency is currently reviewing proposals and plans to choose a spot
by late next year.


For the GLRC, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links