But I also don’t think it makes sense to include this in a score.
I have not read through the rules now. But if it hasn’t been done, perhaps a passage could be inserted in which the activator, in addition to the generally applicable rules, also commits himself to making his activities as environmentally friendly as possible. He confirms this when he enters the database.
Otherwise, I don’t think the discussion is superfluous, but not very useful.
Of course, one should carry out one’s activities consciously; whether this is done by combining the trip with other errands (I do my shopping on the way home if possible) or by taking care to avoid game reserves during winter activities.
But I have the impression that the vast majority of people here are quite environmentally conscious.
The best environmental rule was COVID-19, but be patient, maybe COVID-21 will be more environmantal!!! I have activated only 2 summits until now. In SV association only 10 per cent of the written activators are active and of them just 10 percent are running the race. So we all protect the environment
The post suggesting zero points for all summits is the best option for environmental considerations.
SOTA and all aspects of recreational hill walking are entirely frivolous. From shoe leather to LiFePo4 batteries, there is an impact; however, you reach the summit.
Personally, I have a strong dislike of the normalisation of car travel. However, adding an environmental bonus would do nothing meaningful for the environment and might even be counterproductive.
Of course, I don’t believe in zero points, but the point is that minor tweaks to activities is, I am afraid, not the answer.
I am currently activating Gun G/SP-013. I drove here in my car. However, the journey is my travel to work anyway (and I am an ‘essential worker’). So I have not made an additional car journey because of SOTA. Do I get a green point?
Given the huge environmental (land and marine) and socio-economic impact of extraction of the raw materials for them and the current near-impossibility of economically recycling “dead” car batteries I reckon there will soon be another U-turn and they will be telling us to do the right thing and buy clean and environmentally friendly diesel cars again
The neodymium required for wind turbines also causes dreadful pollution. Given that we will need to erect over 1000 turbines a day, every day until 2050 to meet the current <1.5°C warming goal set by the ipcc, I would say that that will also create rather a lot of pollution, but we hear much less about it for some reason…
73 Matt
The thing to remember is that change is permanent. Neodymium is important now but who nows what battery technology may be like in ten years time? We can only be sure - and I do mean sure - that it will be different. Remember when transistors needed lots of germanium? Heck, most people had never heard of germanium, let alone indium for doping, but suddenly technology depended on supplies of it! A few years later and transistors were made out of sand! Ok, silica, but most sand is silica. I remember that a course that I did had as a set text “The limits to growth”, a report to the Club of Rome, where for instance the supply of mercury was forecast to come to an end by a projected certain date, causing technological problems . Well, here we are half a lifetime later and you can still buy mercury! Its uses changed. Technology moved on.
The trouble with predicting the future is that predictions are linear, whereas reality is bendable and jumps about unpredictably - creating new problems as it goes! Let us hypothesise that the problems of nuclear fusion are solved and cheap plentiful power becomes available (just like it was forecast to be at the dawn of the nuclear age!) - does that solve the problem of global warming? Well, CO2 pollution will reduce, and natural sinks will bring atmospheric CO2 down again - but what is the byproduct of fusion? Yes, helium, but the problematic byproduct could be…heat! Global warming mark 2?
To be alive is to live in crisis. We have to think our way out of problems without panicking. As the future bends and wriggles we have to navigate the curves a step at a time.
Not only the neodymium has an environmental impact. The huge rotor blades are made of fiberglass-reinforced plastic which is hazardous waste after demolition! No way to recycle this stuff so this goes either to the land fill or is burned.
Reading tipp: Gather information about the impact of cement and therefore the concrete basements of wind turbines.
In Germany after 20 years subsidies expire and without this bonus a 20 year old wind turbine is often not profitable anymore. Interesting fact: Getting the market price for electricity even by a payed off wind turbine is not profitable. So this complete business is based on subsidies.
So with the subsidies expiring many wind turbines are replaced by new ones in order to start the subsidy period, again. So several tons of hazardous waste every 20 years and lots of energy spent for the new wind turbine.
Doing a honest overall calculation of a wind turbine, it may turn out, it is not as green as investors and constructing companies are telling politicians. But that’s nothing, the population paying the bill for this profitable business is told for a good reason.
It would be impossible to use public transport here to get to summits, there is none. Nor bicycles except in a very few locations and even then would have to use a automobile of any sort to get near the summit so the bicycle could be ridden.
The great thing about SOTA is that you can set your own challenges, so perhaps aim to do a “green” Mountain Goat.
If you keep telling people about your progress here, awareness will grow and more people may try to make greener choices themselves. After all, social pressure is much more effective than rules.
As beer was a topic, can we include it in the award scheme somehow, please?
As I mentioned in an other thread: A bonus point for not uploading your log for saving server-power.
73 Martin
