A climbers dilemma: How to cut footprint

By Susan Heller

Whether it be hybrid cars, the development of alternative energy sources, or calculating and offsetting one's carbon footprint, global warming is no longer a concern relegated only to scientists and tree-hugging hippies. The subject has become so pervasive in the last several years, evoking such a variety of fact-riddled opinions and studies about how to best love mother earth, that I have become paralyzed in all matters green. So, in an effort to overcome my paralysis, I recently decided to hop on the eco-bandwagon and sprout my own editorial.

Let's start with food. What's worse: purchasing organic food flown or trucked thousands of miles from grower to buyer, or buying locally-grown beef, which, according to a group of scientists at the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Tsukuba, Japan, accounts for more greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram than taking a three-hour road trip while keeping all of the house lights on? A simple solution might be to buy locally grown vegetables and forgo meat altogether. But what about the omnivore who enjoys the occasional hamburger or the person who can't afford the extra dollar a pound to buy organic apples instead of non-organic ones? And, to complicate matters, what about the issue of getting to the grocery store or farmer's market in the first place?

As a car-less Seattleite (with generous car-lending parents), I felt good - even proud - that I was helping the environment by using more leg power than horsepower to get around town. That is, until I read an article about Chris Goodall, author of How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, who posits that walking to the store may be worse for the environment than driving due to the higher total carbon output of the food needed to replace the walker's lost calories. The fine print and specific conditions in studies such as Goodall's make it hard to discern between significant and contrived findings. For instance, Goodall's equation only works if the aforementioned walker comes home and wolfs down a steak instead of a banana (or almost any other non-meat product), and drives a couple of miles to the store instead of across town.

After reading about Goodall's study and conclusions, I walked to and bought dinner at the Ballard Market out of deference to common sense.

Regardless of what's for dinner, as a climber I have struggled with the environmental implications of traveling to favorite climbing destinations. While getting around Seattle using public transportation is pretty straightforward, give or take a transfer or two, it's a little more difficult escaping to Index or Leavenworth for a weekend climbing trip via bus or Cannondale. Hence, send in the cars. Like much of the outdoor population in Seattle, most of my friends own all-wheel-drive vehicles to get them from here to there - "there" usually meaning some remote climbing or hiking destination. (One time while I was climbing at Stone Gardens, a local climbing gym near the Ballard Locks, one of the staff members hollered, "Hey! There's a Subaru with its lights on in the parking lot," just to see what would happen. Seven or eight people came forward thinking it was theirs.)

While some trailheads are more accessible than others, reaching many climbing and hiking destinations often requires the use of four- or all-wheel-drive cars. Call it aid adventuring-the need for petrol to reach one's destination-for all intents and purposes. And not that aid adventuring-or driving altogether-is necessarily wrong or that it endorses the use of Hummers to go into the backcountry (or anywhere else, for that matter), but nonetheless, it means that outdoor enthusiasts are contributing their fair share of carbon emissions to our atmosphere; no longer is the ozone hole above Antarctica "someone else's problem".

So what are some realistic ways in which environmentally concerned climbers, hikers, and adventurers can tread lightly, carbon footprint-wise, while still being able to climb, hike, and adventure? To answer this question, I decided to do a little of my own research, and came up with a few suggestions for keeping the "wild" in wilderness.

Invest in a roof top cargo carrier. After stuffing tents, climbing gear, sleeping bags, stove, first aid kit, food, water, and clothes into the car, it nearly takes an engineer to make room for climbers themselves. When my friends and I go on a climbing trip-whether for two days or two weeks-our gear alone often displaces at least one person. With a roof rack/cargo carrier, much of your gear can be stowed on top of the car, making more room for people and potential reducing the number of cars needed for the trip. As an added bonus, full cars mean carpool lanes, which, in turn, mean happy campers. Yakima makes several cargo carriers in the $300-$400 range (not including roof mounts and accessories). www.yakima.com

Sell your car, carpool, and/or use Flexcar. Starting at $10/hour, you can reserve and drive one of Flexcar's many Seattle-area cars. The hourly rate covers gas, insurance, and includes 150 free miles/day. Your company may even offer Flexcar discounts. For more details, see: http://www.flexcar.com/.

Reduce your carbon footprint in other areas. Although flying and driving are some of the biggest carbon-producing culprits, you can help keep the Emerald City emerald in other ways. If possible, invest in low-flow toilets and showerheads; save energy by turning off your computer and other appliances when not in use; swap out your incandescent light bulbs for compact fluorescent ones; support local farmers by shopping at farmers markets; reduce your overall consumption.

For water reduction information: www.drinktap.org;

To learn about low-energy appliances: www.energystar.gov/;

For compact fluorescent light bulbs: www.greenwoodhardware.com/;

For Seattle-area farmers markets: www.seattlefarmersmarkets.org/.

Research. Learn more about environmentally friendly practices that make sense to you and are feasible for your situation.

For a good start, go to: www.grist.org.