Enviro Policy

[pcpmitch]

German,

The train fares are not cheap, I booked over a month in advance and am travelling off peak. If you have to change trains or are not travelling to/fro London then it costs.

I personally think everyone should be forced to Park at the nearest town on a friday afternoon, local office park would be ideal and then coached.

You could enforce it by not telling people the location.

Imagine this year just being told to be at Carlisle Industrial Estate between 4 and 8 on Friday evening!

[Toreador]

Imagine this year just being told to be at Carlisle Industrial Estate between 4 and 8 on Friday evening!

Well that could be made to work I guess, the LAMM on Mull a couple of years back was a bit like that, we all parked up the road from the ferry terminal.  Thopugh of course the reason was different, ie the location is always kept secret.

But how much difference would it make to, er, whatever it is that it's supposed to be making a difference to.  Something related to climate change I expect.

Anyone travelling from north of the border would end up having to drive further than necessary.  Likewise anyone flying - you'd have to go to Manchester I guess, and Manchester to Carlisle is a longer onward journey than Glasgow to the event.

[pcpmitch]

If you are serious about environmental issues, I'm a Chartered Environmentalist and could provide all the necessary information to help you minimising environmental impact.

We could look at venues, travel arrangements, discounted travel by public transport, car sharing forums, carbon neutrality, sustainability and offsetting, etc, etc.

By far the major issues would be socio-economic, i.e. p**sing off the locals because of 300 cars up a road not designed for that traffic, which is an "environmental issue".

PS this isn't a fishing trip, would be gratis.

 

[Scotia]

...and hey presto, no more entries and no more OMM 

Are you really suggesting that if folks cannot drive to the event center then they wouldn't enter ? Not sure that would happen but surely if we don't change then there is a risk the OMM will disappear anyway ?

Maybe not comparable but I remember the whining from the pub owners when the smoking ban came in up here in Scotland and how everyone was going to go out of business ...funny but a few years down the line not only are the pubs still open but a hell of a lot more pleasant to be it ! Fear of the change is a powerful thing.

[Scotia]

The train fares are not cheap, I booked over a month in advance and am travelling off peak. If you have to change trains or are not travelling to/fro London then it costs.

What are you paying ? My pal got a deal from Bristol to Carlisle and I am fairly sure it was about £18 for a single - which I reckon is pretty good ..maybe even cheap !

[Toreador]

Are you really suggesting that if folks cannot drive to the event center then they wouldn't enter ?

The OMM is already one of the most expensive of the Mountain Marathons, and there is now another new one at a similar time of year.  If you make it more difficult, or more expensive, to enter, what will stop people just choosing a different event instead.

surely if we don't change then there is a risk the OMM will disappear anyway ?

Why?  Where is the pressure to change anything coming from?

[kimm07planner]

The way I see it, the biggest threat to any MM event is always land access. Negotiations for this take considerably longer than the planning process, although they can directly impact on it. European legislation, Landowners, Tenants, Environmental bodies, Commoners or Graziers, all usually impose 'considerations' on the event structure. The OMM, and the KIMM before, are lucky in having a number of unsung heroes who do this tedious task. Planning is a joy by comparison.

[Scotia]

ENVIRO and TRAVEL POLICY.
 
It was sad to note that we were accused in OMM forum of being dictatorial when the forum subject was clearly set up as a discussion prior to any decision. Travel to the event is the only part of our planning which does not take pro-active responsibility for the environment. If it were other we simply would not continue getting permission. So looking at the broader eco issues but without yet any external pressures (but they will surely come), we had assumed that fewer cars on the road would be an easily agreed good thing for country and planet.
Evidently not!
This forum discussion seemed to arrive at a strong majority wishing to be allowed total free action on how they would or would not arrive at the event and one even refuting global warming!   

Our problem is simple: we do not wish to reduce the numbers of competitors but it is getting more and more difficult to gain access to areas which have all the desired qualities;
direct access into the hills without a long run out and back,
under cover HQ so admin doesnít get wiped out by Howgills type storms,
mobile and landline phone and electricity
and of course free camping and parking for all.
Parking 1,300 cars, some of them twice, is difficult because of judging how/if the ground will or will not flood in October. It is quite some strain on the team responsible and without these unsung heroes staying up all night the event would have been in serious trouble several times in the past.
     
FINALLY we did decide to provide the following facilities in the hope that you will use them:-
ï   Parking in CARLISLE to enable car sharing or bus to event.
ï   The same buses meeting trains at Carlisle.
ï   The usual ëtow out of car park fieldí service.     

We quite understand that there will be circumstances where arriving 4 or eben 3 per car will not be feasible and our car parking people will not turn you away if you are less but please do your best.    There will be an online and a manual form/download for booking this transport.

WE WOULD APPRECIATE ANY IDEAS WHICH WOULD GAIN CONSENSUS ON HOW TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF CARS FOR THE FUTURE.   

Apologies if I was reading this wrong ...but I reckoned Mike's post was a indicator that the organisers were suggesting a change in current thinking was a positive step.

For what it is worth, I am happy enough with the current arrangement but that doesn't mean it is correct ...or sustainable. Maybe the introduction of the "other" event at a similar time of year will ease the pressure on the OMM naturally.

On a slightly different note - I wonder how many really good OMM locations have not been used because they cannot (or the landowners choose not to) provide parking.

[jofje]

Just for the moment, let's say there is some truth in what the latest Nobel Peace(!) Price winners, Al Gore and the IPC, have tried tell us...

In the UK, and here in Norway, we might not be that affected, maybe just a little bit wetter during summer and maybe a little bit shorter cross country skiing season for me, but further south, in less developed countries, matters look a little more grim...

In both our countries, we have put our trust in some few politicians to try to sort out challenges like this one. Of course we, as individuals, are allowed to act responsible without anybody telling us how to, but in a global matter like this, it think it is neccessary with a certain amount of talking amongst those politicians, trying to agree upon som kind of principles on how to make us change behaviour.

I don't know about you folks, but to me it looks that we have a long way to go, when I after som playing with numbers, can present the following "budget" for me taking part at the OMM this year:

-----------------------------------------------------------------Percentage of my total cost--------Percentage of my total CO2 impact
To/from airport UK (car hire + petrol)--------------------------------15 %------------------------------------------- 3,2 %---------------
To/from airport Norway (= 200 km public transport)--------------27 %-------------------------------------------1,3 %---------------
Flight Norway-UK-Norway----------------------------------------------32 %-------------------------------------------94,7 %--------------
Running the OMM Event (excluding kit ;-)----------------------------25 %--------------------------------------------0,8 %--------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even if Al & a few others are wrong, you could replace CO2 in the heading above with NOx, SOx, "Nasty particles", "Energy consumption" etc. and the numbers would change only slightly.

I would like to give credit to the OMM organisers for taking some initiative to indivudals taking some limited action, where the politicians lack the will and/or the ability to do it. The proposed changes may or may not have any positive effects, maybe some of them even negative effects, and they will certainly not save the planet on their own, but I'm sure the intentions were good.

And most important; i can't see any harm in the organisers posting some thoughts and proposals here on the forum. Best case scenario is that we can reach some kind of agreement on how to do some positive changes without increased costs and/or to much hassle. Worst case scenario is that we just have gained some knowledge about different views on the matter, in addition to making a few of us a tad more conscious.

But, wait a minute, just realised the worst case scenario: The organisers take a look at my calculations, and find that the most effective measure will be to ban foreign competitors...   

See you next weekend, where I'll do my best trying to convert as many gelly babies to CO2 as possible! 

[usmirf]

I agree with an earlier post that people aiming to travel by car mostly don't sort out arrangements until 10-14 days before the event. The two of us are getting a lift up from someone who was actively looking for people to join him as he didn't want the embarrassment of arriving at the event in a car on his own - so the policy is having some effect.

Our problem has been one of getting in touch with other competitors in our area. Through various clubs and contacts we have now identified 2 pairs flying and driving and a further 4 teams driving up. I'm sure there are even more. My point is, if there were a contact board by area or major town then finding these people would have been much easier. We might even have enjoyed training together or discussing experiences over a beer as well as the benefit of sharing the driving. If something could be set up easily I think car sharing would happen a bit more for its positive aspects rather than having to wave big sticks at people! You might even get enough people to take a minibus etc.  Social networking for OMM competitors anyone?? 

[Jas]

What are you paying ? My pal got a deal from Bristol to Carlisle and I am fairly sure it was about £18 for a single - which I reckon is pretty good ..maybe even cheap !

I can confirm, as The German's pal, that I paid £18 for my ticket, which is in fact a Glasgow ticket because there was a possibility of me meeting him up in Glasgow first. If I'd bought a Carlisle ticket, it would have been about £16! He takes a more hard line view than me on environmental issues, but I admire his forthrightness and I'm proud to be his pal!

The OMM is already one of the most expensive of the Mountain Marathons, and there is now another new one at a similar time of year.  If you make it more difficult, or more expensive, to enter, what will stop people just choosing a different event instead.

This sounds like healthy competition to me. It is funny how, the bigger events get, the more expensive they get. There don't seem to be economies of scale. There are in fact many instances were bigger actually means higher 'unit cost' from the business world, so maybe that's just the way it has to be.

However, I certainly don't think that we can use 'uncompetitiveness' as an argument for not tackling environmental impact issues. The OMM organisers ought to (and probably do) work hard the make the event attractive to entrants. Like most other 'markets' these days, there's no room for complacency in the MM marketplace.

Forcing people to lower their carbon footprint is difficult, verging on impossible. I still think carrots, subsidised from the OMM entry would help here. Coaches going from major cities would be fun; all that camaraderie and buzz on the journey up. Creativity and courage are called for I think.

Easing local environmental impact, however, should be straightforward. Keep the event centre secret and bus all people in, either from nearby 'park & ride' or further afield (give people plenty of options). Even if this lowers the number of entrants to the OMM, it doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't do it. Plus, it should expand the number of potential venues, so it's not all doom and gloom. Again: creativity and courage.

Jas

[cal]

I chose not to have kids. That saves MegaTonnes of CO2 over the next 70 to 80 years. I now feel free to drive my Hummer anywhere I choose!

[cal]

...and another thing....the kids I don't have won't become vegetarians or cyclists, therefore they won't fart so much, thus reducing atmospheric methane emissions, nor will they require the extra food and extra calories to sustain their efforts while cycling at around 15% efficiency as opposed to using decent modern diesel engine vehicles at around 40% efficiency. Nor will they need the extra weekly trip to the shops for the extra food (presumably in their inefficient petrol engined 4x4s, not to mention the extra trips to the dump to re-cycle the additional packaging on their extra food), nor will they need to keep the extra 100watthour freezer going to store the extra food they've bought to save the extra trip to the shops , nor need all those extra potatoes, carrots and cabbages to be transported from Suffolk to Northumberland (where they already grow quite nicely thank you), nor need to do the extra washing of their sweaty / soggy / waterstained clothing every week (just how do you get rid of that line of roadspray up the back of your jersey at 30 degrees C?).

No one seems to account for the extra power / food miles / detergent miles needed just to do the washing...but then maybe they don't wash anything anyway. After all, what's a bit of pong relative to world survival?

Obviously it isn't that easy. One thing though can be proven with simple sums: nothing has changed in the last 40 years - the sums in 1968 are the same now as they were then, just the absolute values have gone up...the relative costs haven't. The cost of saving energy is, and always has been, directly proportional to the cost of producing energy, simply because everything you need to use or build to save energy has to be created using energy. 

Even this year's key buzzword of going back to wood-burning for heating doesn't work - even if you can find the forests the cost of the fuel for the chainsaws has gone up and the cost of transporting the wood by road has too....better to burn the diesel for heat than cut down the trees, transport them, then burn them! At least we get the oxygen benefit from keeping the trees alive.

This energy cycle can only be broken by spending money now, on something that won't need replacing but will still give energy savings 100's of years in the future...ie..more than a lifetime of savings....such a thing hasn't yet been invented (apart from one or two hydro-electric stations and the tidal barrage in France). For instance... the solar water heaters installed 25 years ago no longer work effectively and have to be replaced,  the modern wind-turbines currently being installed have a projected life of less than 50 years, the current generation of wave-power devices cost 10x more than coal and won't last more than 30 years.

It is, and more or less always has been, that the nature of mechanical things is that they only last a lifetime, so any savings they make must be paid for within their life. Is seems that no-one has yet found such a device.

The net result at the current level of knowledge and technology boils down to a really simple thing to do...if you really want to save the world, don't have kids....let the cute litte bunnies have it instead...it will still be a very happy place in which to live....

ahhhh!