Should Winter Sports Venues Use Resource-Intensive Artificial Snow? (cnn.com) 120
The region around this Winter's Olympic venues "is in an extreme drought," reports CNN, though "even in normal years, it isn't particularly suitable for snow sports." In fact, it's the first year all the snow for the Winter Games has been created by a single company:
It is almost beautiful — except that the venues are surrounded by an endless brown, dry landscape completely devoid of snow. In an Olympic first, though not an achievement to boast about, climate variability has forced the Winter Games to be virtually 100% reliant on artificial snow — part of a trend that is taking place across winter sports venues around the world. Just one of the 21 cities that have hosted the Winter Olympics in the past 50 years will have a climate suitable for winter sports by the end of the century, a recent study found, if fossil fuel emissions remain unchecked.
As the planet warms and the weather becomes increasingly more erratic, natural snow is becoming less reliable for winter sports, which forces venues to lean more on artificial snow. But it comes at a cost: human-made snow is incredibly resource-intensive, requiring massive amounts of energy and water to produce in a climate that's getting warmer and warmer. Elite athletes also say that the sports themselves become trickier and less safe when human-made snow is involved.... "There have been recent technological advances that allow for the generation of snow when it is above freezing," explained Jordy Hendrikx, the director of the Snow and Avalanche Laboratory at Montana State University. "This is not your 'light fluffy' snow that you might think of — it is much denser and not very soft...."
Making snow demands significant resources, namely energy and water.... And with 1.2 million cubic meters of snow needed to cover roughly 800,000 square meters of competition area... the water demand at this year's Winter Olympics is massive. [According to a "Slippery Slopes" report led by Loughborough University in London on how the climate crisis is affecting the Winter Olympics.] The International Olympic Committee estimated that 49 million gallons of water will be needed to produce snow for The Games, which is a lot when you consider how rapidly the world is running out of freshwater. It's enough to fill 3,600 average-sized backyard swimming pools, or — more to the point — it's a day's worth of drinking water for nearly 100 million people....
The IOC does not face these challenges alone. Artificial snow is being used as a tool to extend ski seasons in competitions and at resorts across the globe, many of which are threatened by the warming temperatures of the climate crisis. These challenges will continue to drive the snow sports industry toward artificial snow when Mother Nature doesn't produce it.
But the question remains — just because we can, does that mean we should?
As the planet warms and the weather becomes increasingly more erratic, natural snow is becoming less reliable for winter sports, which forces venues to lean more on artificial snow. But it comes at a cost: human-made snow is incredibly resource-intensive, requiring massive amounts of energy and water to produce in a climate that's getting warmer and warmer. Elite athletes also say that the sports themselves become trickier and less safe when human-made snow is involved.... "There have been recent technological advances that allow for the generation of snow when it is above freezing," explained Jordy Hendrikx, the director of the Snow and Avalanche Laboratory at Montana State University. "This is not your 'light fluffy' snow that you might think of — it is much denser and not very soft...."
Making snow demands significant resources, namely energy and water.... And with 1.2 million cubic meters of snow needed to cover roughly 800,000 square meters of competition area... the water demand at this year's Winter Olympics is massive. [According to a "Slippery Slopes" report led by Loughborough University in London on how the climate crisis is affecting the Winter Olympics.] The International Olympic Committee estimated that 49 million gallons of water will be needed to produce snow for The Games, which is a lot when you consider how rapidly the world is running out of freshwater. It's enough to fill 3,600 average-sized backyard swimming pools, or — more to the point — it's a day's worth of drinking water for nearly 100 million people....
The IOC does not face these challenges alone. Artificial snow is being used as a tool to extend ski seasons in competitions and at resorts across the globe, many of which are threatened by the warming temperatures of the climate crisis. These challenges will continue to drive the snow sports industry toward artificial snow when Mother Nature doesn't produce it.
But the question remains — just because we can, does that mean we should?
Have Event Where The Snow Is (Score:5, Informative)
Seems like common sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess common sense is too much to ask from the Winter Olympics Committee.
Re:Have Event Where The Snow Is (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me know how you do at predicting where the snow will be seven years in advance. Oh, and you can't cheat and pick Northern Bumfuck, Alaska. You need a major city with proper infrastructure and financial backing, and you can't go so far north that you risk blizzard conditions. I'd imagine too much snow is actually a harder problem to solve than not enough snow.
Easy answers are not always so easy in practice.
Re: (Score:2)
If you KNOW there will be snow in bumfuck Alaska then build the infrastructure and expect to have it there from now on. Maybe use a second location in Tibet or The French Alps.
It stupid to keep moving it to places that don't have snow because reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow I feel like you've misunderstood the priorities of the olympics.
Re:Have Event Where The Snow Is (Score:5, Insightful)
Lining the pockets of the IOC and its corporate overlords?
Re: (Score:2)
Bureaucratic theft is a problem in many large projects, but it is never the purpose of the project.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I posted "never" in hope that someone else could think of an example and prove me wrong. Then I would be smarter.
Re: (Score:2)
First off, that's just outright wrong. Many corrupt governments start projects so they or their associates can steal money. It's not the most common reason, but don't pretend it isn't sometimes the main point.
Secondly- this is the IOC. It's pretty famously corrupt. At one point they may have had better goals, but they have long since been set aside in pursuit of money for the people running things.
Re: (Score:2)
Many corrupt governments start projects so they or their associates can steal money.
Give one example or gtfo.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, not going to play that game. Anything I say you're going to claim that the real reason way "X". Because there's always an "X" that they try to claim its for. Even when its as corrupt as giving the contracts to long term political allies, friends and family they have an excuse for why they're doing a project. They don't say the corrupt parts out loud. So we'll skip the game playing and just leave you looking like an idiot for claiming something so stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
You should have refrained from posting anything.
Re: (Score:2)
You think building all that infrastructure in a remote area that will never be used again would waste less energy? What is wrong with you people?
Re: (Score:2)
Um, It would be used for every time the event was held. Plus server as a tourist attraction the rest of the time. Geez, what is wrong with imagination? Did it get outlawed?
Re: (Score:2)
Maintaining all the infrastructure for the Winter Olympics that are only held once every four years is less wasteful than making fake snow once every four years? Again, WTF is wrong with you people? You really wonder why nobody takes your hot takes on the climate seriously?
Re:Have Event Where The Snow Is (Score:5, Insightful)
There are other upsides to a permanent location, regardless of needed infrastructure. For example, if the permanent location has natural snow guaranteed, then countries who do not get snow could have a place to send their teams to practice. There could, and would, be many acceptable and economical ways to maintain and use that infrastructure beyond just every four years. Permanent location would also have the typical tourist traps to generate revenue, museum of Olympic history for relevant events, art, souvenirs of different medal winners, blah blah blah.
It doesn't have to be REMOTE remote. It also doesn't have to be year-round guaranteed snow. It could be somewhere like just outside of Winnipeg (an example with easily referenced weather data) where there is existing nearby civilization and infrastructure to build off of.
The whole point of any of this is: "there are definitely better ways to do this, and the only reason they aren't happening is corruption"
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to weather, there are no guarantees. When we had the Olympics in Vancouver/Whistler, there was no snow at Whistler, pretty well unheard of and they trucked snow in.
Even the far north's weather is unpredictable and getting more so.
Re: (Score:2)
Sochi used snow from the previous year.
Re: (Score:2)
It would still be less wasteful than what's currently being done, which is building new infrastructure every four years in a different location, on top of not being 100% sure you'll have the proper weather conditions for the complete duration of the Olympics.
Re: (Score:2)
"Maintaining all the infrastructure for the Winter Olympics that are only held once every four years is less wasteful than making fake snow once every four years?"
I think Beijing is the first city to hold both the Summer and Winter Olympics.
London held three Olympics, and Paris and Los Angeles will reach their third by 2024 and 2028. 7 or 8 others held a couple of Olympics.
Basically you build all the Olympics infrastructure (villages for athletes and trainers and medical personnel, roads, venues, airport fa
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly haven't given this any thought. You expect crowds to come and observe the Olympics in "bumfuck Alaska"? Sorry, no, it's not financially viable.
Re: (Score:2)
What if you renamed the city? Would "Assfuck" be more socially acceptable?
Re: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with social acceptability. People just wouldn't go to some shithole. It needs to have touristy attractions or you'll never get attendance, and no money = no Olympics.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, those places picked rarely have “proper infrastructure and financial backing” in place anyway, as most bids these days are attempts to “rejuvenate” poorer areas and create new infrastructure and facilities - all paid for by new taxation on those who will “benefit” from the area being improved
Re: (Score:1)
So, how about we just get rid of these ridiculous Winter Games then? How's that for an easy answer? Use this time, money, and resources on literally anything else and it's instantly more beneficial to the world then these stupid games.
Re: (Score:1)
No. It's more of a "get rid of them since the many host cities are legitimately not of the appropriate climate to have them and otherwise devastate the local economies long-term in order to host" reason. I would have absolutely no problem with them, if they just choose a spot in which there were no fears of the climate changing in the near-ish future, build the infrastructure to have the games, and then just always have the games at that same location. This bullshit hopping around from city to city is bulls
Re:Have Event Where The Snow Is (Score:4, Informative)
While snowfall is unpredictable "seven years in advance", there are colder cities in China. We are not talking no-man-land in Alaska. We are talking multi-million cities such as Shenyang and Harbin. When one can guarantee the temperature is below freezing, even if the venue is still assisted by artificial snow, the snow won't melt and will stay more natural in texture.
China holding the winter games in Beijing is a political decision that disregard athletes' safety and benefit. IOC accepting such decision when China can choose better shows how corrupted the committee has become.
Re: (Score:1)
Olympic hosting bids are not about the athletes, and never have been.
You can say you'd rather China put in a bid to host in another city, but flipside is China is the one who put down billions in costs. That cash lets them decide which city in China is the host. Unless the IOC has lots of competing bids (which they haven't recently), there's only so much they can influence on location. For the 2022 olympics, it ended up between Kazakhstan and China -- choice was limited.
Re: (Score:2)
Michigan's upper peninsula has from 140 to 200 inches of snow right now. Seems like a safe bet. Split the events between Houghton and Marquette.
Financially it would make more sense to limit the venues to a smaller rotation. Have a half dozen sites in thoroughly snowy locations and rotate between them. Keep reusing the structures. Didn't Lake Placid in NY get used twice?
Re: (Score:2)
Even with half dozen sites, the Winter Olympics will repeat only after 24 years. Much of the infrastructure will need to be rebuilt (but it needs maintenance and rebuilding anyway).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me know how you do at predicting where the snow will be seven years in advance. Oh, and you can't cheat and pick Northern Bumfuck, Alaska. You need a major city with proper infrastructure and financial backing, and you can't go so far north that you risk blizzard conditions. I'd imagine too much snow is actually a harder problem to solve than not enough snow.
Easy answers are not always so easy in practice.
Actually it is fairly easy in this case.
Lillehammer, population 28k [wikipedia.org] hosted the Olympics back in 1994. Sure the games have grown since then, but there's no shortage of 100k+ cities that get consistent snowfall in February.
Now, if you want to hold Winter Olympics in places that don't have much winter... well then yeah, that's a problem. But as much as China wants to showcase Beijing it wouldn't be hard for the IOC to add "has winter" to the criteria for the selection committee.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or just not hold the Olympics at all, given the political horse trading they are used for (cant even limit that to “these days”, as the Olympics have always had huge politics involved).
The money could be better spent elsewhere, and the taxation and obligations heaped on local businesses and residents is disgusting, especially when viewed alongside the restrictions also placed on them.
Get rid of the Olympics, all versions.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, lets deny the political bullshit that the Olympics is, and try and make my point into “I want to cock block sports people for some reason”.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't ignore that athletics is a huge part of the Olympics.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, these accomplishments don't go on to further anything. The sport doesn't really evolve or anything as a result. Not to mention, getting denied their opportunity is humanity's general fault for denying the climate its ability to stay stable enough to allow these sports an easy, continued existence. Who cares if its snow skiing or maybe sand skiing? It's not like we are jailing the athletes. They still have just as much opportunities as they did before.
"But it's just not the same if it's not snow!"
Well,
Re: Have Event Where The Snow Is (Score:1)
False. In terms of total output their energy input provides and for the amount of time their energy input lasts. The Olympics last for what? Two weeks or something? Every 4 years yeah? Well for significantly less input, a video game can entertain even more people for longer. A large swath of the population can and have gotten over 2000 hrs of entertainment on a single video game. No single consumer has ever gotten 2000 hrs of entertainment from a single Olympics, let alone a single event.
Creating fake snow,
Re: (Score:1)
You can't be serious. How much energy is used to power all the game consoles turned on *right now*, much less the past several years? Face it, you're a hypocrite. You enjoy video games so can't ban those! But banning the olympics is OK because you don't enjoy that and you're just better than all those other people who do.
Hypocrite. This isn't even hard.
All the moralists who've railed against violence and misogyny in gaming never gained any traction. It won't be long until they stumble on the "environm
Re: (Score:1)
"All the moralists who've railed against violence and misogyny in gaming never gained any traction. It won't be long until they stumble on the 'environmental consequences' you idiots always use to ban things that don't effect you."
This statement here proves all I need to know about your critical thinking abilities and level of knowledge on either topic.
You are literally too stupid to argue with. You don't even have an argument outside of "we enjoy it, you enjoy that" on why it should continue. If there real
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of the late great Sam Kinison's comment on food
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: Have Event Where The Snow Is (Score:2)
Re: Have Event Where The Snow Is (Score:2)
Isnâ(TM)t Beijing the only city that would agree to host?
Re: (Score:2)
Until Norway pulled their bid due to a scandal surrounding the bidding process there were 3 contenders. Oslo (Norway), Almaty (Kazakhstan) and Beijing (China).
Ultimately, China was selected over Kazakhstan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Almaty is only slightly further north than Beijing and doesn't look like it gets all that much snow either. The average snow depth for Almaty in Feb. is 14mm (5.5in). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The great thing about snow, though, is that it melts. And then it flows back into rivers. Whence it may be extracted, purified, and consumed again.
So calling it water "consumption" is a little misleading. It's use, certainly, but temporary! There will be some loss due to evaporation, but surely the vast majority will melt.
It does consume a fair bit of energy, but that's a different problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
We don't want it, here in New York. We'll gladly sell you some snow, though. Cheap.
I've seen Cool Runnings (Score:2)
... hold it in Jamaica.
Re: (Score:2)
You should re-watch Cool Runnings. The bobsled team was from Jamaica but the Olympics were held in Calgary (Canada).
Yes, I know you were being sarcastic but what is my purpose being here unless I can stomp all over other people's joke comments. 8^)
Yes, we should. Why is the question even asked? (Score:1)
We should make fake snow if there's no real snow for the Olympics or any other sport. Is this question being asked because the author wants folks to look at climate change and wonder if driving their own car to work contributes to previously snowy nations being bereft of snow, thus forcing people to feel guilty about needing fake snow for sports that rely on it?
I answered your question, dear slashdot author. You asked "But the question remains — just because we can, does that mean we should?" Yes.
No
Re:Yes, we should. Why is the question even asked? (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with artificial snow is it has big environmental consequences:
1. Freezing machines produce lots of heat (at least as much as heat needed to freeze the water), affecting with the local climate even more. Part of the heat is compensated when the snow melts, but not all, and anyway messing with climates is not a very good idea.
2. The water for artificial snow is removed from local reserves (lakes, underground) useful to wildlife, while natural snow comes from the clouds. (Rain that replaced the snow when the climate heated but this does not mean the lake holds more water than before.)
3. Water from molten artificial snow has more ions and a different pH than natural snow. It's a different thing for local flora. Any change to local flora affects the local fauna as well.
4. Production of artificial snow uses additives which are not environment friendly (e.g. Snomax, already banned in some countries).
Re: (Score:3)
1. Freezing machines produce lots of heat (at least as much as heat needed to freeze the water), affecting with the local climate even more.
Seriously? How much does it warm the local weather? (Not climate, you already messed up there, conflating a temporary effect with climate).
I suspect you just made shit up there, and the warming effect of snow machines is essentially a rounding error. You don't have any numbers, you're making it up.
Re:Yes, we should. Why is the question even asked? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice. Your post should get modded up.
Re:Yes, we should. Why is the question even asked? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Snowmaking accounts for approximately 50% of the average American ski resort's energy costs," [Wikipedia "Snowmaking"], which we can read as: the introduction of artificial snow DOUBLED the electricity consumed (which is transformed into heat except for the fan rotation). It is indeed my extrapolation that doubling the heat produced on mountain areas must have some sort of effect on the microclimate.
Estimates: "it takes approximately 3.5 to 4.3 kWh of energy to produce one cubic meter of snow; however, this number can be as high as 14 kWh, or as low as 1 kWh per cubic meter of snow." [Wikipedia]. TFS says "1.2 million cubic meters of snow" Using the mean of 3.9 kWh/m^3, we find 4.68 MWh. Basic thermodynamics says this energy is transferred from one source to the other: when cooling the water into snow, the 4.68 MWh are sent heating the local environment of a short period of time (just before ski season), making the warm situation worse. Part is recovered when the snow later melts, but an excess +30% (1.4 MWh) which I assume as typical losses in compressor cooling are not recovered. We are actually heating the air, making everything even worse in the natural area around the resort.
It's same phenomenon as air conditioning: it cools a house but heats the city. From the US perspective it might appear that air conditioning is a normal thing everybody has (88% of households equipped, https://www.eia.gov/todayinene... [eia.gov] ), but it is badly famed in other places due to its large energy spending. For comparison, 25% households in France have air conditioning.
Re: (Score:2)
It is indeed my extrapolation that doubling the heat produced on mountain areas must have some sort of effect on the microclimate.,
You only have half the numbers you need to draw this conclusion.
How much did this change the temperature in the area? How much is received over this area by the sun?
You need to have good numbers if you want to draw these conclusions, otherwise you're jumping to conclusions. Which you did.
Re: (Score:2)
I can only speculate that your reaction comes from considering my message was to advocate the banning of artificial snow, while I was answering (as in the title) "why is the question even asked". I do think there is enough preliminary data to justify asking the question for a specialist with a research grant in environmental sciences to consider.
Re: (Score:2)
I can only speculate that your reaction comes from considering my message was to advocate the banning of artificial snow,
No, it's because your math is bad. This is a technology website, get your data right.
Re: (Score:2)
I can only speculate that your reaction comes from considering my message was to advocate the banning of artificial snow, while I was answering (as in the title) "why is the question even asked".
You're the one who made the assertion that snow making machines generates enough heat to affect the local micro-climate.
Frankly, that assertion feels fantastically wrong. Imagine a very light breeze of 1kph during snow making. That means that within an hour much of that heated air would have been blown 1km away!
I do think there is enough preliminary data to justify asking the question for a specialist with a research grant in environmental sciences to consider.
No there isn't. All you have is some out of context numbers, you don't even know if they're relevant.
Here's a fairly big additional factor you ignored. What's the affect of the increased albedo of t
Re: (Score:2)
3.9 kWh/m^3 times 1.2 million is 4.68 GWh.
Re: Yes, we should. Why is the question even asked (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The question is being asked for the same reason we might ask "As the Titanic sinks, should the band play music?"
Maybe the answer is "Yes" as you assert. That still doesn't mean that we're not fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
We should make fake snow if there's no real snow for the Olympics or any other sport.
I think we should cover the mountain in polystyrene bean bag bean snow, recycling is good for the environment.
Betteridge has an agenda. (Score:2)
There's plenty of natural snow, just not where they want it at the moment.
By the way, why do we even have Olympics? What for?
Someone should do a TED talk about this.
Needed to vent all that. I'm done now. Bye.
Re: (Score:1)
How much energy is wasted designing, producing and playing video games. Ban those, right?
Re: Yes, we should. Why is the question even asked (Score:1)
Significantly less. In terms of amount of input vs the amount of output.
Absolutely (Score:1)
People have to whine about everything. Enjoy your bug burger and glass of water.
China DGAF (Score:2)
49 million gallons is 49 acres of almonds' need (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The anti-almond sentiment is just silliness for the most part, manufactured because some people squash almonds into a white liquid that they drink instead of cow milk, and for some bizarre reason some people ha
Re: (Score:2)
I think the larger issue is the choice made to grow water intensive crops in a desert.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not arguing that almonds were the right crop. I don't know enough one way or the other, and I suspect most people putting forth their opinion also don't know. I'm actually pointing out that almonds get a lot more flak over the
Re: (Score:2)
Thought the same thing around the comment "3600 average-sized backyard pools". That's absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. There are 10 million residential pools in the U.S alone. And the Winter Olympics is held once every four years.
Money (Score:3)
Nonsense (Score:3)
The International Olympic Committee estimated that 49 million gallons of water will be needed to produce snow for The Games, which is a lot when you consider how rapidly the world is running out of freshwater.
This kind of comment could only be made by someone who has no clue how the water cycle works.
The link goes to water shortages in the Colorado river. Do they think somehow using water in China will permanently reduce water levels in the Colorado river?
Re: (Score:1)
Is it worth the energy to provide the world this entertainment? Does the commercial aspect add to or detrac
Re: (Score:2)
Is it worth that much energy to our race as a whole to accomodate the Olympics in their desirable yet highly politically charged form?
You're worried about the energy costs of the Olympics? Really?
This is a form of motivated reasoning, where you already don't like the Olympics, so you think of further reasons to dislike them. The energy costs are not a reason to dislike the Olympics, and water usage modifying the climate even less.
Re: (Score:2)
My nation's already dedicated to ensuring the world is uninhabitable by 2150
Also, you probably don't care at all, but this is an entirely unscientific statement.
So What (Score:1)
The amount of fake snow used for this event pales in comparison to the amount of snow made every fucking year for just about every ski resort. Get over it.
Re: (Score:1)
Cue the left wing circle jerk.
It seems fitting (Score:5, Insightful)
The competition is fake fair, with tons of doping for the past 40 years.
Hell, the Chinese hosting this debacle are fake at everything- freedom, human rights, even innovation there is fake and has to be stolen.
Yeah, fake snow feels right for the Olympics.
water and drought (Score:1)
Adding 49 million gallons of water to a drought stricken area is wrong?
pribably at lweast in a transition period (Score:1)
Some reform would be in order (Score:4, Insightful)
This way we wouldn't have the ridiculous building of multiple stadiums and an Olympic village every few years which are an enormous financially costly project. Look at all the former locations and you'll find many, if not all, abandoned. The countries that compete to host the games always think they will make a profit overall or at least it is a good PR stunt that will magically get in droves of tourists afterwards. This *never* happens. Hosting costs billions and pretty much always turns out to be a net loss. So it was really some prestige project by the people in power at the costs of nature and tax payer money. The only people that do make money is probably the building contractors. Rumour has it that the Sotchi winter Olympics, at a Mediteranean like location, was mostly a scam to extract billions upon billions from the Russian government into Putin connected oligarchs pockets for building things at inflated prices.
So building 2 locations, 1 for the summer and 1 for the winter Olympics would give the opportunity to build proper facilities and have a recurring event there would be a way better idea that what we are currently doing.
Re: (Score:2)
So building 2 locations, 1 for the summer and 1 for the winter Olympics would give the opportunity to build proper facilities and have a recurring event there would be a way better idea that what we are currently doing.
My proposal is to set the winter Olympics in Egypt. Sure you still have the artificial snow problem, but it's would be hard to beat skiing down the pyramids.
Chill out author (Score:2)
Chill out author, bitcoin uses a zillion times more resources.
Once upon a time.. (Score:2)
Post apocalyptic solution available now (Score:2)
Christ on a skiing stick (Score:2)
Inumeracy is like illiteracy, it's inability to understand large numbers, often in rhetorical contexts.
There are no shortages of reasons to be opposed to Chinese Olympics, but these aren't them.
The International Olympic Committee estimated that 49 million gallons of water will be needed to produce snow for The Games, which is a lot when you consider how rapidly the world is running out of freshwater.
No, it's not a lot when you consider that, innumerate rheroritician.
Artificial snow is superior (Score:2)
Powder is nice for recreational skiing.
Professionals want an ice slick.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
No. Because the Olympics should cease to exist.
We should not bother wasting resources for no reason on pointless entertainment.
Hold the event where snow exists. If not enough snow exists, for whatever reason, event is canceled until such times that conditions improve. Or create new events that work in the current climate.
The people who tune us out are SELFISH and were never going to listen anyway UNTIL it affects them personally. And for those with enough money, it will never affect them, so they will never
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For a lot of time, the Olympics were a "greater and greater show" - every edition with more and more (and more and more) participants - athletes, medical, trainers, support, TV channels, disciplines, ...
Maybe going back to simpler Olympics could be a better solution than "cease to exist".
Re: (Score:2)
The Winter Olympics are exactly that, the Olympics in Winter, not the snow/ice Olympics.
Maybe the Winter Olympics could be a technical event for teams to compete at removing co2 and methane from the air in the most efficient way.
Re: (Score:2)
Think of the Dildoes!!!