What does the proposed new gondola in Bozel say about the future of the ski industry, and our attitudes to climate change? I asked two friends and locals to exchange views - here's how it went down...
The problem of global warming will not be broadly fixed, if in the unlikely situation we cut out emissions globally to zero. We should think of changes to our climate as climate breakdown - regular patterns have been lost and will not just resume once we reduce emissions to zero. Sustainable growth is also a paradox. It is based on extractive industries. Something has to be extracted from the ground and processed to keep growth going. At present this model is causing crop failures, increase intensity of storms (a new category of hurricane is being proposed), large scale flood events, melting ice etc and this is having an uneven, and unfair, impact on the poor and marginalised societies. We HAVE to do things differently and building more stuff for the same reasons is pretty bullshit.
Storms intensifying, melting ice caps, flooding etc: these are a direct result of more CO2 in the atmosphere. Why would reducing the CO2 from the atmosphere not fix this?
Part of the reason is that the oceans have and are becoming warmer. Water has a high specific heat capacity and will take decades to release this extra heat. Even if we stopped emitting more greenhouse gases the temperature would therefore not decrease for a long time. Reduced sea ice cover and ice cover in general changes the albido. Less ice means more heat is absorbed instead of reflected back to space, increasing the rate of warming. There are various feedback loops like this. This is before the biodiversity crisis where extinctions are happening faster than at any time in history. We just can't go on with the same model of operation that has got us here in the first place.
However there is a major point in that if we reach that or even reduce emissions in the atmosphere, tipping points don't revert and not everything goes back to how it was e.g. glaciers would take many thousands of years to reform
Are we not all in agreement then that reducing CO2 as fast as possible is a good thing then? And bringing it back to the discussion at hand, which is an electric powered lift versus fossil fuel powered cars, where am I going wrong in thinking that one is better than the other? Or are we suggesting that the alternative is to just stop going skiing, snowboarding or mountain biking? If that's the case, then as I mentioned in the discussion, we on the left will just be ignored. What I'm advocating for - the lift - is the least bad scenario here. Can we keep this on the lift discussion. And if you think I'm wrong, can you explain why?
And yeah in this reply thread I was just trying to clarify what level of emissions we need to get to and how fast - gives us a carbon budget, which along with what technology we have defines what sorts of things we can still be doing. I'll try and formulate a fuller personal response to the lift question as a new comment.
This is such a great format for this kind of discussion! I loved reading this exchange. I love the format, but I also love how the chat moves from the local to the global depending on the point each person is trying to make. Thanks for taking the time to give us this insight. One thing I wondered, and I might be really wrong about this, but neither Gav nor Chris seems French, which means you're migrants (from Britain?) who moved by choice. That's totally fine - I mean, I'm a White Australian so I've no ground to stand on in terms of being a migrant! - but neither of you talk about the changes your own migration already wrought on the town in the past, which means your own "baseline" for community is what you found there and what you moved for. The point being, you've already been part of the changes happening there.
The chat reminds me of the question Matt posed at the end of the podcast ep on Yulex (which I only listened to today, so that's why I remember) about whether intention matters in why we make change, and how we decide on which kinds of changes to make. This discussion shows a few sides of that - ensuring economic growth and preserving "community". Coming from a small town that is now a world famous beach destination, I grew up with a close view of the kinds of damage "growth" can bring so I'm not on the side of business [I'm never on the side of business] but I also know that people have a right to access the beautiful beaches of the area. These days, I live in a very, very urban city, and at a time when the importance of blue and green spaces for our health is being argued so strongly, well, why shouldn't people want to access that?
With all that in mind...
There can be so much certainty in an economic argument because we know the grounds on which we're building your case; business, baby! [insert dancing emoji] But when we fight for community, it's sometimes hard to really articulate what we want to preserve and why. Is "the environment" or "the community" enough? I mean, yes! But I guess what I'm thinking of is the debate about a cable car on kunanyi/Mt Wellington in Hobart, Tasmania. A key opposition there is that the mountain is an important cultural site for Indigenous Tasmanians, who are already super generous in letting residents and visitors go up the mountain when they don't really want us to. Constructing a cable car on that mountain would be great for lots of reasons (the road is hectic!), but since it's opposed by Traditional custodians on cultural grounds, then it seems like a terrible idea to build it. But that cultural argument is about caring for Country, and thus ancestors, and thus people, and thus animals and plants, and thus all future generations. People are part of environments.
Anyway, I'm not sure I'm offering any useful input here except to say that I think it was really interesting to read and I really appreciate the time these guys took to write these answers. And I'm sorry for banging on, but you all made me think about intention and what we're fighting for!
I've certainly played a role in changing this community by migrating here and I guess it's hard to put a value to that action. You've got me thinking about whether I've had a net positive impact locally! That's actually really difficult to define, and I think even more so in a community that is constantly in flux.
What are my intentions in this community? This is home for me now, I have two young children, my intentions are to foster the space for debate about the future of this community, I guess slightly selfishly with one eye on my children's future.
I do find myself questioning whether my opinion is particularly important or valid in the local community?
I created a community space in the village, not as a means to share my views but as a venue to bring people together. I founded the charity and was involved in the setup but after that the community has gone on to develop the venue. Which is actually a core principle of the wider work I'm doing at the Re-Action Collective. I think right now we need to create a middle ground where people can meet and discuss. I don't think we particularly need to lead the conversation just to open up the space for it.
Maybe, there's a key bit that I missed from this conversation and it's to do with funding. The reason I left it out is that it is incredibly difficult to find the exact figures. From what I have read and been told, is that the funding from this project comes from regional public funds. My main intention is to open the space locally so that our community has a say and also the wider French public, as to whether that's a good use of that money.
This use of public money is justified by the business it will create. I think the main problem with this lift as a solution is that it's inequitable. It's equitable to make an extension of the free bus service, inequitable to install a lift that you'll need a pass to travel on. The people that can afford to visit Bozel to ski are in the top 1% of the wealthiest people on the planet.
With only 5% of the French population skiing is this an OK use of public funds?
I think it worth asking why aren't we putting public funds into helping the least wealthy people access the outdoors?
On the opposite side, you could strongly argue that this community can only remain here with infrastructure investment, and that my views would in fact disband the community. It's a very complicated discussion but, like you, I don't often find myself on the side of business.
What I feel is that our community doesn't really have a say in this decision, and that the business benefits will fall into the hands of the few. I'm grateful to Matt for giving us the chance to have this conversation and I hope it goes on to trigger more discussions locally.
I believe some of that discussion should include a whole group of life that rarely has a voice, the flora and fauna of the area.
I did write the following part in this process but it became too long and we needed to chop some out. Although, I do think it is relevant to your reply.
"We haven’t touched on how this lift will affect biodiversity. As humans we tend to have tunnel vision when it comes to the climate crisis. We think that we can solve all our problems by repeating the same actions just with greener technology. That has cramped our thinking.
Scientists have now mapped 9 planetary boundaries within which humanity can continue to develop and feel good in the future that include, the change in the biosphere integrity and land system change. Of the 9 we’ve currently crossed 6.
Whilst you would describe this project as small in planetary terms it will nonetheless have an effect on the local wildlife and the forest.
I live at the same altitude as the proposed lift, just a couple of kms away. Over the last month I have set up an animal camera outside my house. Turns out that there are deer, foxes, badgers, wild boars and even a wolf. At the moment they can pass through and onto the national park avoiding all human contact or barriers. Now obviously they can cross a lift line - it's not an impenetrable barrier - but it will disrupt their movements, and destroy habitat.
As humans we seem to believe that nature will bend to our needs, and we have forgotten that we are in fact nature and not separate from it."
As you say we are part of the environment. Personally I don't want to spend the next 10 years of my life living in a construction site, and right now I have no idea if the village feels the same.
I do know that my close neighbours are firmly against the lift. My next door neighbour still farms the land as a small holding, he's watched as the resort grows and just let it all pass him by. I reckon he could teach us a thing or two about what decisions we should make going forwards. And maybe the voice of that kind of elder is the voice we need to listen to?
More than anyone he can tell us how the local environment is changing.
Hey Rebecca, yeah we're both Brits. The town and area is pretty international because of the Three Valleys. And yeah you're probably right, probably most of us probably moved there because of the mountains. And from my perspective, there is a pretty good balance in the area between economy and nature - we have the incredible Parc National de la Vanoise next door to Bozel - probably France's best national park. I completely agree with you about how migration changes the town already. Probably if we spoke to the older locals they'd prefer that all the international residents weren't there. By buying in the town we - the royal "we" - all the incoming migrants - have already pushed the house prices up. Bozel is not by any stretch of the imagination a cheap place to live. 15 years ago it was much more affordable. So as you've pointed out, how can anyone really say "now is the point in time for things to stay as they are". Anyway, I did also want to point out that Gav is a total legend in town and his shop One Tree at a Time - find them on Instagram - is unbelievably cool. It was really nice of Matt to put this format together, and it's interesting to hear people's reaction to it! Thanks!
Thanks for the kind words Chris. From my experiences at the community space parts of the older community are very happy that we're here. Many call in daily for a chat and enjoy having a space to meet and talk in the village. They often talk about how it's good to have younger people in the valley. I'm a sucker for a coffee at the Cool Heure Cafe. Basically because it has the most random bunch of customers, all nationalities and ages, and everyone chats, it helps if you take a dog or children in, as it starts conversations. I really enjoy the sense of community here and I think in modern life that can be hard to find.
Sure there will be some people that would rather we weren't here but I do think that is a minority.
I meant more in the discussion of house prices and stuff like that. You mentioned in earlier messages that one of the arguments against the lift was that house prices would go up. I was just saying that that's already happened and that "we" incomers are principally the cause of that. But yeah on the subject of whether the older locals are happy, then yes, I agree with you. My neighbours are super cool, and they generally like the energy that's come from younger families moving in. I guess the question is, how can we continue to support these families without a thriving economy? From a personal viewpoint, I rely on the ski industry to pay my bills.
Thanks for these very thoughtful replies, you guys. I know I wasn't really posing any particular questions, just raising additional complexities. I suppose by now it's clear that I think a lot about the politics of authority, community, belonging, localism, etc as they relate to how we relate to and care for places, so I really appreciate your additional reflections on how we play roles in the politics of places too. Of course, those politics shift across contexts - Australia is very different to the French alps! - so you will know much more about that in Bozel than I could ever do.
As Chris keeps pointing out, we're pulling in the same big-picture direction, but this is a great example of the kinds of decisions that impact that along the way. And also a great example of how those discussions can be held in a way that is respectful and care-filled.
Overall really tricky one and the exact type of decision where a full on 'Systems Thinking' based approach is really needed to deal with the complexities to work out what really is the best solution both for the residents and the environment. (Some info on what that is here https://www.foundation.org.uk/Blog/2021/Systems-thinking-the-key-to-getting-net-zero-right )
I'm shocked it sounds like Gav feels there'd be no or hugely insufficient proper consultation with surveys etc on a project of that size and spend especially if it's with public funding, is that the case?? There should be a participatory decision making for something that size, and it would include a study on numbers using it, wildlife disturbance etc.
Generally ski lifts are a great low-carbon method of transport, but it's a big IF on the longevity of use being enough to give 'payback' on the manufacturing carbon given what climate change will do - and here adds even more complexity as this depends on how well we get on globally with fighting climate change.
The planning process also ideally needs clear national and regional plans for what sustainable tourism in the region looks like in 10-20 years and building with that in mind...
Given the trends of snowfall and 3 Valleys being one of the highest ski resorts, a lift here to expand usage of this resort, could possibly better for the environment than lots of new, higher lifts & runs in other ski resorts, for a given overall assumed demand for ski days, for example. But I feel the major split here is Gav would prefer alpine skiing to have a managed decline because of its impacts, whereas Chris is less convinced of that need? Quite a personal one that - we need to make huge strides in the next decade but it's the flights that need addressing via government intervention, if a ski resort doesn't expand the skiers would probably just go elsewhere...
COULD we have really decently sustainable resorts by 2030-40, yes, will we? We need to push the industry hard and ideally get governments to make it happen across all society by for the love of god STOP DRILLING FOR MORE FOSSIL FUELS.
Having the clear national idea to try to get the sustainability right at a big scale wouldn't necessarily mollify people in this community that didn't want it to become more expensive pushing people out (but given the location a degree of this may be inevitable). Affordable accommodation at desirable resorts is clearly a huge problem. As a personal note I found it was already really hard for workers in Whistler when I did a season there in 2015, and loads more of the cheaper blocks have since been turned into mansions, so it must be crazy now.
One issue raised with the bus vs lift was the bus being free, but not the lift - could the lift be made free for locals (push for this in consultation)? Albeit it only gets you to 1 place - but if that's your commute that's useful. And a survey seems required to see if a bus would take cars off the road vs how many a lift would.
Interesting views on gravity vs non gravity sports. I would suggest *more* people walk and do cross country cycling and other non gravity sports than downhill cycling and probably even skiing - and many are keen to do so in epic mountain scenery. But what these sports are willing to spend on mountain trips, and particularly on lift tickets, is clearly much lower! So a shift to these as snowfall worsens will spell the end of many lower resorts lifts operations, as we're already seeing in so many cases. But not necessarily all tourism to an area...
What can be done to make lifts more useful to actual locals and people doing their job?
Gav made good point in DM reply about the opening times of the lifts and it's something I've heard before, even quite a lot from instructors not able to get up the hill early enough to meet students at the right place - so they drive. It seems like the hourly operating costs of the lifts once installed shouldn't be that high and those that are more access to resort itself lifts like the proposed one (plenty already exist) should open slightly earlier/later to workers. Unfortunately they wouldn't do this without some strong pushing from those wanting it it seems. I haven't figured out a good way to help this, it's a bit too location specific to make a large scale campaign on I think? Identify a specific instance to support as a case study maybe? Or in bozel would extended opening hours make it more of a genuine commuting option locally so could be something to push for if it does go ahead Gav?
Here's my issue with this approach. The lift is not being added to cut commuting for workers. Courchevel is spread across 6 villages at different levels. This lift goes from A to B. Chris talked about convenience, I've used the bus to get work, it leaves from outside my house and goes to the level I work and drops me outside the door. When the new lift is in, I'll need to get in my car, drive to the lift, pay to park and then when I get to the top of the lift get on the bus.
In the 18 years I've lived here not one of my jobs would work with this lift, even if it ran earlier or later. I've started shifts at 7am and finished at 11pm, I would rather just get in the bus, than have to change to lift, then car.
And this is the same for most of my friends. They work in bars, chalets, shops and this lift will not be used as a commute. I know of some ski instructors that this lift will work for but they already take the bus. Like you say they will also have issues at the top getting to the level they're working from in time.
The best way to reduce the emissions of commuting is a better bus service, and increased resort parking charges. You could also add a toll to the road, increase parking down the valley and add a park and ride service, if you really wanted to take vehicles off the road.
On top of that if we turn Bozel into a tourist holiday destination then the workers are forced down the hill to Moutiers (which is already happening) where they then have a longer commute, that isn't serviced by a bus.
I'm all for addressing commuting emissions but this isn't what this project is designed to do. It's purpose is to open Bozel up the Olympic games.
The lift will definitely take some visitor vehicles of the road. They're only adding 200 parking spaces though and taking away the parking that already exists. Over 6k vehicles travel up the road daily.
I think this conversation is interesting because if you forget about the details it is ultimately about growth Vs a managed degrowth. Are we living in a world where we can continue to grow tourism whilst providing a survivable planet?
Ah you're right, because I don't know the local situation I'm getting pulled away from Bozel lift debate onto general ideas. It's just a shame sustainability wise for lifts that will be built to not run as long as possible to have maximum use made of them and one I'd like to explore more re instructors elsewhere.
So on the growth/Degrowth - as I was leading to a bit in my first post. I think the main problem is working on a local scale, against pressures at a national+ level. That is, even if the number of people wanting to ski drops significantly, climate change is shutting low resorts left and right so looks like supply will drop even faster than demand.
So it looks like Bozel is in a location where it just will get busier and more expensive due to 3 valleys proximity,
(let alone the Olympics on top which will be hard to do anything about now. And it's an interesting idea to force the Winter Olympics to be in the same venues in rotation I saw in Sam's other article and even deliberately let in-person spectating drop would be better for environment and stopping unnecessary development! )
That doesn't mean leaning into it with a new lift is a good idea especially for those living there. But for the environment stopping more cars doing Bozel-resort and similar journeys is becoming critical. Improved bus may not be enough as Chris pointed out. One that surveys/local discussions could help understand. Other serious measures might be... big parking pricing increases / spaces caps? Sounds like locally that ones heading in the wrong direction currently!? Would the local populace accept it?
Discussing growth/degrowth (I don't love using that term as it is divisive) is in my opinion why this story in Bozel matters on a wider scale.
Living here I'm experiencing what I would term the "shitification" of skiing. It rains more often, the slopes are busier as we have less resorts to ski in and shorter seasons, the lift prices keep rising, the food and drinks on the mountain are expensive and come with terrible service, the road is getting busier, it's difficult to live here with rising costs, loads of emissions are being generated on travel and construction, and the future of skiing is more of that.
All of this is so that the elite can ski. I think we need to recognise that even if we can keep skiing for the next 20 years, (from my experience living here I do not think that is possible) this is the direction of travel, and we have to start questioning if that is in fact worthwhile?
We're edging towards a point where locals live here just to serve the elites, without the perks. I have friends that cannot afford season passes now.
I love skiing and living here, and these are not easy ideas to think through but, I believe we desperately need new ways of thinking. I don't think stopping Bozel/resort journeys is the critical problem here, we're at a point when only the rich can ski in Courchevel and they'll take all the convenient options of driving up the road, lift or no lift.
I think the critical problem we're facing is an existential crisis for skiing, and a bury your head in the sand approach to the problem, rooted in denialism.
I would describe the Olympic plans as wildly hopeful. The piste here that would be used for the Olympics briefly opened for a few weeks in Jan, outside of that it's been closed due to a lack of snow. In 2030 they'll probably run the snow cannons non stop to make the event happen but, I would question if that is worth it? There is a point when these events in fact highlight the fragility of the resort, rather than showcase it. The Olympics is already seen as not financially worthwhile for the host country, it'll be even less so in 7 years time.
The problem of global warming will not be broadly fixed, if in the unlikely situation we cut out emissions globally to zero. We should think of changes to our climate as climate breakdown - regular patterns have been lost and will not just resume once we reduce emissions to zero. Sustainable growth is also a paradox. It is based on extractive industries. Something has to be extracted from the ground and processed to keep growth going. At present this model is causing crop failures, increase intensity of storms (a new category of hurricane is being proposed), large scale flood events, melting ice etc and this is having an uneven, and unfair, impact on the poor and marginalised societies. We HAVE to do things differently and building more stuff for the same reasons is pretty bullshit.
Storms intensifying, melting ice caps, flooding etc: these are a direct result of more CO2 in the atmosphere. Why would reducing the CO2 from the atmosphere not fix this?
Part of the reason is that the oceans have and are becoming warmer. Water has a high specific heat capacity and will take decades to release this extra heat. Even if we stopped emitting more greenhouse gases the temperature would therefore not decrease for a long time. Reduced sea ice cover and ice cover in general changes the albido. Less ice means more heat is absorbed instead of reflected back to space, increasing the rate of warming. There are various feedback loops like this. This is before the biodiversity crisis where extinctions are happening faster than at any time in history. We just can't go on with the same model of operation that has got us here in the first place.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached/ as far as I know the UN level science largely suggests changes should stop getting worse if we hit net zero - as long as it's 'geological' net zero as in not new methane leaks from nature causing us to spiral feedback loop.
However there is a major point in that if we reach that or even reduce emissions in the atmosphere, tipping points don't revert and not everything goes back to how it was e.g. glaciers would take many thousands of years to reform
Are we not all in agreement then that reducing CO2 as fast as possible is a good thing then? And bringing it back to the discussion at hand, which is an electric powered lift versus fossil fuel powered cars, where am I going wrong in thinking that one is better than the other? Or are we suggesting that the alternative is to just stop going skiing, snowboarding or mountain biking? If that's the case, then as I mentioned in the discussion, we on the left will just be ignored. What I'm advocating for - the lift - is the least bad scenario here. Can we keep this on the lift discussion. And if you think I'm wrong, can you explain why?
(Some things would continue e.g. sea level rise)
And yeah in this reply thread I was just trying to clarify what level of emissions we need to get to and how fast - gives us a carbon budget, which along with what technology we have defines what sorts of things we can still be doing. I'll try and formulate a fuller personal response to the lift question as a new comment.
This is such a great format for this kind of discussion! I loved reading this exchange. I love the format, but I also love how the chat moves from the local to the global depending on the point each person is trying to make. Thanks for taking the time to give us this insight. One thing I wondered, and I might be really wrong about this, but neither Gav nor Chris seems French, which means you're migrants (from Britain?) who moved by choice. That's totally fine - I mean, I'm a White Australian so I've no ground to stand on in terms of being a migrant! - but neither of you talk about the changes your own migration already wrought on the town in the past, which means your own "baseline" for community is what you found there and what you moved for. The point being, you've already been part of the changes happening there.
The chat reminds me of the question Matt posed at the end of the podcast ep on Yulex (which I only listened to today, so that's why I remember) about whether intention matters in why we make change, and how we decide on which kinds of changes to make. This discussion shows a few sides of that - ensuring economic growth and preserving "community". Coming from a small town that is now a world famous beach destination, I grew up with a close view of the kinds of damage "growth" can bring so I'm not on the side of business [I'm never on the side of business] but I also know that people have a right to access the beautiful beaches of the area. These days, I live in a very, very urban city, and at a time when the importance of blue and green spaces for our health is being argued so strongly, well, why shouldn't people want to access that?
With all that in mind...
There can be so much certainty in an economic argument because we know the grounds on which we're building your case; business, baby! [insert dancing emoji] But when we fight for community, it's sometimes hard to really articulate what we want to preserve and why. Is "the environment" or "the community" enough? I mean, yes! But I guess what I'm thinking of is the debate about a cable car on kunanyi/Mt Wellington in Hobart, Tasmania. A key opposition there is that the mountain is an important cultural site for Indigenous Tasmanians, who are already super generous in letting residents and visitors go up the mountain when they don't really want us to. Constructing a cable car on that mountain would be great for lots of reasons (the road is hectic!), but since it's opposed by Traditional custodians on cultural grounds, then it seems like a terrible idea to build it. But that cultural argument is about caring for Country, and thus ancestors, and thus people, and thus animals and plants, and thus all future generations. People are part of environments.
Anyway, I'm not sure I'm offering any useful input here except to say that I think it was really interesting to read and I really appreciate the time these guys took to write these answers. And I'm sorry for banging on, but you all made me think about intention and what we're fighting for!
Hi Rebecca, thanks for the interesting comment.
I've certainly played a role in changing this community by migrating here and I guess it's hard to put a value to that action. You've got me thinking about whether I've had a net positive impact locally! That's actually really difficult to define, and I think even more so in a community that is constantly in flux.
What are my intentions in this community? This is home for me now, I have two young children, my intentions are to foster the space for debate about the future of this community, I guess slightly selfishly with one eye on my children's future.
I do find myself questioning whether my opinion is particularly important or valid in the local community?
I created a community space in the village, not as a means to share my views but as a venue to bring people together. I founded the charity and was involved in the setup but after that the community has gone on to develop the venue. Which is actually a core principle of the wider work I'm doing at the Re-Action Collective. I think right now we need to create a middle ground where people can meet and discuss. I don't think we particularly need to lead the conversation just to open up the space for it.
Maybe, there's a key bit that I missed from this conversation and it's to do with funding. The reason I left it out is that it is incredibly difficult to find the exact figures. From what I have read and been told, is that the funding from this project comes from regional public funds. My main intention is to open the space locally so that our community has a say and also the wider French public, as to whether that's a good use of that money.
This use of public money is justified by the business it will create. I think the main problem with this lift as a solution is that it's inequitable. It's equitable to make an extension of the free bus service, inequitable to install a lift that you'll need a pass to travel on. The people that can afford to visit Bozel to ski are in the top 1% of the wealthiest people on the planet.
With only 5% of the French population skiing is this an OK use of public funds?
I think it worth asking why aren't we putting public funds into helping the least wealthy people access the outdoors?
On the opposite side, you could strongly argue that this community can only remain here with infrastructure investment, and that my views would in fact disband the community. It's a very complicated discussion but, like you, I don't often find myself on the side of business.
What I feel is that our community doesn't really have a say in this decision, and that the business benefits will fall into the hands of the few. I'm grateful to Matt for giving us the chance to have this conversation and I hope it goes on to trigger more discussions locally.
I believe some of that discussion should include a whole group of life that rarely has a voice, the flora and fauna of the area.
I did write the following part in this process but it became too long and we needed to chop some out. Although, I do think it is relevant to your reply.
"We haven’t touched on how this lift will affect biodiversity. As humans we tend to have tunnel vision when it comes to the climate crisis. We think that we can solve all our problems by repeating the same actions just with greener technology. That has cramped our thinking.
Scientists have now mapped 9 planetary boundaries within which humanity can continue to develop and feel good in the future that include, the change in the biosphere integrity and land system change. Of the 9 we’ve currently crossed 6.
Whilst you would describe this project as small in planetary terms it will nonetheless have an effect on the local wildlife and the forest.
I live at the same altitude as the proposed lift, just a couple of kms away. Over the last month I have set up an animal camera outside my house. Turns out that there are deer, foxes, badgers, wild boars and even a wolf. At the moment they can pass through and onto the national park avoiding all human contact or barriers. Now obviously they can cross a lift line - it's not an impenetrable barrier - but it will disrupt their movements, and destroy habitat.
As humans we seem to believe that nature will bend to our needs, and we have forgotten that we are in fact nature and not separate from it."
As you say we are part of the environment. Personally I don't want to spend the next 10 years of my life living in a construction site, and right now I have no idea if the village feels the same.
I do know that my close neighbours are firmly against the lift. My next door neighbour still farms the land as a small holding, he's watched as the resort grows and just let it all pass him by. I reckon he could teach us a thing or two about what decisions we should make going forwards. And maybe the voice of that kind of elder is the voice we need to listen to?
More than anyone he can tell us how the local environment is changing.
Hey Rebecca, yeah we're both Brits. The town and area is pretty international because of the Three Valleys. And yeah you're probably right, probably most of us probably moved there because of the mountains. And from my perspective, there is a pretty good balance in the area between economy and nature - we have the incredible Parc National de la Vanoise next door to Bozel - probably France's best national park. I completely agree with you about how migration changes the town already. Probably if we spoke to the older locals they'd prefer that all the international residents weren't there. By buying in the town we - the royal "we" - all the incoming migrants - have already pushed the house prices up. Bozel is not by any stretch of the imagination a cheap place to live. 15 years ago it was much more affordable. So as you've pointed out, how can anyone really say "now is the point in time for things to stay as they are". Anyway, I did also want to point out that Gav is a total legend in town and his shop One Tree at a Time - find them on Instagram - is unbelievably cool. It was really nice of Matt to put this format together, and it's interesting to hear people's reaction to it! Thanks!
Thanks for the kind words Chris. From my experiences at the community space parts of the older community are very happy that we're here. Many call in daily for a chat and enjoy having a space to meet and talk in the village. They often talk about how it's good to have younger people in the valley. I'm a sucker for a coffee at the Cool Heure Cafe. Basically because it has the most random bunch of customers, all nationalities and ages, and everyone chats, it helps if you take a dog or children in, as it starts conversations. I really enjoy the sense of community here and I think in modern life that can be hard to find.
Sure there will be some people that would rather we weren't here but I do think that is a minority.
I meant more in the discussion of house prices and stuff like that. You mentioned in earlier messages that one of the arguments against the lift was that house prices would go up. I was just saying that that's already happened and that "we" incomers are principally the cause of that. But yeah on the subject of whether the older locals are happy, then yes, I agree with you. My neighbours are super cool, and they generally like the energy that's come from younger families moving in. I guess the question is, how can we continue to support these families without a thriving economy? From a personal viewpoint, I rely on the ski industry to pay my bills.
Thanks for these very thoughtful replies, you guys. I know I wasn't really posing any particular questions, just raising additional complexities. I suppose by now it's clear that I think a lot about the politics of authority, community, belonging, localism, etc as they relate to how we relate to and care for places, so I really appreciate your additional reflections on how we play roles in the politics of places too. Of course, those politics shift across contexts - Australia is very different to the French alps! - so you will know much more about that in Bozel than I could ever do.
As Chris keeps pointing out, we're pulling in the same big-picture direction, but this is a great example of the kinds of decisions that impact that along the way. And also a great example of how those discussions can be held in a way that is respectful and care-filled.
Overall really tricky one and the exact type of decision where a full on 'Systems Thinking' based approach is really needed to deal with the complexities to work out what really is the best solution both for the residents and the environment. (Some info on what that is here https://www.foundation.org.uk/Blog/2021/Systems-thinking-the-key-to-getting-net-zero-right )
I'm shocked it sounds like Gav feels there'd be no or hugely insufficient proper consultation with surveys etc on a project of that size and spend especially if it's with public funding, is that the case?? There should be a participatory decision making for something that size, and it would include a study on numbers using it, wildlife disturbance etc.
Generally ski lifts are a great low-carbon method of transport, but it's a big IF on the longevity of use being enough to give 'payback' on the manufacturing carbon given what climate change will do - and here adds even more complexity as this depends on how well we get on globally with fighting climate change.
The planning process also ideally needs clear national and regional plans for what sustainable tourism in the region looks like in 10-20 years and building with that in mind...
Given the trends of snowfall and 3 Valleys being one of the highest ski resorts, a lift here to expand usage of this resort, could possibly better for the environment than lots of new, higher lifts & runs in other ski resorts, for a given overall assumed demand for ski days, for example. But I feel the major split here is Gav would prefer alpine skiing to have a managed decline because of its impacts, whereas Chris is less convinced of that need? Quite a personal one that - we need to make huge strides in the next decade but it's the flights that need addressing via government intervention, if a ski resort doesn't expand the skiers would probably just go elsewhere...
COULD we have really decently sustainable resorts by 2030-40, yes, will we? We need to push the industry hard and ideally get governments to make it happen across all society by for the love of god STOP DRILLING FOR MORE FOSSIL FUELS.
Having the clear national idea to try to get the sustainability right at a big scale wouldn't necessarily mollify people in this community that didn't want it to become more expensive pushing people out (but given the location a degree of this may be inevitable). Affordable accommodation at desirable resorts is clearly a huge problem. As a personal note I found it was already really hard for workers in Whistler when I did a season there in 2015, and loads more of the cheaper blocks have since been turned into mansions, so it must be crazy now.
One issue raised with the bus vs lift was the bus being free, but not the lift - could the lift be made free for locals (push for this in consultation)? Albeit it only gets you to 1 place - but if that's your commute that's useful. And a survey seems required to see if a bus would take cars off the road vs how many a lift would.
Interesting views on gravity vs non gravity sports. I would suggest *more* people walk and do cross country cycling and other non gravity sports than downhill cycling and probably even skiing - and many are keen to do so in epic mountain scenery. But what these sports are willing to spend on mountain trips, and particularly on lift tickets, is clearly much lower! So a shift to these as snowfall worsens will spell the end of many lower resorts lifts operations, as we're already seeing in so many cases. But not necessarily all tourism to an area...
What can be done to make lifts more useful to actual locals and people doing their job?
Gav made good point in DM reply about the opening times of the lifts and it's something I've heard before, even quite a lot from instructors not able to get up the hill early enough to meet students at the right place - so they drive. It seems like the hourly operating costs of the lifts once installed shouldn't be that high and those that are more access to resort itself lifts like the proposed one (plenty already exist) should open slightly earlier/later to workers. Unfortunately they wouldn't do this without some strong pushing from those wanting it it seems. I haven't figured out a good way to help this, it's a bit too location specific to make a large scale campaign on I think? Identify a specific instance to support as a case study maybe? Or in bozel would extended opening hours make it more of a genuine commuting option locally so could be something to push for if it does go ahead Gav?
Here's my issue with this approach. The lift is not being added to cut commuting for workers. Courchevel is spread across 6 villages at different levels. This lift goes from A to B. Chris talked about convenience, I've used the bus to get work, it leaves from outside my house and goes to the level I work and drops me outside the door. When the new lift is in, I'll need to get in my car, drive to the lift, pay to park and then when I get to the top of the lift get on the bus.
In the 18 years I've lived here not one of my jobs would work with this lift, even if it ran earlier or later. I've started shifts at 7am and finished at 11pm, I would rather just get in the bus, than have to change to lift, then car.
And this is the same for most of my friends. They work in bars, chalets, shops and this lift will not be used as a commute. I know of some ski instructors that this lift will work for but they already take the bus. Like you say they will also have issues at the top getting to the level they're working from in time.
The best way to reduce the emissions of commuting is a better bus service, and increased resort parking charges. You could also add a toll to the road, increase parking down the valley and add a park and ride service, if you really wanted to take vehicles off the road.
On top of that if we turn Bozel into a tourist holiday destination then the workers are forced down the hill to Moutiers (which is already happening) where they then have a longer commute, that isn't serviced by a bus.
I'm all for addressing commuting emissions but this isn't what this project is designed to do. It's purpose is to open Bozel up the Olympic games.
The lift will definitely take some visitor vehicles of the road. They're only adding 200 parking spaces though and taking away the parking that already exists. Over 6k vehicles travel up the road daily.
I think this conversation is interesting because if you forget about the details it is ultimately about growth Vs a managed degrowth. Are we living in a world where we can continue to grow tourism whilst providing a survivable planet?
Ah you're right, because I don't know the local situation I'm getting pulled away from Bozel lift debate onto general ideas. It's just a shame sustainability wise for lifts that will be built to not run as long as possible to have maximum use made of them and one I'd like to explore more re instructors elsewhere.
So on the growth/Degrowth - as I was leading to a bit in my first post. I think the main problem is working on a local scale, against pressures at a national+ level. That is, even if the number of people wanting to ski drops significantly, climate change is shutting low resorts left and right so looks like supply will drop even faster than demand.
So it looks like Bozel is in a location where it just will get busier and more expensive due to 3 valleys proximity,
(let alone the Olympics on top which will be hard to do anything about now. And it's an interesting idea to force the Winter Olympics to be in the same venues in rotation I saw in Sam's other article and even deliberately let in-person spectating drop would be better for environment and stopping unnecessary development! )
That doesn't mean leaning into it with a new lift is a good idea especially for those living there. But for the environment stopping more cars doing Bozel-resort and similar journeys is becoming critical. Improved bus may not be enough as Chris pointed out. One that surveys/local discussions could help understand. Other serious measures might be... big parking pricing increases / spaces caps? Sounds like locally that ones heading in the wrong direction currently!? Would the local populace accept it?
Discussing growth/degrowth (I don't love using that term as it is divisive) is in my opinion why this story in Bozel matters on a wider scale.
Living here I'm experiencing what I would term the "shitification" of skiing. It rains more often, the slopes are busier as we have less resorts to ski in and shorter seasons, the lift prices keep rising, the food and drinks on the mountain are expensive and come with terrible service, the road is getting busier, it's difficult to live here with rising costs, loads of emissions are being generated on travel and construction, and the future of skiing is more of that.
All of this is so that the elite can ski. I think we need to recognise that even if we can keep skiing for the next 20 years, (from my experience living here I do not think that is possible) this is the direction of travel, and we have to start questioning if that is in fact worthwhile?
We're edging towards a point where locals live here just to serve the elites, without the perks. I have friends that cannot afford season passes now.
I love skiing and living here, and these are not easy ideas to think through but, I believe we desperately need new ways of thinking. I don't think stopping Bozel/resort journeys is the critical problem here, we're at a point when only the rich can ski in Courchevel and they'll take all the convenient options of driving up the road, lift or no lift.
I think the critical problem we're facing is an existential crisis for skiing, and a bury your head in the sand approach to the problem, rooted in denialism.
I would describe the Olympic plans as wildly hopeful. The piste here that would be used for the Olympics briefly opened for a few weeks in Jan, outside of that it's been closed due to a lack of snow. In 2030 they'll probably run the snow cannons non stop to make the event happen but, I would question if that is worth it? There is a point when these events in fact highlight the fragility of the resort, rather than showcase it. The Olympics is already seen as not financially worthwhile for the host country, it'll be even less so in 7 years time.