|
moose_droppings
Mar 25, 2010, 4:08 AM
Post #26 of 80
(11423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
I agree that drilling by hand only is a regulation in Yosemite, but I don't see where it states that the walls are designated as wilderness area. Might be though, I don't know for sure. I am well aware of what the drilling restrictions in wilderness areas are and that anything motorized is prohibited in wilderness areas.
(This post was edited by moose_droppings on Mar 25, 2010, 4:22 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Mar 25, 2010, 5:31 AM
Post #27 of 80
(11406 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
This thread is ridiculous. Yes, lets all save the environment by only sport climbing and only using hand drills. Don’t worry about the semi-trucks with the twelve liter engines that burn a gallon of diesel every four miles. Those trucks don’t harm the environment nearly as much as those 36v drills!
(This post was edited by USnavy on Mar 25, 2010, 5:34 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
mhargis
Mar 25, 2010, 8:36 AM
Post #28 of 80
(11386 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 9, 2010
Posts: 4
|
It is 'greener' in the sense that less is left behind on the rock....in the same sense that climbers oppose 'chipping'
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Mar 25, 2010, 12:43 PM
Post #29 of 80
(11367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
mhargis wrote: It is 'greener' in the sense that less is left behind on the rock....in the same sense that climbers oppose 'chipping' Which is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Putting bolts in the rock or chipping holds has nothing to do with "greeness".
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Mar 25, 2010, 1:20 PM
Post #30 of 80
(11358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
johnwesely wrote: mhargis wrote: It is 'greener' in the sense that less is left behind on the rock....in the same sense that climbers oppose 'chipping' Which is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Putting bolts in the rock or chipping holds has nothing to do with "greeness". Agreed. Most of the removable gear versus bolts debate (I'm not even going to use the words trad and sport) is more about style and aesthetics than it is about "greenness." Angry made a good point a couple years ago when we were telling his little brother about this. He said "I could paint the phrase 'SHIT FUCK COCKSUCKER BALLS' in ten foot high letters across the cliff, and not harm a single raptor nest, not put any chemicals into the watershed, and not contribute at all to atmospheric carbon. But it's still really lame." Another great point that I like to make whenever this idea that "boltless=green" comes up is the ugly case of Paradise Forks in NoAz. The place has a strong anti-bolting and toproping stance, which is not bad in itself, especially since you approach the crag from above. However, the Ponderosa Pines that see hundreds of topropes are getting trashed and dying. People have tried adding toprope anchor bolts there, and they get chopped. In other words, traddies with their heads up their asses are killing trees.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Mar 25, 2010, 1:59 PM
Post #31 of 80
(11349 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
cracklover wrote: I think that as a pure argument, it's reasonable to claim that more dispersed climbers can have less of an impact. For example, take the extreme example of 1000 parties climbing 1000 obscure sierra peaks once each. The lasting impact of these parties, if they carry out their trash, is basically zero. Now consider 1000 parties gang-banging a few walls at a sport crag. Again, even assuming that they carry out everything they carry in - the lasting impact of their use is significant. Now in reality, many trad crags fall much closer to the sport end of the spectrum in the above thought experiment. But not all. GO I do not dispute that heavily used areas, trad or sport, will see more impact in terms of erosion, wildlife habitat disruption, etc., and a party of 2 climbing in a remote location will have a minimal impact. But that is not how the article was framed. It presented trad as being inherently 'greener'-- and that's what I had an objection to, becasue the majority of 'trad' climbers these days, just like majority of sport climbers, go to well-travelled, highly impacted "developed" areas for their climbing. I find it confusing when people use the term "green" because it is so vague and poorly defined. Are we talking carbon footprint? Greenhouse gas emissions? Disruption of spotted owl nesting ground? Noise polution? One could bike to the national forrest, throw stones at the eagles nest for fun, and hike back, which would have quite a negligible carbon footprint, but would probably not qualify as "green" And applying the term "green" to an activity is pretty meaningless. I would make a case that driving to a crag 4 hours one way in order to climb is less damaging than driving (or flying) across country to go hiking in Yellowstone. Or I could stretch it to say that any activity that requires one to drive in order to get TO the place where the activity takes place is by definition not green. Or I coud flip it around and say that someone who chooses to live far from work and commute 50 miles one way each day, and then stays home and plants a flower bed on the weekend is less green than someone who chooses to live 5 miles from work, and then drives 300 miles to go climbing for the weekend.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Mar 25, 2010, 2:42 PM
Post #32 of 80
(11335 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
moose_droppings wrote: I agree that drilling by hand only is a regulation in Yosemite, but I don't see where it states that the walls are designated as wilderness area. Might be though, I don't know for sure. From various pages in the rock climbing section of the NPS Yosemite site:
In reply to: The Rules: A free wilderness permit (available at any of Yosemite’s Wilderness Centers) is required to camp anywhere in Yosemite’s Wilderness. However, an exception to this rule is made for climbers sleeping off the ground on multi-day routes. However, it is not permitted to sleep at the base of El Capitan, Washington Column, Leaning Tower, Liberty Cap, or any other walls in Yosemite Valley. Camping at the base of the NWF of Half Dome or other backcountry walls is allowed with a valid permit.
In reply to: Yosemite is not just a climber's playground, however: its walls and crags are an integral part of a larger ecosystem, protected as Wilderness, which was set aside for people to enjoy in a natural state for generations to come. IOW, just because you don't need a wilderness permit to sleep on a wall doesn't mean the wall isn't designated wilderness.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Mar 25, 2010, 3:08 PM
Post #33 of 80
(11322 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
camhead wrote: johnwesely wrote: mhargis wrote: It is 'greener' in the sense that less is left behind on the rock....in the same sense that climbers oppose 'chipping' Which is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Putting bolts in the rock or chipping holds has nothing to do with "greeness". Agreed. Most of the removable gear versus bolts debate (I'm not even going to use the words trad and sport) is more about style and aesthetics than it is about "greenness." Angry made a good point a couple years ago when we were telling his little brother about this. He said "I could paint the phrase 'SHIT FUCK COCKSUCKER BALLS' in ten foot high letters across the cliff, and not harm a single raptor nest, not put any chemicals into the watershed, and not contribute at all to atmospheric carbon. But it's still really lame." Another great point that I like to make whenever this idea that "boltless=green" comes up is the ugly case of Paradise Forks in NoAz. The place has a strong anti-bolting and toproping stance, which is not bad in itself, especially since you approach the crag from above. However, the Ponderosa Pines that see hundreds of topropes are getting trashed and dying. People have tried adding toprope anchor bolts there, and they get chopped. In other words, traddies with their heads up their asses are killing trees. I don't know the specifics of this case, but in most cases, it's soil compaction that kills trees. Trees can survive immense amounts of abuse to their trunks, but once the soil around the base is compacted, the roots starve, and the tree dies. So I hate to say it, but it probably has nothing to do with bolts/no bolts. The simple presence of climbers is killing the trees. GO
|
|
|
|
|
dagibbs
Mar 25, 2010, 3:34 PM
Post #34 of 80
(11310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2007
Posts: 921
|
cracklover wrote: camhead wrote: Another great point that I like to make whenever this idea that "boltless=green" comes up is the ugly case of Paradise Forks in NoAz. The place has a strong anti-bolting and toproping stance, which is not bad in itself, especially since you approach the crag from above. However, the Ponderosa Pines that see hundreds of topropes are getting trashed and dying. People have tried adding toprope anchor bolts there, and they get chopped. In other words, traddies with their heads up their asses are killing trees. I don't know the specifics of this case, but in most cases, it's soil compaction that kills trees. Trees can survive immense amounts of abuse to their trunks, but once the soil around the base is compacted, the roots starve, and the tree dies. So I hate to say it, but it probably has nothing to do with bolts/no bolts. The simple presence of climbers is killing the trees. GO I expect that having bolts might reduce the soil compaction, since people would spend less time standing/tromping around the trees in specific, but be more diverted to where the anchors are (in rock).
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Mar 25, 2010, 3:34 PM
Post #35 of 80
(11308 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
lena_chita wrote: cracklover wrote: I think that as a pure argument, it's reasonable to claim that more dispersed climbers can have less of an impact. For example, take the extreme example of 1000 parties climbing 1000 obscure sierra peaks once each. The lasting impact of these parties, if they carry out their trash, is basically zero. Now consider 1000 parties gang-banging a few walls at a sport crag. Again, even assuming that they carry out everything they carry in - the lasting impact of their use is significant. Now in reality, many trad crags fall much closer to the sport end of the spectrum in the above thought experiment. But not all. GO I do not dispute that heavily used areas, trad or sport, will see more impact in terms of erosion, wildlife habitat disruption, etc., and a party of 2 climbing in a remote location will have a minimal impact. But that is not how the article was framed. It presented trad as being inherently 'greener'-- and that's what I had an objection to, becasue the majority of 'trad' climbers these days, just like majority of sport climbers, go to well-travelled, highly impacted "developed" areas for their climbing. There are two different schools of thought in doing a FA. One is to, as much as possible, create a route that pleases the masses. The second is to climb a route for yourself, and leave it, as much as possible, for the next party (if there should happen to be one) to have the same experience. The first camp is not exclusively populated by sport climbers. Plenty of trad climbs borrow elements. But it is the *heart* of sport climbing, as the second camp is at the *heart* of trad. Yes, I freely admitted that many trad crags are impacted by hoards. The point I'm making is that for sport climbing, development is a requirement. When the objective is to provide the most enjoyment for the masses, trundling, clearing the base, trail building, are best practices. And the result, if all goes well, is lots of further impact by those who flock to the scene. There is, however, in trad climbing, a significant thread that is nothing like this. There are areas in which first ascents get done repeatedly, with little or no sign, ever, of who has gone before. At most, some dead branches or a moss divot may get trundled. Some mud cleaned from a crack. But most of the climb (not to mention the environs around it) stays exactly the way it was found, in perpetuity.
In reply to: I find it confusing when people use the term "green" because it is so vague and poorly defined. Are we talking carbon footprint? Greenhouse gas emissions? Disruption of spotted owl nesting ground? Noise polution? One could bike to the national forrest, throw stones at the eagles nest for fun, and hike back, which would have quite a negligible carbon footprint, but would probably not qualify as "green" And applying the term "green" to an activity is pretty meaningless. I would make a case that driving to a crag 4 hours one way in order to climb is less damaging than driving (or flying) across country to go hiking in Yellowstone. Or I could stretch it to say that any activity that requires one to drive in order to get TO the place where the activity takes place is by definition not green. Or I coud flip it around and say that someone who chooses to live far from work and commute 50 miles one way each day, and then stays home and plants a flower bed on the weekend is less green than someone who chooses to live 5 miles from work, and then drives 300 miles to go climbing for the weekend. What you're talking about now is lifestyle, not activity. Looking at one's lifestyle choices and the impact they have is a very fair question to ask, but don't conflate lifestyle and activity - they may be related, but they're not the same. GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Mar 25, 2010, 3:37 PM
Post #36 of 80
(11307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
dagibbs wrote: cracklover wrote: camhead wrote: Another great point that I like to make whenever this idea that "boltless=green" comes up is the ugly case of Paradise Forks in NoAz. The place has a strong anti-bolting and toproping stance, which is not bad in itself, especially since you approach the crag from above. However, the Ponderosa Pines that see hundreds of topropes are getting trashed and dying. People have tried adding toprope anchor bolts there, and they get chopped. In other words, traddies with their heads up their asses are killing trees. I don't know the specifics of this case, but in most cases, it's soil compaction that kills trees. Trees can survive immense amounts of abuse to their trunks, but once the soil around the base is compacted, the roots starve, and the tree dies. So I hate to say it, but it probably has nothing to do with bolts/no bolts. The simple presence of climbers is killing the trees. GO I expect that having bolts might reduce the soil compaction, since people would spend less time standing/tromping around the trees in specific, but be more diverted to where the anchors are (in rock). Perhaps. As I said, I'm not familiar with the specifics of the area. Are you? GO
|
|
|
|
|
dagibbs
Mar 25, 2010, 3:41 PM
Post #37 of 80
(11302 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2007
Posts: 921
|
cracklover wrote: dagibbs wrote: I expect that having bolts might reduce the soil compaction, since people would spend less time standing/tromping around the trees in specific, but be more diverted to where the anchors are (in rock). Perhaps. As I said, I'm not familiar with the specifics of the area. Are you? GO Not that specific area. It is just the behaviour I've observed at a local crag which has a mixture of routes where the top anchor is bolts, and where the top anchor is slinging a tree. That is why I phrased my comment in a speculative mood.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Mar 25, 2010, 4:17 PM
Post #38 of 80
(11290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
cracklover wrote: dagibbs wrote: cracklover wrote: camhead wrote: Another great point that I like to make whenever this idea that "boltless=green" comes up is the ugly case of Paradise Forks in NoAz. The place has a strong anti-bolting and toproping stance, which is not bad in itself, especially since you approach the crag from above. However, the Ponderosa Pines that see hundreds of topropes are getting trashed and dying. People have tried adding toprope anchor bolts there, and they get chopped. In other words, traddies with their heads up their asses are killing trees. I don't know the specifics of this case, but in most cases, it's soil compaction that kills trees. Trees can survive immense amounts of abuse to their trunks, but once the soil around the base is compacted, the roots starve, and the tree dies. So I hate to say it, but it probably has nothing to do with bolts/no bolts. The simple presence of climbers is killing the trees. GO I expect that having bolts might reduce the soil compaction, since people would spend less time standing/tromping around the trees in specific, but be more diverted to where the anchors are (in rock). Perhaps. As I said, I'm not familiar with the specifics of the area. Are you? GO That's actually a reallygood point, Gabe, which I had not heard before. As for Paradise Forks, the fact that you approach the crag from the top (and so are encouraged to congregate, hang out, eat lunch, and tie dogs at the TOPS of routes) may mean that even installation of bolts for anchors would not help trees out. I would be interested in hearing from someone with more experience at that area; I've only climbed there a couple times over the years.
|
|
|
|
|
jamincan
Mar 25, 2010, 5:10 PM
Post #39 of 80
(11274 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 1, 2007
Posts: 207
|
Speaking with regard to the Niagara Escarpment, without a doubt sport climbing has less of an impact on the cliff then trad climbing. Firstly, sport routes generally have top anchors, while trad routes don't, which limits the amount of erosion at the top of the cliff. Secondly, trad routes almost invariably follow the weaknesses in the rock, which is also the favoured location for a number of rare and endangered species. In establishing these routes, the plants are usually "cleaned" out of the crack. Sport routes generally stick to faces which are less hospitable to plants.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Mar 25, 2010, 7:33 PM
Post #40 of 80
(11246 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
I do not disagreee with anything you say about trad climbing vs. sport climbing in general. But 'trad climbing has a possibility of being greener if XYZ conditions are being met' is not quite the same as 'trad climbing as currently practiced by majority is inherently greener than sport climbing.' Moreover, if, let's say, every single sport climber took this information to heart and decided to forgo bolt-clipping and only go to remote locations and plug gear, the impact would be staggering, and the result would not at all be green. To me, it is only fair to say that "the activity 1 is greener than activity 2" if you could make an argument for people switching from activity 2 to activity 1 and thus reducing the impact. But this is not at all the case. The only reason the subset of trad climbers who tread lightly can claim to have minor impact is because there are very few of them, relatively to the total number of climbers, not because what they do is inherently less impacting.
cracklover wrote: What you're talking about now is lifestyle, not activity. Looking at one's lifestyle choices and the impact they have is a very fair question to ask, but don't conflate lifestyle and activity - they may be related, but they're not the same. GO Of course lifestyle and activity aren't the same. Activity is only part of a lifestyle. Have you read the Climbing magazine articles that started this thread? I guess I am responding more to that, than to anything that was said in this thread, really. Whenever it comes to discussing the "green-ness" of climbing, people bring up the drive to the crag as evidence of climbing not being very green, and suggest carpooling and using fuel-efficient cars to reduce the impact. But to me, that is already crossing into lifestyle, and not focusing on the activity itself. And in this particular aspect, I do not see a major difference between trad climbers and sport climbers. If you want to calculate the footprint of trad climbing vs. sport climbing, focusing specifically on the activity, you woud need some numbers. Such as, the average amount of gear and the energy involved in it's manufacturig for an average sport climber vs. trad climber (including bolt manufacture and installation for sport climbing-- or for trad climbing, for that matter), the average climbing place where the activity takes place, and some kind of numerical representation of an 'impact'... I don't even know how such calculations could be done... the guesswork involved in trying to call 'an average climber' would be so approximate that it would make any calculations meaningless.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Mar 25, 2010, 8:22 PM
Post #41 of 80
(11250 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
lena_chita wrote: I do not disagreee with anything you say about trad climbing vs. sport climbing in general. But 'trad climbing has a possibility of being greener if XYZ conditions are being met' is not quite the same as 'trad climbing as currently practiced by majority is inherently greener than sport climbing.' Which I never claimed.
In reply to: Moreover, if, let's say, every single sport climber took this information to heart and decided to forgo bolt-clipping and only go to remote locations and plug gear, the impact would be staggering, and the result would not at all be green. I reject this as an argument. It's equivalent to the teacher telling Johnny he can't go to the bathroom, because what if "everyone wanted to go right now". If X is "greener" (whatever that means) than Y, then it's greener, period.
In reply to: But this is not at all the case. The only reason the subset of trad climbers who tread lightly can claim to have minor impact is because there are very few of them, relatively to the total number of climbers, not because what they do is inherently less impacting. The type of trad climbing I'm referring to has little appeal for most people who call themselves climbers. So if all those for whom this minimalist approach had no appeal were doing other sports/recreations, would you require that I tally up the green-ness of those activities, and compare them to the green-ness of the climbing they'd otherwise be doing? You see how silly this becomes.
In reply to: Have you read the Climbing magazine articles that started this thread? I guess I am responding more to that, than to anything that was said in this thread, really. I have not. But this is not the first time I've thought about these matters. And this lifestyle issue plays into that. Before I started climbing, I drove very little. I mostly biked or took public transportation for work and recreation. That all changed when I started getting passionate about my new hobby. Suddenly I found myself regularly putting hundreds of extra miles on my car to get to the nearest climbing destinations. Soon I started flying out west for destination trips, too. Now I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but just like most folks, I do care about these things enough that if I can make some small sacrifice that hurts me very little, but benefits the greater community, I will. First thing I did was, when my car died, I bought the most fuel efficient car on the market. Now to my mind this was a bit of a compromise - I keep my lifestyle, but while driving, I use half the gas I would otherwise. I dunno. We all make our individual choices. At least if we're mindful, and refuse to just throw up our hands, we can make things a little better. Sorry about the thread drift. GO
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Mar 25, 2010, 8:28 PM
Post #42 of 80
(11246 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
Trad climbing makes you poop more... so an increased amount of geodeucing may infact fertillize better and speed up the carbon sink processes. A comparison of diets could potentially reveal a different story though. Are ham sammiches the proverbial poop plutonium?
|
|
|
|
|
sp00ki
Mar 25, 2010, 8:38 PM
Post #43 of 80
(11244 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2009
Posts: 552
|
jeremy11 wrote: "Green" used to be a color Now it is a political propaganda term. Want to minimize your impact on the earth? Turn off your computer and live off the land in Montana. The number one way to be environmentally friendly is to spend less money. Many companies have turned this the other direction to get us to spend more money. If you were already going to buy a T shirt, organic is better, but do you really need Another shirt?! Don't go stock up on Green stuff you don't need just to feel better about yourself. Back to the original question: Is trad "green" Crash pads use lots of foam Beanies are generally made from synthetics Sport climbers probably go through more ropes than trad climbers since they actually fall on purpose. Trad gear generally lasts a long time Gym climbing has to be the worst. Bottom line: none of climbing is "green" because it all uses non renewable resources but it is better than motor sports, horses, TV, urban excess, etc. Climbing tends to build an appreciation for environmental stewardship, and trad climbing, especially exploratory trad climbing and alpinism builds that appreciation the fastest and the strongest. First place! Well said...
|
|
|
|
|
davidnn5
Mar 25, 2010, 10:08 PM
Post #44 of 80
(11230 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 8, 2009
Posts: 348
|
kachoong wrote: Trad climbing makes you poop more... so an increased amount of geodeucing may infact fertillize better and speed up the carbon sink processes. A comparison of diets could potentially reveal a different story though. Are ham sammiches the proverbial poop plutonium? Or is this the effect, and the cause is the intense excitement and adrenalin rush you get while looking at your (no longer shiny) gear? Perhaps that's where the phrase "oh, shit!" originally came from; a trad climber with a sexy new cam...
|
|
|
|
|
karmiclimber
Mar 26, 2010, 8:40 PM
Post #46 of 80
(11168 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2004
Posts: 1058
|
Well when you think about all of the trad gear that is produced...it has to be transported on trucks, that takes gas. How many people are buying the crap. ETC. Its obviously not greener.
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
Mar 27, 2010, 2:27 PM
Post #47 of 80
(11136 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
This discussion is pretty retarded, people are losing site of the facts and running with their emotions and preconceived notions. User for user sport climbing is GENERALLY lower impact on cliff environments. Trad routes almost always top out and tend to follow lines that vegetate and need to be cleaned/gardened. Sport routes while scarring the rock with bolts tend to be on steep rock that does not vegetate. The routes don't top out so there is no cliff top erosion. Cliff bottom erosion is the same per user for either.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Mar 29, 2010, 1:30 AM
Post #48 of 80
(11092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
I don't think climbing can fall into the green model. For one, the green model require a buy local attitude, which climbing doesn't have. Climbing gear is primarily made of two materials. Nylon and metal, both of which are at the root of the world problem. Nylon is made from oil which is being pump from the ground and shipped around the world. Metal comes from the ground and is also stripped from the earth. Once those product are pulled from the ground, they are shipped to processing plants where they are processed and then shipped again. Climbing companies then source those material and have the product made in the Philippines, and China and shipped around the world from there. Climbing itself has impact because we have large numbers of people going to the same place to do an activity. Sport of trad, doesn't really matter, both have impact on the environment. We can work on minimize it, but I don't plan on quitting climbing, so I won't work on eliminated my impact. Sport routes get cleaned as much as trad lines during first accents. Both see plenty of action once the areas become popular. The ground, top and bottom of the cliff get impacted regardless. Walk up to Manure Pile buttress, nor Ranger Rock, and take a look at how much impact climbers have on the base. Back up and check out the rock from the approach trail, you can see where the rock is worn from people climbing it. Same is true at climbing areas around the world. I don't buy into the whole green experience. I do what I can to minimize my impact and reduce my carbon footprint, but.. I fly to climbing areas around the world I drive to the crags I buy nylon and steel gear to climb with I eat food that has been chipped around the globe The list is endless. I don't think any magazine that is still published in print form today should be to critic how green something is or isn't. My two cents
(This post was edited by guangzhou on Mar 29, 2010, 3:27 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
bhp
Mar 29, 2010, 2:07 AM
Post #49 of 80
(11088 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 28, 2010
Posts: 46
|
guangzhou wrote: Climbing gear is primarily made of two materials. Nylon and steel, both of which are at the root of the world problem. I think both by mass and cost most climbers have far more aluminum on their racks than steel.
|
|
|
|
|
roseraie
Mar 29, 2010, 4:57 AM
Post #50 of 80
(11063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2003
Posts: 439
|
lrossi wrote: In the final analysis, people are not "green" no matter what they are doing. Whether you are sitting around watching TV, or driving to the crag, or working for the man. The solution is obvious - condoms. Trophy.
|
|
|
|
|
|