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".

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Perhaps. As I said, I'm not familiar with the specifics of the area. Are you?

GO

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

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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?

Turn off your computer and live off the land in Montana.

Climbing gear is primarily made of two materials. Nylon and steel, both of which are at the root of the world problem.

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.