Vote for snow
In the new normal of an 80-degree late October day, I sat in an air-conditioned hotel ballroom for a summit of what’s known as the “wintersport industry.”
With an estimated economic heft of more than $8 billion each year, it’s a sector made up of ski and snowboard companies, mountain resorts and apparel manufacturers, media makers and other business types.
Yet as big and broad as the winter economy is in 2024, each and every business owner in that space shares a big fat reality – that their entire existence directly, fundamentally and inexorably depends on the ability of a warming planet to drop below 32 degrees on a regular basis.
That fact was clearly on the mind of one of the event’s speakers, as it appeared in a slide that was projected onto a floor-to-ceiling screen with a simple message — “pray for snow”.
My inner snark wondered if any other multi-billion dollar industry relies on prayer to support their core business model. But my more practical side wondered what might happen if there was a single word change in the slide, swapping out “pray” for another four letter word.
“Vote.”
To be sure, “vote for snow” would look great on a bumper sticker, or a wicking technical t-shirt, or a five panel hat. But it stops short of saying what it actually means, much in the vein of other pretty-strong-hint do-your-own-homework non-endorsement endorsements that have become commonplace in the outdoor world.
Despite the fact that businesses are more trusted than the media or the government, being too specific about one’s exact politics in our current hyper-polarized landscape is seen as poison by the business community. There are few CEOs are willing to risk their jobs by alienating 42% of their potential customers, who these days are happy to hold a corporate grudge for as long as it takes. Or at least until they need something on Amazon Prime before Christmas. Even those who’ve historically played in the sandbox of poltiical endorsements have bowed out of this election cycle entirely, such as the Washington Post, LA times and USA Today — as well as an estimated 45% of all newspapers. The business of business is business, or so they say.
Without a doubt, there are many important issues facing the country in 2024. There is a housing crisis, a farming crisis, a mental health crisis, a healthcare crisis, an affordability crisis, an economic disparity crisis, multiple escalating wars outside our borders. And that’s just the short list.
It’s equally clear that these challenges are influenced, either directly or indirectly, by the growing impacts of climate change. It’s the elephant in the room, the monkey on our back, and the rising tide that is threatening to drown all boats. It’s the conductor behind the parade of extreme weather events that are draining the bank accounts of muncipalities and insurance companies a billion dollars at a time. And it’s a driving force in the immigration crisis, as thousands of families are risking everything, everyday, to escape the droughts of their home countries for the microscopic chance they can slide in to a country that is rich enough to ignore the realities of climate change on a daily basis.
The thrill is gone when it comes to the acknowledgement of our warming planet. There is no disagreement about whether or not global heating is a thing. But there is a clear and massive separation between the two presidential candidates when it comes to their approach to this generational challenge. One has embraced taking a leadership position with the international community and leaning into collective action. The other has stated the best path forward is to do nothing at all, and to pander to the fairy tale of unlimited economic growth on a planet with limited resources.
They say past performance does not ensure future results. They also say a leopard doesn’t change its spots. The past actions, voting record, and previous words of both presidential candidates are starkly different in many areas – though in the area of climate change, and the clear need for collaborative cross-border leadership and action, their differences are impossible to ignore.
To be honest, I don’t agree with everything Harris says, all of her current positions, or every one of her past actions as a politician – such as her near silence on climate concerns in her campaigning down the stretch. But that’s OK, as it’s a flawed concept that you need to support every breath that comes out of a candidate’s mouth in order to pull the lever on their behalf.
I’m also open to voting for candidates from all parties, as I have in the past. But in this case, the differences are too great. Because the day after the last snowflake falls will signify far more than the end of poetic walks in the woods, ho-ho-ho sleigh rides and schoolyard snowball fights. It will also mean more than the eradication of a multi-billion dollar winter economy as well. Instead, the end of snow will be the start of a new era of hardship for all those who rely on snowpack to store fresh water, from farmers to thirsty metropolitan areas. It will also fire the starting gun of a new era of global heating, as the natural reflective ability of snowpack recedes into the history books, and swaths of creatures and plants who are already steadily marching north in search of cold weather, will see their last days as well.
For sure, it is hugely important for each of us, individually, to get our own houses in order, to look inward and make the needed changes.. Winter people like me have to do our part in protecting the winters that are so important to them. But we also need leadership that has the strength and humility to look outside, and to participate at all levels of this challenge – as a leader, a contributor, and part of a team.
The differences between the two presidential candidates on the environment are stark. And because of those differences — specifically on climate action -- I will be voting for Kamala Harris. And I encourage you to do the same.
Because a vote for Harris will be a vote for snow.
###
In their own words
Joe Rogan Experience, with Donald Trump … go to 52 minutes, 19 seconds and listen for the next 15 minutes or so for an overview of his environmental and climate stances.
Other voices