In view of the impending climate crisis, the question arises as to whether "mountain sports are motor sports" still applies today. Or would it be better to ask: when was the parking lot at the valley station or the starting point of the tour not overcrowded? Let's go in search of the answers and the right solutions together...
The matter of the ecological footprint and the personal CO2 balance is actually quite simple: all activities require the use of energy, which in turn is linked to the emission of CO2 and its equivalents. In other words - if it lies, it picks, and if it weighs, it has!
This is no different when it comes to mobility and transportation. Both represent a change of location: if you want to be mobile, you have to choose between existing means of transportation and attractive transport routes. How this decision turns out depends on many - mostly subjective - attitudes and is difficult to generalize per se. Needs that cannot be satisfied locally create a desire for a change of location and lead to a demand for mobility.
The following example is certainly familiar to everyone: If you're hungry, you go grocery shopping or call the pizza delivery service. If the supermarket on the corner is attractive and open, I go shopping there. If the pizza service is better and cheaper, I choose it. Whether goods (the pizza) or people (me) are transported becomes unimportant: both types of transportation satisfy needs directly or indirectly. The final decision is initially based on one's own needs, but depends on what is available.
If mobility expresses the need to change location, transport is the instrument that makes it possible. In terms of sporting needs, this means that a toboggan run within walking distance or within easy reach of public transport satisfies the need for sport and exercise with little traffic. Conversely, the touring week in Norway meets the need for sport just as well, but with far more traffic - 1:0 for the local toboggan run.