The Ski Industry's Climate Risk: A Data-Driven Forecast

Climate change is the single most-studied long-term risk facing the global ski industry. The volume of peer-reviewed research is substantial; the findings are largely convergent. This article presents what the published research actually says, without overstatement and without the dismissal that sometimes accompanies discussion of this topic. The data points to a real and measurable shift, with significant variation by region.

What the research has measured

The most-cited recent peer-reviewed analysis is Scott and Steiger (2024), published in Current Issues in Tourism. The study examined 226 US ski areas across four regional markets, which together account for 96% of US skier visits in the 2022-23 season.^[1] The methodology compared what ski seasons would have looked like if 1960s-1970s climate conditions had persisted, against actual recent seasons (2000-2019), and projected forward under varying emission scenarios.

The study's findings on observed change:

• Average US ski season length shortened by 5.5 to 7.1 days in the 2000-2019 period compared with 1960-1979
• Estimated economic losses of approximately $5 billion over the 2000-2019 period due to fewer visits and increased snowmaking costs
• Average annual loss of approximately $252 million attributable to climate-related shortening of seasons
• 89% of US ski areas now use snowmaking, up from approximately 41% in earlier decades^[2]

These are observed values from the historical record, not projections. The projections that follow are scenario-dependent and depend heavily on which emissions trajectory unfolds globally.

The projections, by scenario

The peer-reviewed research distinguishes between low-emissions and high-emissions scenarios. The differences between them are substantial. They are large enough that policy choices over the next decade meaningfully affect whether large parts of the industry remain viable in their current form.

Under high-emissions scenarios, the same regions face season reductions of 27 to 62 days by the 2050s, and substantially worse by the 2080s.^[1] The Pacific region is projected to lose 97 days from its average ski season by the 2080s under high-emissions scenarios, a length reduction that would functionally end most ski operations in lower-elevation Pacific resorts.

Snowmaking has been the principal adaptation

Snowmaking technology has evolved dramatically since the 1980s and now covers approximately 89% of US ski areas in operation, up from much lower levels in earlier decades.^[2] The Northeast and Midwest converted to nearly universal snowmaking earliest, often by the mid-1980s. Western resorts followed.

The peer-reviewed research is reasonably clear on what snowmaking can and cannot do:

What snowmaking can do: Extend ski seasons in cold-but-dry conditions. Provide reliable opening dates for major resorts, particularly during the critical Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday periods. Maintain skiability of high-traffic terrain when natural snow is insufficient.

What snowmaking cannot do: Operate efficiently in warm conditions. Modern snowmaking requires wet-bulb temperatures generally below approximately 28°F (-2°C) to be economical. As average temperatures rise, the operational window for snowmaking shortens. The energy and water inputs required also grow.

A 2023 European study published in Nature Climate Change assessed 2,234 European ski resorts and found that without snowmaking, 53% of European ski resorts would face very high risk for insufficient snow under a 2°C warming scenario, increasing to 98% at 4°C warming. Even with snowmaking covering 50% of pistes, 27% of European resorts would still face high risk under 2°C warming, rising to 71% under 4°C warming.^[3]

The economic mechanism: why low-snow years concentrate damage

The economics of ski operations are non-linear in a way that compounds climate exposure. A 2018 economic analysis commissioned by Protect Our Winters and conducted with input from researchers at the University of New Hampshire and elsewhere quantified the asymmetric impact of low-snow versus high-snow years.^[4]

The findings:

• High-snow seasons added approximately $692.9 million in economic value compared to the 2001-2016 average, supporting 11,800 additional jobs
• Low-snow seasons reduced economic value by over $1 billion compared to average, costing 17,400 jobs
• The downside in poor seasons exceeded the upside in good seasons, meaning average outcomes are worsening even when good and bad years alternate

The asymmetry exists because ski operations have substantial fixed costs (lifts, lodging, payroll, insurance) that must be paid regardless of snow conditions. A great snow year fills resorts, but capacity caps the upside. A bad snow year reduces visits, while fixed costs continue. The net effect: variability is expensive, and climate change increases variability.

This is a primary reason why the season-pass model, analyzed in detail in our Epic vs Ikon comparison, has been such a defensive innovation. By collecting revenue before weather is known, resorts insulate cash flows from the most volatile year-to-year impacts of climate variability.

Regional variation: not all resorts face equal risk

One of the most important findings of the climate research is that risk is not uniform. Higher-elevation resorts in the Rocky Mountains and Sierra Nevada are substantially more resilient than lower-elevation resorts in the same regions, and far more resilient than resorts in the Northeast or Midwest.^[5]

More resilient (relatively)

• High-elevation Colorado resorts: Vail, Beaver Creek, Aspen, Telluride, Crested Butte, Loveland, Arapahoe Basin
• High-elevation Utah resorts: Alta, Snowbird, Park City, Deer Valley
• Northern California / Sierra at higher elevations: Heavenly's higher terrain, Mammoth, Palisades Tahoe upper mountain
• Wyoming / Montana / Idaho: Jackson Hole, Big Sky, Sun Valley, Grand Targhee
• Western Canadian Rockies: Whistler Blackcomb upper mountain, Lake Louise, Banff Sunshine, Revelstoke

Higher exposure (with adaptation challenges)

• Lower-elevation New England resorts
• Mid-Atlantic and Appalachian ski areas
• Midwest ski areas (Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan)
• Lower-elevation Pacific Northwest resorts
• Most California resorts at lower elevations

The 2024 Scott and Steiger study identified specific regions where snowmaking adaptation may itself become "maladaptive," meaning the water and energy inputs required may exceed what's environmentally and economically sustainable. The study highlighted parts of New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming as facing this combined climate-and-water-security challenge.^[1]

The European picture

European ski resorts face similar but regionally distinct exposure. The Alps account for the largest concentration of European ski activity, with Austria reporting over 50 million skier days in good seasons. France, Italy, Switzerland, and Germany also have major ski sectors. The 2023 Nature Climate Change analysis of 2,234 European resorts found that 53% would be at very high snow-supply risk under a 2°C warming scenario without snowmaking; 98% under 4°C.^[3]

The 2022-23 season provided a real-world preview of these risks. Record-breaking warmth caused early closures across many lower-elevation Alpine resorts, particularly in the Pyrenees and lower Alps. Reports from that season included stories of grass visible on slopes that historically held reliable snow through April.^[6]

What the industry is doing (and what it can't)

Resort operators have been adapting along several dimensions:

Snowmaking infrastructure investment. Major operators like Vail Resorts and Alterra Mountain Company have invested billions of dollars over the past two decades in snowmaking capacity, water reservoirs, and energy efficiency. The capital intensity of this adaptation favors well-capitalized operators over independent resorts.

Diversification to year-round revenue. Most major resorts now operate in summer (mountain biking, hiking, lift-served scenic operations, weddings, festivals, lodging). The 2024 fiscal year reports from public ski companies show summer revenue contributing meaningfully to overall results.

Geographic portfolio strategy. Multi-resort operators benefit from holding both lower-elevation regional resorts (which feed pass adoption among local populations) and higher-elevation destination resorts (which retain ski viability longer). The Vail Resorts and Alterra portfolios are both designed with this geographic risk-balancing in mind.

Energy efficiency and renewables. Many resort operators have committed to substantial sustainability programs, including renewable energy procurement, electrification of vehicle fleets, and operational efficiency upgrades. These reduce both operating costs and carbon footprint.

What the industry cannot do is solve climate change unilaterally. Skier visits and resort revenue track snowfall and season length; these are determined by global climate conditions. Industry-led sustainability programs reduce the industry's own emissions but do not stabilize the climate it depends on.

"Limiting global greenhouse gas emissions could both delay and substantially reduce adverse impacts to the winter recreation industry."

The above quotation comes from the EPA-funded study by Wobus et al. published in the journal Global Environmental Change.^[5] The framing is deliberately careful: it states that policy choices affect outcomes, without claiming the industry's fate is settled. That careful framing reflects the actual state of climate science: the worst projections are not certain, and meaningful mitigation is still possible.

The strategic implications

For operators, investors, and any party evaluating long-term commitments to the ski industry, several strategic implications follow from this evidence:

Elevation matters more than it used to. A resort's base elevation, summit elevation, and aspect are now meaningful factors in long-term value. Resorts at 8,000+ feet base elevation in the Rockies face dramatically different long-term outlooks than resorts at 1,500 feet in the Northeast.

Capital intensity is increasing. Snowmaking, water rights, and adaptation infrastructure all require capital. The climate-driven CapEx burden is one structural reason consolidation has accelerated. Independent resorts with limited capital face harder paths than operators with access to scaled financing.

Geographic diversification is rewarded. A portfolio that includes Pacific, Rocky Mountain, and international assets is better insulated from regional climate variability than a portfolio concentrated in one geography.

Indoor and Southern Hemisphere alternatives may grow. Indoor ski facilities exist in multiple cities globally and may grow as part of urban consumer access strategies. Southern Hemisphere resorts (Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Argentina) provide year-round programming options for skiers willing to travel.

Digital infrastructure becomes more important. As ski opportunities become less reliable in any given week, real-time conditions, snow reports, webcams, and resort discovery tools become more valuable to skiers. The gap in ski-industry digital infrastructure (analyzed in our piece on the industry's unsolved digital opportunity) intersects directly with climate adaptation.

The honest synthesis

Skiing is not ending. The total addressable market remains substantial: 399 million global skier visits in the 2024-25 season, the highest on record.^[7] High-elevation resorts in protected geographies will likely continue to operate viable seasons through any plausible climate scenario.

What is changing is the shape of the industry. Lower-elevation resorts face genuine existential risk. Operating costs for adaptation are rising. Regional concentrations of activity are likely to shift toward the most climate-resilient areas. The industry's structure, already concentrating around major operators, is likely to continue consolidating partly because the capital required to operate at elevation, with substantial snowmaking, is increasingly outside the reach of independent operators.

This is not catastrophism, and it is not denial. It is a category undergoing real, measurable structural change driven by physical processes that climate science has documented in detail. The peer-reviewed evidence is consistent enough that any serious long-term participant in the industry, whether operator, investor, or strategic partner, should be planning around it explicitly.