The “outcomes who wants?” The human toll bothers those of us who have no connection with the activity or the people other than our consumption of media concerning it. For the people performing the activity, they look like they are getting what they want: an opportunity to challenge themselves, in a singular location on Planet Earth, with novel scenery and grave danger. (This assumes no fraud, of course. And that the people performing the activity are able to afford all desired care in the event of a hazard or casualty.) Again, it looks stupid to you and I, but adults are allowed to be stupid with their own money and time.
Anyway, the people supporting them are making money hand over fist, at least compared to other economic activities they could be doing. Lastly, the government of Nepal seems to want this outcome most of all. Or they’d restrict the number of permits they sell. Requiring no supplemental oxygen would de facto restrict the number of climbing permits to a trickle.
The only people this seems to bother are people who aren’t associated with the activity at all, aren’t Nepalese citizens, and aren’t involved with the mountain climbing and outfitting trade. If climbers were dissuaded by the lines and the risks, they’d stop coming. Ditto for outfitters, and other trekkers to Nepal. If the outfitters want to band together and petition the Nepalese government to restrict access in the name of driving up fees and increasing worker and climber safety, have at it. It’s Nepalese property.
I have seen no such “explanation” by others that makes my suggestions “impossible”. Difficult and expensive, but hardly impossible. I clearly explain a straightforward method, using workers who are constantly being supplied with oxygen from previous stages of the cableway construction. (or, if necessary, pressure suits, which get their batteries and consumables and spare parts hauled in, again, by the cableway.)
Far greater things have been constructed by humans, we can do this.
An infrastructure cable system means you can get rid of garbage because you have a method to haul tons of it away by machine rather than people with backpacks. Not sure how a rocky mountain gets “destroyed”. Ski resorts aren’t “destroyed” because lots of people visit them - staff clean them and fix things that break. Or fill in things that erode.
As a side note, the actual peak probably needs to be greatly expanded, if possible, with platforms anchored to the rock. It’s too small, it seems, for very many people to stand there and take their selfies.
I will say that Everest would not be the same if it had something like this. “Climbing mount Everest” would no longer be the harrowing journey only a few can ever do, and that 1% or so of the people who try die. It would be a similar accomplishment to visiting an expensive resort and getting a selfie taken.
OK, I see your reasoning… but damn few mountaineers of any fitness level, even in the highest rank, actually summit Everest without supplemental oxygen. Obviously there are at least a few people who can do it because it’s been done, but some of the guys who lead expeditions and have done so for years, who have summitted multiple times, still use supplemental oxygen.
Even if someone is capable of getting to the top without the oxygen bottles if they do use oxygen supplement they will be MORE capable - better able to keep warm, better exert themselves, and so on.
So yeah, maybe requiring you be fit enough to summit without oxygen would be one way to filter out climbers, but not allowing them to use supplemental oxygen will just make things more dangerous even for the most fit.
I don’t necessarily think it’s a problem that needs solving: the climbers presumably know the risk, and choose to accept it. There is a way to address some of the raised issues, and another one besides, as follows:
Determine the ideal number of summit attempts. Limit the number of permits to that number. Half these permits will be auctioned off. Meaning they will likely go for much more than right now. Winning the auction means you get a shot a summitting. You also have to pay (part of) the cost of a Sherpa expedition to remove trash and debris from above camp 3.
The other half go by lottery. Lottery entries are as follows: 1 entry for every qualifying trash trip/ defined as moving a set minimal amount of debris from below camp 3 to base camp.
This does a number of things: Sherpas still have work, likely more than now. Summit attempts are limited, so fewer traffic jams in the Death zone. Those summiting either paid into the local economy, or paid by cleaning up the mountain.
Last, the lottery winners will have made one or more trips to as high as camp 3, so won’t be as entirely unprepared for what is beyond as some apparently are now.
I just spent 12 minutes thinking about it, so I guess I’m in the clear. I think you miss not only how difficult the initial infrastructure placement is, but also how short-lived that infrastructure would be. Between monsoons, avalanches and just fierce wind, nothing lasts up there. But most importantly, it is entirely unnecessary to do what you propose, and even were it possible (which many have tried to tell you it isn’t) this would fundamentally destroy the experience all those climbers are willing to risk so much for.
No it isn’t! Following SamuelA’s principle of disregarding expense and difficulty, no matter how astronomical, just melt the Khumbu Glacier. A few dozen nuclear warheads should be enough. In fact, melt all the snow on Everest to make the construction easier all the way to the top! Easy-peasy!
In 1994 I went to Nepal and arranged a four-week trek when in Kathmandhu. The choices boiled down to the Annapurna horsehoe or Everest. A little research: Everest is a trek up to EBC and back again by the same route. I had a feeling that that was not going to be as good, so I chose Annapurna. I finished the trek ahead of time, even allowing for some short days to get acclimatized to the altitude, where I followed the basic recommendation of 300 m / 1000 feet of altitude a day and had no problems apart from the usual one of poor sleep. The terrain was very varied, Nepal is an incredible mixture. On the way back we went up to Annapurna base camp, which was an easy hike to some stone buildings. As I said to my Nepalese guide, when the clouds came down on that section I could have been in Wales or Scotland, it was just a fairly gentle stony path.
Now for SamualA. I am impressed by his belief that the technical issues can be mastered, but looking at the mountains from lower down (relatively speaking; ABC is at about 4,000 m / 12,500 feet) it was clear that any approach required serious fitness and the right equipment. Annapurna, like Everest is mostly snow covered. You cannot just install bits of equipment and leave them there, the fixed ropes are on the steep parts that do not collect snow and they have to be replaced frequently. Then there are the distances involved. And for Everest, getting past the ice fields. Winches and cables? Firstly, the weight, secondly, how do you power the winches?
As has been stated several times here already, climbing is big business in Nepal, and Everest is desirable both because of its height and because it is not technically the most difficult of the high peaks; K2 attracts far fewer climbers and with good reason. It is an axiom among climbers that the ascent of an eight thousander will cost the lifeof at least one person inn the party. And on average it is more or less true. The problem gets worse when climbers who do not have the experience of very high altitude mountaineering treat Everest as a peak-bagging exercise, and the mountaineering industry panders to that. This of courses brings problems such as the accumulation of garbage on Everest.
Oxygen? Messner was the first to do it without oxygen, but he was very experienced and very fit. And he knew of the perils, after losing his brother on a Himalayan peak. Normal mortals need oxygen, and it is heavy. And yes, the Sherpas earn far more than they would portering for the locals along the trails.
Getting supplies to base camp isn’t an issue. They currently do it by yak caravan, and if the people at base camp need more supplies, they just hire more yaks. There’s also a helipad which is used for ferrying people and some supplies. A permanent freight helicopter would be cheaper and more environmentally friendly than building a road. Also, that hike up to base camp is part of the acclimatisation process for climbers. It’s a feature, not a bug.
From base camp, the main portion of the climb, up to camp 3, is up a steep glacier. Glaciers move. Sherpas have to redo the ladder bridges through the Khumbu Ice Fall every year, because that section of the glacier changes every year. Even during the climbing season, sherpas have to adjust and maintain the ladders and ropes that make up the climbing path. Above the ice fall, the glacier is more stable, but still moving. Any kind of permanent structure you try to put up there is going to fall over or have its anchoring system crushed as it moves down the mountain.
If you made it a requirement that you had to do the summit without oxygen, you would no longer have a crowding problem, because very few people are physically capable of doing it. And while you would eliminate the problem of oxygen canisters accumulating as trash, you would increase the number of bodies up there.
(My bolding) Not really. The supplemental oxygen makes you feel as if you’re about 3000 feet lower in altitude. Camp 4, where the summit attempt is made from, is at around 26,000 feet, which is at or above the start of the death zone, depending on which source you’re reading. And obviously, the point where a person isn’t getting enough oxygen to survive is going to vary by individual. But basically, having supplemental oxygen means that at the start of the summit attempt, you’re not in the process of dying.
Going up, in the highest 1,000 feet, many people, even with supplemental oxygen, don’t have enough oxygen to survive. They’re counting on being up and down before they become so impaired they can’t go on. Getting up and down that last 1,000 feet takes 4-5 hours. Doing the entire summit attempt takes 12-15 hours. So without supplemental oxygen, you’re spending 4-5 hours with barely enough, or not quite enough, oxygen to survive. No oxygen, you’re spending 12-15 hours without enough oxygen and the deficit is much more severe at the top. The supplemental oxygen isn’t a crutch, it’s essential for almost everyone who climbs Everest. It’s a difference maker based on physiology, not fitness.
Sounds good at first but, are there other 8000 m peaks in Nepal that are as easy for non-professional climbers to climb as Everest? Let’s say there is one, and it’s as easy to get to as Everest. Call it Mount Weeder.
The problem as I first think of it, is that while there’s a large pool of people worldwide with the money, spare time, and desire to climb Everest, most of that pool only has the resources to climb one 8000 meter peak in their lifetime. Especially since given weather and physical recovery, I don’t think most people could climb “Mount Weeder” in the same year they tried Everest. Who can take another year off to indulge this hobby?
So if this requirement went through, I predict climbing attempts would plummet, even considering increased activity on Mount Weeder, and permit gross sales would drop, Sherpa wages and/or jobs would drop: basically the net economic decline for the area I mentioned in my above posts.
OTOH, it seems likely with this plan that the professional climbing cadre would have a superior experience, and Everest deaths would decrease.
