To be perfectly honest: no.
If you fly to a ski resort, you’ve already created so much CO2 that whether they have solar panels or not is totally irrelevant. If you fly e.g. UK to Vancouver you’ve created half of the average Frenchman’s TOTAL ANNUAL CO2 usage, including all industrial usage.
I’m also a little sceptical as to the touchy-feeliness of some of these audits e.g. one of them mentions that Chamonix has a solar power cell with 0.2 kW peak power output (i.e. when it’s sunny). Total chairlift consumption is maybe 20MW, or 10,000 times that, and the chairlifts run before it’s light, after it’s dark and on cloudy days, when solar electric output is close to zero.
Water consumption and shortages is perhaps a more significant issue.
I’ve tried to do a quick calculation of CO2 creation here. I’ve used Chamonix as an example purely because I know it well. Please feel free to correct my figures.
I’m a little surprised that chairlifts and piste bashing came out so low per person. You’ll see that it’s about the same as cars too and from airports, and totally swamped by the flight. For reference the average CO2 per capital is around 7 tonnes in France and 20 in US.
I had thought that heli-skiing might come close to piste skiing as there are no lifts or piste bashers or artificial snow. It certainly has lower local environmental impact. But I reckon a heli probably uses 20L/person/day, which equates to 0.05tonnes/person/day, so it’s actually around 10x worse. But maybe 10x more fun, so take your pick.
CO2 calculations based on: