Its simply a different sport. It can be done in similar place, but I prefer proper wilderness whenever possible. And yes, risk of dying in avalanche is non-0 in most places.
I do alpine skiing every year but I have no illusion that the tourism severely hurts the environment, although there are a lot of other detrimental factors besides CO2 output.
I mostly ski in regions where your place lies around 2000m and snow is guaranteed. But even this far up you see more and more snow cannons deployed. They also create huge reservoirs with artificial snow to extend the skiing season. Huge waste of energy and skiing on artificial snow is awful, but it probably is financially viable.
If anything, ski touring is often more expensive (gear wise, might save on the ski pass if not starting from the top of a lift). It also has a bigger dependency on snow quality if one want a fun ski experience and isn't mainly in it for the touring part.
However when skiing in a resort, others can bump into you by accident. Your muscles cool down while sitting on the chair lift, and get tired at the end of the day without really noticing it, which leads to a number of accidents. I've torn my ACL in a resort couple of years ago, and ski touring feels much safer - at least for me.
I used to think that too, but recently I'm softening to the argument that a given number of vacationers on even the nastiest bulldozed runs has much less regional impact than if the same number of users would go touring instead, everyone spreading out to seek their own patch of untouched nature.
Of course in terms of global impact (energy use per person) touring is nonetheless much better.