How to make the Olympic Games more resilient to climate change?

[sebastien1214]

Ok, a vast subject that interests me and I don't think I found an open topic even though it seems important to me.

I didn't really know what title to put so I put "How to make the Olympic Games more resilient to climate change?", it seemed to me to be the most factual title to summarize the thinking and the debate that can open in this topic, without falling into the caricature of the NOlympics movements.

I think that everyone here believes in the reality of climate change; and the fact that this subject comes up more and more in the threads dedicated to the games ("What do you mean, no air conditioning?" for Paris, "The Brisbane River floods" for... Brisbane, etc etc) means that there is a real subject to discuss perhaps in a more centralized way than scattered across different topics.

In fact, the idea of launching this topic comes from the fact that in France, we have a think-tank called "The Shift Project" bringing together engineers and scientists who work on climate issues and publish many reports on, basically, how to adapt to climate change so that our societies and our ways of production, of life, become more resilient. And this think-tank released a report yesterday on the carbon footprint of football and rugby.

So I haven't seen their detailed report yet. But last summer they did an interim report on stadiums, which I'm putting here (spoiler alert: it's in French):

https://theshiftproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/240319-Decarbonons-les-Stades-Rapport-intermediaire-Shift-Project.pdf

To my knowledge they haven't done a report on the Olympic Games for the moment; and I would of course be interested to see if other institutes around the world are conducting the same kind of research. That said, the interim report on stadiums still seems relevant to me for the Olympic Games, since organizing an Olympics without a stadium seems inconceivable (hello Brisbane)

For example, we learn that the carbon footprint for a match (or any other sporting event) in a stadium is due, unsurprisingly, to 60-65% (depending on the size of the stadium) to the transport of spectators, but with a huge difference depending on the origin of the spectator:

- the carbon footprint of the local spectator will represent only 4kg of CO2
- but the carbon footprint of the foreign spectator can range from 90kg of CO2 (for example, an English person who would go to France for the Olympics, and who would not need to take the plane, the car and/or the train would be enough) to 2500kg of CO2 (the American who has to take the plane)

Right away, this will raise a lot of questions for LA 2028, because as much as the Olympic Games in Europe raise fewer questions thanks to our great rail network and our high population density; as for the United States, when you plan to organize things in Oklahoma or even New York for cricket...

The other interesting point (in fact there are a LOT of interesting things in this report but I'm not going to list them because my message is much too long) is that the carbon footprint linked to food and drinks (so the refreshment bar) still represents 15-17% of the carbon footprint of a match; I didn't expect so much, and these are things where the organizers of sporting events can take concrete action. For example, in Paris, the desire to put a plant-based offer in the refreshment bars (which, by the way, was disgusting and unworthy of France) was intended in particular to respond to this problem (since you probably know, but meat production represents a significant part of our CO2 emissions)

So in the end:

- How can we ensure that the Olympic Games reduce their carbon footprint? It is increasingly difficult to organize things of this magnitude without asking this question and it will inevitably lead at some point to questioning the very model of the Olympic Games. Should the number of sports be reduced? Is the growing model of "multi-city" Games (like Milano-Cortina) relevant in the face of climate issues? Because just as a Berlin-Hamburg project in Germany makes sense with the German rail network, an Indian national bid project with Ahmedabad and other cities would perhaps save them a few billion, but at the cost of an explosion in the carbon footprint (because the Indian rail network...)

- How can we ensure the resilience of the Olympic Games and host cities in the face of climate change? Has LA planned backup plans in case the fires we have recently experienced happen again? Does Brisbane have a plan to adapt to the risk of flooding of the Brisbane River? Should the IOC require for the next Games allocations (2036, 2040) real guarantees and binding climate requirements for host cities (with for example an imperative to finance resilience projects according to the risks linked to each city; one could imagine that for example Brisbane in the contract which binds them with the IOC is obliged to invest 1 billion in water retention lakes to limit possible damage linked to floods)

- Will it be possible to organize Winter Games in 2042?

[sebastien1214]

Ah, I forgot that too in my introductory message (it's stupid, it's perhaps the thing most related to the Olympics in the report I told you about):

This is a diagram from a study published in Nature Sustainability in 2021 that you can find here:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-021-00696-5

Free "pirate" version (f**k the science publishing mafia) : 

https://www.onepx.com/10.1038/s41893-021-00696-5 (god bless Sci-hub)

They have done some work on this study on the environmental, social and economic impact of the Olympics (i.e. "sustainability"). As you can see, the trend is not very good.

 

[AustralianFan]

14 minutes ago, sebastien1214 said:

Ok, a vast subject that interests me and I don't think I found an open topic even though it seems important to me.

I didn't really know what title to put so I put "How to make the Olympic Games more resilient to climate change?", it seemed to me to be the most factual title to summarize the thinking and the debate that can open in this topic, without falling into the caricature of the NOlympics movements.

I think that everyone here believes in the reality of climate change; and the fact that this subject comes up more and more in the threads dedicated to the games ("What do you mean, no air conditioning?" for Paris, "The Brisbane River floods" for... Brisbane, etc etc) means that there is a real subject to discuss perhaps in a more centralized way than scattered across different topics.

In fact, the idea of launching this topic comes from the fact that in France, we have a think-tank called "The Shift Project" bringing together engineers and scientists who work on climate issues and publish many reports on, basically, how to adapt to climate change so that our societies and our ways of production, of life, become more resilient. And this think-tank released a report yesterday on the carbon footprint of football and rugby.

So I haven't seen their detailed report yet. But last summer they did an interim report on stadiums, which I'm putting here (spoiler alert: it's in French):

https://theshiftproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/240319-Decarbonons-les-Stades-Rapport-intermediaire-Shift-Project.pdf

To my knowledge they haven't done a report on the Olympic Games for the moment; and I would of course be interested to see if other institutes around the world are conducting the same kind of research. That said, the interim report on stadiums still seems relevant to me for the Olympic Games, since organizing an Olympics without a stadium seems inconceivable (hello Brisbane)

For example, we learn that the carbon footprint for a match (or any other sporting event) in a stadium is due, unsurprisingly, to 60-65% (depending on the size of the stadium) to the transport of spectators, but with a huge difference depending on the origin of the spectator:

- the carbon footprint of the local spectator will represent only 4kg of CO2
- but the carbon footprint of the foreign spectator can range from 90kg of CO2 (for example, an English person who would go to France for the Olympics, and who would not need to take the plane, the car and/or the train would be enough) to 2500kg of CO2 (the American who has to take the plane)

Right away, this will raise a lot of questions for LA 2028, because as much as the Olympic Games in Europe raise fewer questions thanks to our great rail network and our high population density; as for the United States, when you plan to organize things in Oklahoma or even New York for cricket...

The other interesting point (in fact there are a LOT of interesting things in this report but I'm not going to list them because my message is much too long) is that the carbon footprint linked to food and drinks (so the refreshment bar) still represents 15-17% of the carbon footprint of a match; I didn't expect so much, and these are things where the organizers of sporting events can take concrete action. For example, in Paris, the desire to put a plant-based offer in the refreshment bars (which, by the way, was disgusting and unworthy of France) was intended in particular to respond to this problem (since you probably know, but meat production represents a significant part of our CO2 emissions)

So in the end:

- How can we ensure that the Olympic Games reduce their carbon footprint? It is increasingly difficult to organize things of this magnitude without asking this question and it will inevitably lead at some point to questioning the very model of the Olympic Games. Should the number of sports be reduced? Is the growing model of "multi-city" Games (like Milano-Cortina) relevant in the face of climate issues? Because just as a Berlin-Hamburg project in Germany makes sense with the German rail network, an Indian national bid project with Ahmedabad and other cities would perhaps save them a few billion, but at the cost of an explosion in the carbon footprint (because the Indian rail network...)

- How can we ensure the resilience of the Olympic Games and host cities in the face of climate change? Has LA planned backup plans in case the fires we have recently experienced happen again? Does Brisbane have a plan to adapt to the risk of flooding of the Brisbane River? Should the IOC require for the next Games allocations (2036, 2040) real guarantees and binding climate requirements for host cities (with for example an imperative to finance resilience projects according to the risks linked to each city; one could imagine that for example Brisbane in the contract which binds them with the IOC is obliged to invest 1 billion in water retention lakes to limit possible damage linked to floods)

- Will it be possible to organize Winter Games in 2042?

This is a good topic @sebastien1214.

Currently the IOC are considering a couple of separate major changes for each of the Summer Olympic Games and the Olympic Winter Games.

Both of these will fall immediately into the lap of the new IOC President from June this year.

Firstly, for the Summer Games the IOC have flagged they are seriously thinking of relaxing the current July/August hosting requirement to allow the Games to be held in the cooler months,  such as the northern hemisphere autumn for example.  This of course would open up the field of climate viable candidate applicant cities and countries.  For example, United Arab Emirates (Dubai), Qatar (Doha), Saudi Arabia (Riyadh), etc, such as what has occurred in the FIFA World Cup hosting (Qatar 2022, Saudia Arabia 2034).

Secondly, given the diminishing field of candidate cities with climates viable for snow sports without the recent and massive increasing use of artificial snow making technology, the IOC have also announced that they are researching into the possibilty of selecting a rotating pool of climate reliable Olympic Winter Games Hosts.

[Sir Rols]

Interesting topic @sebastien1214. And some good, thoughtful, points you’ve raised.

I’ll note that mention has already been made about relaxing the hosting time window and selecting a pool of winter hosts. True, both are probably needed, but are both strategies that are REACTING and adapting to climate change rather than trying to reduce the games’ climate impact. It’s like shifting your holidays from July to September because Majorca or the Bahamas are getting too hot to enjoy in summer, rather than cutting out such travel altogether to lessen your footprint.

i would question just how much of an impact the games have in terms of total annual emissions from travel, leisure, industry, transport etc. I suspect it’s but a blip. But also acknowledge it could be an important symbolic example to set. All the games since London, if not earlier, have been keen to label themselves “carbon neutral”, so obviously they’re aware of the importance of making such gestures. I also suspect though most of such efforts have concentrated on recycling and renewable and offsets for their claims, rather than addressing real issues.

i’ll hazard the guess that the two biggest carbon impacts from the Olympics are, firstly, the air travel, and secondly, the server farms required for the broadcasting, streaming and dissemination of the games. And both of these beg the question of just how far are we, especially in rich western nations, prepared to curtail or forgo these “necessities” in order to seriously tackle global warming.

i’m not sure if the Olympics actually increases air travel at games time compared to regular massive tourist and business travel. Many hosts have expressed how the games times themselves actually experience a cut to the usual of tourists coming into their cities. But nevertheless, it’s easy to point to the numbers of athletes and celebrities and spectators flying in as a negative impact. And while it might be easier in Europe, for example, to utilise more train travel for these attendees, Americans, Asians, Australians and NZers, African et al, don’t have that convenience, and when we host, as you mentioned, our options are limited. But how ready is the world to give up air travel? Are we ready to go back to using ships for long distance trips. How many of us are ready yet to give up holidaying abroad? I’m planning a trip to Europe later this year - am I selfish to be even considering it? I’d travel by boat  if I could - I find long distance air travel an ordeal  to be endured - but such options are very limited and expensive.

Ditto our internet addiction. None of us think  that individually we’re doing much harm scrolling through GamesBids or watching streaming content or doing our school or business work on our computers. It’s pretty impossible to do any of that without the internet nowadays - society is now reliant on it. But collectively we’re fuelling massive arrays of energy guzzling and heat emitting server farms that are also hugely impacting the climate. Is the world ready, or even capable, of going back voluntarily to analogue? Is anyone willing to go back to consuming the Olympics only on pedal-powered radios or TVs or just reading about it in print newspapers or magazines?

At the end of the day, I probably think it’s important that the Olympics sets examples, but I doubt the games themselves contribute more than a miniscule fraction of a single per cent of existing normal global emissions. And society is really too dependent and hypocritical and selfish, and just not plain ready, to make the kind of sacrifices required to really make any difference.

Edited February 15 by Sir Rols

[Sir Rols]

2 hours ago, sebastien1214 said:

Should the IOC require for the next Games allocations (2036, 2040) real guarantees and binding climate requirements for host cities (with for example an imperative to finance resilience projects according to the risks linked to each city; one could imagine that for example Brisbane in the contract which binds them with the IOC is obliged to invest 1 billion in water retention lakes to limit possible damage linked to floods)

That’s a pretty nice idea. Well worth considering. But again, human selfishness and politics. Can you imagine the reaction of the current ogre in the White House, fresh from reinstating plastic straws because paper straws are “woke”, if he was told the LA games required mandatory climate requirements and offset investments?

[sebastien1214]

10 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

I’ll note that mention has already been made about relaxing the hosting time window and selecting a pool of winter hosts. True, both are probably needed, but are both strategies that are REACTING and adapting to climate change rather than trying to reduce the games’ climate impact. It’s like shifting your holidays from July to September because Majorca or the Bahamas are getting too hot to enjoy them, rather than cutting out such travel to lessen your footprint.

These two solutions will inevitably end up being implemented, but for me, they are not really ambitious reforms that could be necessary, but just the confirmation of a fact that will become obvious. When in 20 years there will be only a few mountain ranges left with real snow, or when it will be +40°C for a good third of the summer in Europe, there will be no other choice than to implement these two solutions.

But beyond the question of temperatures, whose adaptability can be done quite "simply" with these two settings, there are also a whole bunch of natural phenomena (tornadoes, floods, etc.) for which we know that climate change increases the chances, and even in regions where it seemed surprising to us: look at the floods last year in Dubai.

I will take the example of Brisbane again - is the city ready for the hypothesis of a major flood a few weeks before the Games, or even during the Games? The more the climate is disrupted, the more unpredictable and frequent these events will become.

10 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

i would question just how much of an impact the games have in terms of total annual emissions from travel, leisure, industry, transport etc. I suspect it’s but a blip. But also acknowledge it could be an important symbolic example to set. All the games since London, if not earlier, have been keen to label themselves “carbon neutral”, so obviously they’re aware of the importance of making such gestures. I also suspect though most of such efforts have concentrated on recycling and renewable and offsets for their claims, rather than addressing real issues.

I don't think that the Olympic Games represent a large or significant part of annual CO2 emissions. On the other hand, entertainment as a whole represents a large part; and the Olympic Games are a major entertainment event. Beyond the "symbolic" but above all political aspect that the Olympic Games represent to present themselves as being "carbon neutral", there is also the idea behind really wanting to reduce CO2 emissions to create a more responsible entertainment model, which can be replicated and taken as an example by entertainment (at least sporting; international competitions but also domestic football, etc. etc.), and that will have more impact.

11 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

i’ll hazard the guess that the two biggest carbon impacts from the Olympics are, firstly, the air travel, and secondly, the server farms required for the broadcasting, streaming and dissemination of the games. And both of these beg the question of just how far are we, especially in rich western nations, prepared to curtail or forgo these “necessities” in order to seriously tackle global warming.

Yes, everything that is digital (production, streaming, broadcasting) probably represents a significant part of CO2 emissions. That said, I think that it is mainly correlated with energy consumption and especially electricity; and therefore consequently with the production of the host country. In France, where 70% of our electricity comes from nuclear power and 20% from renewable sources, I think we can say that the environmental impact of Paris 2024 on this aspect was much less significant than, for example, Beijing 2022.

(There is also the question of the energy consumption of data centers, particularly for everything that is cooling. It seems to me that the Saint-Denis aquatic center built for the Olympics is "connected" to a nearby data center, which means that, basically, we have to use water to cool the data center, but the water we use ends up reinjecting it into the swimming pools, which means that we heat the water with the data centers, it's ingenious. since in any case the water in a swimming pool necessarily needs to be heated.)

12 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

i’m not sure if the Olympics actually increases air travel at games time compared to regular massive tourist and business travel. Many hosts have expressed how the games times themselves actually experience a cut to the usual of tourists coming into their cities. But nevertheless, it’s easy to point to the numbers of athletes and celebrities and spectators flying in as a negative impact. And while it might be easier in Europe, for example, to utilise more train travel for these attendees, Americans, Asians, Australians and NZers, African et al, don’t have that convenience, and when we host, as you mentioned, our options are limited. But how ready is the world to give up air travel? Are we ready to go back to using ships for long distance trips. How many of us are ready yet to give up holidaying abroad? I’m planning a trip to Europe later this year - am I selfish to be even considering it? I’d travel by boat  if I could - I find long distance air travel an ordeal  to be endured - but such options are very limited and expensive.

The impact that the Olympic Games can have on air transport, for me, is more on the medium term in the case where the Games contribute to improving the image of a city, and therefore to developing its tourism. But these are rare cases, apart from Barcelona (and maybe Sydney?) I don't see other recent examples (London & Paris being basically in the most visited cities in the world, the Olympics wouldn't change anything anyway; it will be the same for LA)

That said, thinking about it, indeed the number of tourists in a host city remains stable or decreases slightly compared to a year without Olympics; because the usual tourists "flee" the city the year of the Olympics, and they are replaced by "Olympic tourists". However, if we take for example the case of a European city, that means replacing European tourists, therefore more likely to take the train, by American tourists, therefore who take the plane; since we know that the number 1 nationality of foreign tourists at the Olympic Games is Americans. So, with an equal number of tourists, the average carbon footprint over an Olympic year in a European city will, I think, be worse.

(for the personal anecdote, while I was writing the first message of this thread, I was planning my next vacation in Central Asia by looking at the different possible itineraries by plane. As it turns out, it's quite ironic when you think about it.)

12 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Ditto our internet addiction. None of us think  that individually we’re doing much harm scrolling through GamesBids or watching streaming content or doing our school or business work on our computers. It’s pretty impossible to do any of that without the internet nowadays - society is now reliant on it. But collectively we’re fuelling massive arrays of energy guzzling and heat emitting server farms that are also hugely impacting the climate. Is the world ready, or even capable, of going back voluntarily to analogue? Is anyone willing to go back to consuming the Olympics only on pedal-powered radios or TVs or just reading about it in print newspapers or magazines?

This is ultimately the major challenge of the 21st century (well, it is basically the major challenge of almost every century) which will be, beyond the climate challenge, the energy challenge in all its forms. These activities represent a growing share of our CO2 emissions, particularly due to the source of electricity they use (but also energy in other forms: water, fresh air production, etc.). In France, I feel less guilty thanks to our highly decarbonized electricity than if I were in Germany, for example. And when I hear Trump say (rightly) that the development of AI will require producing much more electricity... and then say "drill, baby, drill", it terrifies me. Here, we have decided to believe in the atom rather than oil. I think it's better.

[sebastien1214]

13 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

That’s a pretty nice idea. Well worth considering. But again, human selfishness and politics. Can you imagine the reaction of the current ogre in the White House, fresh from reinstating plastic straws because paper straws are “woke”, if he was told the LA games required mandatory climate requirements and offset investments?

Obviously, I don't believe for a second that this idea will even be proposed one day by the IOC or an IOC member. And for myself literally bathing in the political world, I know only too well that it is an almost utopian idea because of the rejection that it would arouse.

But as long as the IOC does not propose (just at least "propose", launch into the public debate) ideas that may seem radical (no, organizing games in September-October is not radical) it finally reveals the fact that for the moment, everything that the IOC announces to do about environmental issues is in reality nothing very serious compared to the stakes; at best naivety, at worst hypocrisy and greenwashing.

[Sir Rols]

11 minutes ago, sebastien1214 said:

These two solutions will inevitably end up being implemented, but for me, they are not really ambitious reforms that could be necessary, but just the confirmation of a fact that will become obvious. When in 20 years there will be only a few mountain ranges left with real snow, or when it will be +40°C for a good third of the summer in Europe, there will be no other choice than to implement these two solutions.

Agreed, these are not solutions. They’re just reactions to practical necessity. Shifting hosting time slots itself will do nothing to combat emissions, just move emissions to a different month.

16 minutes ago, sebastien1214 said:

This is ultimately the major challenge of the 21st century (well, it is basically the major challenge of almost every century) which will be, beyond the climate challenge, the energy challenge in all its forms. These activities represent a growing share of our CO2 emissions, particularly due to the source of electricity they use (but also energy in other forms: water, fresh air production, etc.). In France, I feel less guilty thanks to our highly decarbonized electricity than if I were in Germany, for example. And when I hear Trump say (rightly) that the development of AI will require producing much more electricity... and then say "drill, baby, drill", it terrifies me. Here, we have decided to believe in the atom rather than oil. I think it's better.

And, yeah, energy production is THE major hurdle. In France you are lucky, and can take some pride, in your far more decarbonised energy industry. Here in Oz, it’s a hot potato that has poisoned politics for decades now. The increasingly rabid Right HATE anything renewable, while the Left is firmly anti-nuclear because, well, nukes are bad. In the meantime, we just continue our addiction to coal-fired electricity. Personally, I’d be open to nuclear energy here, but we probably should have started that shift twenty or thirty years ago - it’s not something we can adopt overnight.

[Sir Rols]

30 minutes ago, sebastien1214 said:

Yes, everything that is digital (production, streaming, broadcasting) probably represents a significant part of CO2 emissions. That said, I think that it is mainly correlated with energy consumption and especially electricity; and therefore consequently with the production of the host country. In France, where 70% of our electricity comes from nuclear power and 20% from renewable sources, I think we can say that the environmental impact of Paris 2024 on this aspect was much less significant than, for example, Beijing 2022.

(There is also the question of the energy consumption of data centers, particularly for everything that is cooling. It seems to me that the Saint-Denis aquatic center built for the Olympics is "connected" to a nearby data center, which means that, basically, we have to use water to cool the data center, but the water we use ends up reinjecting it into the swimming pools, which means that we heat the water with the data centers, it's ingenious. since in any case the water in a swimming pool necessarily needs to be heated.)

I was just looking up the carbon footprint of the internet. It turns out internet usage makes up about 40 per cent of our average individual carbon footprints.

The average Internet user spends 3,230 hours online every year. Here’s the carbon footprint of that

[Sir Rols]

35 minutes ago, sebastien1214 said:

 

(for the personal anecdote, while I was writing the first message of this thread, I was planning my next vacation in Central Asia by looking at the different possible itineraries by plane. As it turns out, it's quite ironic when you think about it.)

Central Asia, eh? And here I am planning on spending a couple of months in Paris, Provence and Tuscany later this year 

[sebastien1214]

14 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Central Asia, eh? And here I am planning on spending a couple of months in Paris, Provence and Tuscany later this year 

Yeah, I have unorthodox tastes when it comes to travel. I much prefer Bucharest to Berlin, Astana to Frankfurt, Batumi to Barcelona, etc etc. But I recommend Uzbekistan to all of you, yes I may have irrational tastes but this country is objectively magnificent and deserves to be visited. I already went there two years ago, following the Silk Road, a sublime historical heritage, a super safe country even for women traveling alone, a country where you can eat in a restaurant for a maximum of 5-10€, and a lovely and welcoming people (it must be said that until 2018 the country was almost closed to foreign tourists, so all this is a bit new for them too). It's a change from Western countries. And seriously, I'm sure you've visited more places in France than me. I never go on vacation to France. (weird isn't it?)

[Cyriln]

For tourism, there are already data for 2024 in Paris and its region.

There were 1.7 million international tourists during Olympics, compared to 1.5 million in 2023.

+21% from USA, +65% from China, +94% from Japan, +110% from Brazil.

https://parisjetaime.com/eng/media/article/preliminary-report-olympic-games-a1755

And don't forget that the opening ceremony was a 4-hour ad for visiting Paris broadcasted in all the countries of the world, let's see how much people have been convinced to do a trip in the coming years.

 

You've also talked about broadcasting and content creation. One thing that everybody seems to enjoy a lot recently without acknowledging its impact is AI. It's VERY energy-consuming and it doesn't seem to be a subject at all. After each Games, OBS brags about its increased production of content and its advanced technologies, but it has an increasing cost: NKH had a 8K theatre in the broadcasting center and Intel even had a booth promoting 8K broadcasting but nobody asked themselves if it was relevant.

If you want to see more, here's a video (in French) visiting the International Broadcast Center (and france⋅tv's control room). 

 

[AustralianFan]

2 hours ago, sebastien1214 said:

I will take the example of Brisbane again - is the city ready for the hypothesis of a major flood a few weeks before the Games, or even during the Games? The more the climate is disrupted, the more unpredictable and frequent these events will become.I

The Queensland Government and the Brisbane 2032 Organising Commitee (BOC) are well aware of the periodic risks of inundation from Brisbane River floods at different times of the year.   Yes severe flooding of certain areas in and around the Brisbane River has occurred durung the wet season which is in Februrary.

For example, historically, the time of year for Brisbane’s biggest floods were:

• 1893 Brisbane Flood: Februrary,
• 1974 Brisbane Flood: January,
• 2011 Brisbane Flood : Februrary,
• 2022 Brisbane Flood: Februrary.

However, the 2032 Games are being held in Brisbane’s driest period of the year which is May until October. The dates of the Brisbane Games are 23 July-8 August (Olympics) and 24 August-5 September (Paralympics).

Be assured that such risk assessment and contingency planning is intrinsic in Host City planning and BOC will be no exception, given climate change and Queensland’s long history and experience in flood management and planning.

Back in 2021, the meteorological data on p.52 of the IOC’s Feasibility Study - Brisbane 2032 - IOC Future Host Commission, showed that Brisbane’s average number of days with rain is only 3.3 in July and 3.8 in August & September.

The final placement of Brisbane’s 2032 venues will shortly be known when we hear what recommendations from GIICA’s 100-Day Review (of all venues and infrastructure) that the Queensland Government will take action on.  This could of course directly affect where exactly venues will be located.

Historical Brisbane flood areas are available through this link:  Historical Flooding in Brisbane.

[krow]

oh i forgot to create a climate section for my presidential bid!!! ok well the people are clearly clamoring for leadership here so here goes...

 

Climate change sucks, I think we can all agree on that. I don't think it's anyone's fault, because while I own ten thirty-thousand square foot houses with three swimming pools each and fly in my private plane every single day of my life to feel important, you use a cell phone sometimes. (I have six). So really it's a shared responsibility.

The question is what can we do about it? And the answer is: Nothing, really. But you can't say that. All you can do is promise to do stuff about it, and since I'm never one to waste turning a PR opportunity into some action that benefits me, that's exactly what I'm going to do.

First, we're going to go carbon neutral. Or the cities are, I'm not doing anything—I really don't care. We'll push all the action off on the cities, and we'll also use this as a chance to change the entire global sporting calendar because, okay, here's what I was thinking: if every sport was reconfigured to suit me and me alone, that would probably be for the best. So we're going to make it so you can have an Olympics whenever you want — whenever I want — so think Summer Olympics in November or Winter in July. I need to string the Qataris along for a totally unrelated business venture and I've reasoned this is the best way to do it. Oh, and I'm probably not doing the Winter one. That's just like theoretical. 

The other thing we can do is lots of solar powered Olympics stuff. The village or whatever can be solar or wind, whichever the index funds are favoring at the time. See, there are lots of windy canyons and hot sunny weather in countries where I can make a lot of money, so it'd be neat if we could switch to doing that over the next decade to give me time to invest in some new companies and switch up my portfolio. I need to see which way the wind is blowing, if you catch my drift. (That's two puns, in case you didn't catch them.)

Another thing I'd like to do is make it everyone's fault but mine. Like, who's using all this electricity and oil and stuff? The federations probably. Spectators. Athletes. The press. I think everyone should be stepping up and following my lead, and doing the things I tell you to do to fix climate change. If you would just do that, there wouldn't be any climate change at all anymore. 

I really wish I could explain more of this to you, about all the things you're doing wrong and the good example I'm setting for you, but I have a lunch in Geneva and my plane's about to take off and it'll take like twelve minutes to get there, but I think you get the point. Do better. That's my advice to you. Do better. Because I'm kind of disappointed in how bad you've let the climate get. Like, don't you even care as much as I do?

[Bear]

7 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

"But how ready is the world to give up air travel? Are we ready to go back to using ships for long distance trips. How many of us are ready yet to give up holidaying abroad? I’m planning a trip to Europe later this year - am I selfish to be even considering it? I’d travel by boat  if I could - I find long distance air travel an ordeal  to be endured - but such options are very limited and expensive.

Ditto our internet addiction. None of us think  that individually we’re doing much harm scrolling through GamesBids or watching streaming content or doing our school or business work on our computers. It’s pretty impossible to do any of that without the internet nowadays - society is now reliant on it. But collectively we’re fuelling massive arrays of energy guzzling and heat emitting server farms that are also hugely impacting the climate. Is the world ready, or even capable, of going back voluntarily to analogue? Is anyone willing to go back to consuming the Olympics only on pedal-powered radios or TVs or just reading about it in print newspapers or magazines?

At the end of the day, I probably think it’s important that the Olympics sets examples, but I doubt the games themselves contribute more than a miniscule fraction of a single per cent of existing normal global emissions. And society is really too dependent and hypocritical and selfish, and just not plain ready, to make the kind of sacrifices required to really make any difference.

I mean, our individual carbon footprint actually is nothing compared to corporations:

https://sites.manchester.ac.uk/global-social-challenges/2022/07/07/corporations-vs-consumers-who-is-really-to-blame-for-climate-change/

"Since 1988, just 100 companies have been responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions.1 In addition to this, only 25 corporations and state-owned organisations were found to be responsible for over 50% of the global industrial emissions2 during the same time period."

https://www.arbor.eco/blog/global-carbon-emissions-impact-breakdown

"Although individuals' actions contribute to emissions through energy consumption, transportation, and other day-to-day activities, the magnitude of emissions generated by companies is much greater. The industrial sector, including power generation, manufacturing, and construction, account for a substantial portion of global emissions."

9 hours ago, sebastien1214 said:

Should the IOC require for the next Games allocations (2036, 2040) real guarantees and binding climate requirements for host cities (with for example an imperative to finance resilience projects according to the risks linked to each city; one could imagine that for example Brisbane in the contract which binds them with the IOC is obliged to invest 1 billion in water retention lakes to limit possible damage linked to floods)

No. This will only drive costs higher for the host, and turn even more cities away from hosting the Games. If such a guarantee or requirement were to be included, it should instead be the IOC's obligation to invest in whatever project is linked. Even then, the contract should only be concerning the organization of the Games and associated aspects - nothing more, nothing less.

9 hours ago, sebastien1214 said:

- How can we ensure that the Olympic Games reduce their carbon footprint? It is increasingly difficult to organize things of this magnitude without asking this question and it will inevitably lead at some point to questioning the very model of the Olympic Games. Should the number of sports be reduced? Is the growing model of "multi-city" Games (like Milano-Cortina) relevant in the face of climate issues? Because just as a Berlin-Hamburg project in Germany makes sense with the German rail network, an Indian national bid project with Ahmedabad and other cities would perhaps save them a few billion, but at the cost of an explosion in the carbon footprint (because the Indian rail network...)

some thoughts:

Reducing the sports programme, as well as replacing some disciplines with others. Prime examples that have come up over the years here:

• Futsal over Football - for starters, Football requires many large venues, causing the competition to be spread out across a large territory. This is not good if we are trying to reduce the Games impact.
  • Furthermore, we all know the discussion surrounding the competition quality for the men's tournament, so there is an incentive to drop the sport from the programme. In regards to the women's tournament, the FIFA Women's World Cup is growing in popularity and recognition. Prioritize the further development of that tournament, and hopefully we'll get to the same level as the men's tournament.
• Remove Canoe Slalom from the permanent sports programme - this sport uses a highly specific venue that is very likely to go un(der)-used after the Games end.
• Remove Bobsleigh / Skeleton / Luge from the permanent sports programme - exact same reasoning as above.
• Remove Golf from the permanent sports programme - this is probably the most environmentally-unfriendly sport in the programme due to the nature of the field of play being both extremely large and requiring tons of water for its upkeep. Furthermore, is there really a public legacy from this sport to the host community? I don't know how it is abroad but in the US, golf courses are usually in places exclusive to rich people.
• Remove Equestrian from the permanent sports programme - in a way similar to above, especially in regards to the accessibility of the sport for anyone who isn't rich enough to own a horse.
• Remove Surfing from the permanent sports programme - we've already had this discussion very recently so I won't get into it.

Prioritizing, if not out-right requiring preexisting venues. Temporary venues should be allowed to an extent (as we've seen in past Games), but really try to discourage the building of new venues. A significant exemption to this idea is the Olympic Village of course, as not every city has a UCLA or USC.

• This has been the model for the Youth Olympic Games, and I think it is time to bring it towards the adult Games as well.
• This of course means that the IOC will have to really lean into the no minimum capacity thing, which I'm honestly fine with.
  • Like, do we really need a 70k+ seater stadium for Athletics? Probably not, it's not like we will ever see those crowds once the Games end.

Getting rid of the July - August time slot. This has already been mentioned so I won't go into this further

ok its 1:35 am so i don't have much else to say so i'll leave it here for now

[sebastien1214]

8 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

The Queensland Government and the Brisbane 2032 Organising Commitee (BOC) are well aware of the periodic risks of inundation from Brisbane River floods at different times of the year.   Yes severe flooding of certain areas in and around the Brisbane River has occurred durung the wet season which is in Februrary.

For example, historically, the time of year for Brisbane’s biggest floods were:

• 1893 Brisbane Flood: Februrary,
• 1974 Brisbane Flood: January,
• 2011 Brisbane Flood : Februrary,
• 2022 Brisbane Flood: Februrary.

However, the 2032 Games are being held in Brisbane’s driest period of the year which is May until October. The dates of the Brisbane Games are 23 July-8 August (Olympics) and 24 August-5 September (Paralympics).

Be assured that such risk assessment and contingency planning is intrinsic in Host City planning and BOC will be no exception, given climate change and Queensland’s long history and experience in flood management and planning.

Back in 2021, the meteorological data on p.52 of the IOC’s Feasibility Study - Brisbane 2032 - IOC Future Host Commission, showed that Brisbane’s average number of days with rain is only 3.3 in July and 3.8 in August & September.

The final placement of Brisbane’s 2032 venues will shortly be known when we hear what recommendations from GIICA’s 100-Day Review (of all venues and infrastructure) that the Queensland Government will take action on.  This could of course directly affect where exactly venues will be located.

Historical Brisbane flood areas are available through this link:  Historical Flooding in Brisbane.

Two things you are forgetting:

- Climate change means that high-intensity events (large fires, floods, hurricanes, etc.) are not only more likely to occur, but also to occur at times when they previously did not occur. In Paris, the Seine has never flooded during the summer, and there was none last summer; but on the other hand, there is more and more precipitation in the summer and where before on average the flow of the Seine was only 100-200m3 during this period, last summer the flow very rarely fell below 300m3 (the higher the flow, the higher the level of the river). And since we risk going in the same direction, it is not to be excluded that one day, in 20 or even 10 years, we will start to have floods in the summer in Paris (even of small magnitude). Another recent example, the fact that we had gigantic fires in Los Angeles in the middle of winter, it is not supposed to be "usual". And even if there were still no floods in July-August in Brisbane in 2032, the fact remains that major floods even several months before can have consequences in the long term. Look at the region of Valencia which suffered enormous floods in October, and which still today has not fully recovered.

- You only talk about the impact on the Olympic sites, but not about what is around it, and which is nevertheless essential to the proper organization of the Olympic Games. Major floods can disrupt or even interrupt major transport flows, ruin hotels located in flood zones, etc. If this happened in the middle of the Olympic Games (or even a few weeks or months before), even if the Olympic sites were intact, you can imagine that it would seriously disrupt the Olympic Games.

4 hours ago, Bear said:

I mean, our individual carbon footprint actually is nothing compared to corporations:

https://sites.manchester.ac.uk/global-social-challenges/2022/07/07/corporations-vs-consumers-who-is-really-to-blame-for-climate-change/

"Since 1988, just 100 companies have been responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions.1 In addition to this, only 25 corporations and state-owned organisations were found to be responsible for over 50% of the global industrial emissions2 during the same time period."

https://www.arbor.eco/blog/global-carbon-emissions-impact-breakdown

"Although individuals' actions contribute to emissions through energy consumption, transportation, and other day-to-day activities, the magnitude of emissions generated by companies is much greater. The industrial sector, including power generation, manufacturing, and construction, account for a substantial portion of global emissions."

No. This will only drive costs higher for the host, and turn even more cities away from hosting the Games. If such a guarantee or requirement were to be included, it should instead be the IOC's obligation to invest in whatever project is linked. Even then, the contract should only be concerning the organization of the Games and associated aspects - nothing more, nothing less.

some thoughts:

Reducing the sports programme, as well as replacing some disciplines with others. Prime examples that have come up over the years here:

• Futsal over Football - for starters, Football requires many large venues, causing the competition to be spread out across a large territory. This is not good if we are trying to reduce the Games impact.
  • Furthermore, we all know the discussion surrounding the competition quality for the men's tournament, so there is an incentive to drop the sport from the programme. In regards to the women's tournament, the FIFA Women's World Cup is growing in popularity and recognition. Prioritize the further development of that tournament, and hopefully we'll get to the same level as the men's tournament.
• Remove Canoe Slalom from the permanent sports programme - this sport uses a highly specific venue that is very likely to go un(der)-used after the Games end.
• Remove Bobsleigh / Skeleton / Luge from the permanent sports programme - exact same reasoning as above.
• Remove Golf from the permanent sports programme - this is probably the most environmentally-unfriendly sport in the programme due to the nature of the field of play being both extremely large and requiring tons of water for its upkeep. Furthermore, is there really a public legacy from this sport to the host community? I don't know how it is abroad but in the US, golf courses are usually in places exclusive to rich people.
• Remove Equestrian from the permanent sports programme - in a way similar to above, especially in regards to the accessibility of the sport for anyone who isn't rich enough to own a horse.
• Remove Surfing from the permanent sports programme - we've already had this discussion very recently so I won't get into it.

Prioritizing, if not out-right requiring preexisting venues. Temporary venues should be allowed to an extent (as we've seen in past Games), but really try to discourage the building of new venues. A significant exemption to this idea is the Olympic Village of course, as not every city has a UCLA or USC.

• This has been the model for the Youth Olympic Games, and I think it is time to bring it towards the adult Games as well.
• This of course means that the IOC will have to really lean into the no minimum capacity thing, which I'm honestly fine with.
  • Like, do we really need a 70k+ seater stadium for Athletics? Probably not, it's not like we will ever see those crowds once the Games end.

Getting rid of the July - August time slot. This has already been mentioned so I won't go into this further

ok its 1:35 am so i don't have much else to say so i'll leave it here for now

I wouldn't mind if the IOC funded such a measure for host cities that are in developing countries. For example, to take a recent example, Rio.

But for developed, Westernized countries, it wouldn't make any sense. I don't see why the IOC should pay for this kind of project for Paris, Los Angeles, or Brisbane, which will benefit the city long after the Games. These cities and countries also need to take some responsibility. You can't be a rich country and ask for the begging for such essential projects when you have the means, it's ridiculous. And if it pushes some cities in rich countries not to apply? Well, too bad, I won't mourn these cities that have shown that deep down, they don't care about major concerns as long as there is Panem et circenses.

For the rest, I tend to agree with you on the list of sports to remove or change - perhaps not necessarily for equestrian where the problem you point out is more of a social problem than an environmental one (even if I agree with you on the point you highlight).

On the issue of the minimum capacity that you highlight, we can also talk about swimming at the Olympics, where the international federation requires a minimum size for major competitions & Olympics (I think it's 15,000 seats), except that building an Olympic swimming pool with 15,000 seats obviously makes no sense outside of these tournaments. It's not a problem for Paris & LA since we have the advantage of having large stadiums that can be transformed into temporary swimming pools, but not all cities have this advantage.

[Sir Rols]

11 hours ago, Bear said:

I mean, our individual carbon footprint actually is nothing compared to corporations:

That’s true. Just as surely as the Olympic Games’ carbon footprint is miniscule compared to day-to-day industry and corporate activities. But small gestures and symbolic examples do matter. Ultimately, any truly meaningful climate action is going to require a total overhaul of society, because modern society as we all enjoy at the moment is ultimately not sustainable.

Currently our internet emissions account for 3.7 per cent of global carbon emissions, on par with the airlines industry. And that is set to grow massively with the growth of AIs, which are hugely power devouring. And yet EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE for the IOC presidential seat is trumpeting wish washy guff about “harnessing the powers of AI” - personally, I think they’ve just latched onto the current buzz word rather than have any clear vision about the technology.

11 hours ago, Bear said:

Prioritizing, if not out-right requiring preexisting venues. Temporary venues should be allowed to an extent (as we've seen in past Games), but really try to discourage the building of new venues. A significant exemption to this idea is the Olympic Village of course, as not every city has a UCLA or USC.

This is one thing that I will give the IOC. They’ve been championing this since long before the “New Norm” with Agenda 2020, and they do seem to be quite serious in at least trying to enforce, or at least encourage, it. Though I think they’ve jreached that spot more for financial and PR reasons than for climate reasons. But, good on them.

That said, sometimes it may well be better for sustainability reasons to build anew. Most modern building codes for public buildings require environmental and sustainable design elements. In many cases new structures would surely have smaller footprints than legacy stadiums. Take Tokyo’s new Olympic Stadium - I’m sure that’s far more environmentally friendly than the big concrete bowl it replaced.

 

[Bear]

8 hours ago, sebastien1214 said:

I wouldn't mind if the IOC funded such a measure for host cities that are in developing countries. For example, to take a recent example, Rio.

But for developed, Westernized countries, it wouldn't make any sense. I don't see why the IOC should pay for this kind of project for Paris, Los Angeles, or Brisbane, which will benefit the city long after the Games. These cities and countries also need to take some responsibility. You can't be a rich country and ask for the begging for such essential projects when you have the means, it's ridiculous. And if it pushes some cities in rich countries not to apply? Well, too bad, I won't mourn these cities that have shown that deep down, they don't care about major concerns as long as there is Panem et circenses.

In these cases, France, US (though these days... 😔), and Australia should already be doing these projects independently from the Games. Associating them with the Games when there is a tight timeline between announcement and delivery would probably result in a rushed, subpar, and expensive job. The only role the IOC should play here is focusing on making the Games and delivery process sustainable in my opinion.

As to why the IOC should contribute, if such requirements were to exist, it's all about PR and optics haha. "Look, the IOC isn't actually poo, they're helping make our city better for the environment!"

8 hours ago, sebastien1214 said:

On the issue of the minimum capacity that you highlight, we can also talk about swimming at the Olympics, where the international federation requires a minimum size for major competitions & Olympics (I think it's 15,000 seats), except that building an Olympic swimming pool with 15,000 seats obviously makes no sense outside of these tournaments. It's not a problem for Paris & LA since we have the advantage of having large stadiums that can be transformed into temporary swimming pools, but not all cities have this advantage.

Yes, Swimming is definitely a top 2 offender (along with Athletics) in this regard. At the very least, do it like London where the seating wings were removed post-Games so you can have a proper community-oriented venue afterwards...

58 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

That said, sometimes it may well be better for sustainability reasons to build anew. Most modern building codes for public buildings require environmental and sustainable design elements. In many cases new structures would surely have smaller footprints than legacy stadiums. Take Tokyo’s new Olympic Stadium - I’m sure that’s far more environmentally friendly than the big concrete bowl it replaced.

I've been thinking about this point for a while now. The only response I've been able to come up with is if the OCOG / city can present solid legacy and sustainability plans for post-Games use, but that's a bit subjective and vague I think. Alternatively, if the venue does not meet accessibility standards, then you really should be able to replace it with something new.

[Sir Rols]

42 minutes ago, Bear said:

The only response I've been able to come up with is if the OCOG / city can present solid legacy and sustainability plans for post-Games use, but that's a bit subjective and vague I think

Again, that basically is the existing IOC policy - they won’t approve new builds for the games now unless it can be demonstrated to have a beyond-games use/need. That’s one of the reasons for Brisbane’s main stadium kerfuffle - the IOC encouraged and waved through a sub-par QSAC, even though there was a demonstrateable need for a new oval stadium.

[Cyriln]

Don't know if it's technically possible or even sustainable, but would it be possible for the IOC to purchase several temporary arenas, that could be lent to organizing committees for different editions of Olympics / YOG / any other event that could require that kind of equipment but doesn't have the means of Olympics? If a city doesn't have a specific venue for a sport, IOC could say "Don't build anything, we already have a temporary equipment adapted to <insert event here>".

Cause seen from the inside, it's just a huge bunch of metallic tubes with seats on top.

Spoiler

Inside the Tour Eiffel stadium. Wonderful, isn't it?

 

[Bear]

Just now, Sir Rols said:

Again, that basically is the existing IOC policy - they won’t approve new builds for the games now unless it can be demonstrated to have a beyond-games use/need. That’s one of the reasons for Brisbane’s main stadium kerfuffle - the IOC encouraged and waved through a sub-par QSAC, even though there was a demonstrateable need for a new oval stadium.

It is, but it isn't really enforced. The policy is treated as recommendations instead, which we see can be conveniently ignored (not necessarily with Brisbane, but with situations like the sliding center in Cortina)

[Sir Rols]

10 minutes ago, Bear said:

It is, but it isn't really enforced. The policy is treated as recommendations instead, which we see can be conveniently ignored (not necessarily with Brisbane, but with situations like the sliding center in Cortina)

I don’t fault the IOC for that, though. They’ve placed plenty of pressure on the Italians - even arranged Lake Placid on standby - but in this case good intentions was met by Italian chauvinism and intransigence.

We’ve sen with the choices of Paris, LA, France-Alps and SLC, and the original selling pitch for Brisbane, that zero and minimal builds is very high, if not at the top, of their selection criteria. The test will be to see if that’s sustained for 2036 and beyond.

Edited February 15 by Sir Rols

[sebastien1214]

1 hour ago, Bear said:

In these cases, France, US (though these days... 😔), and Australia should already be doing these projects independently from the Games. Associating them with the Games when there is a tight timeline between announcement and delivery would probably result in a rushed, subpar, and expensive job. The only role the IOC should play here is focusing on making the Games and delivery process sustainable in my opinion.

These are things that we here already do without the Games (but because Europe is the only continent that takes climate issues seriously), so for Paris it wouldn't have changed much anyway (the proof: for the Seine swimmability plan we built new water retention reservoirs, we didn't even wait for the IOC to do it ourselves for the Games).

And there is no reason for the work to necessarily be botched, to take the example of the Seine in Paris the work was of high quality and all delivered on time, even though we lost 1-2 years because of COVID!

But there are rich countries, Western (or not) that are not making an effort when they could. Like the USA for example. It may therefore be useful for the IOC to be a little stricter on this. We must not forget that the viability of the Games is not just strictly Olympic infrastructure, but the entire city: its accommodation, its transport... and that the IOC has every interest in ensuring that no external factor (especially climatic) risks disrupting the host city as a whole. (in Paris, very large floods of the Seine can flood many stations and cut off quite a few metro lines at the end, can you imagine the chaos if it had happened last summer in the middle of the Olympics? Well, almost no chance at the moment that a flood of this magnitude that only happens once a century would fall during a summer, I'm saying that more for the sake of thought)

[sebastien1214]

21 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

Agreed, these are not solutions. They’re just reactions to practical necessity. Shifting hosting time slots itself will do nothing to combat emissions, just move emissions to a different month.

And, yeah, energy production is THE major hurdle. In France you are lucky, and can take some pride, in your far more decarbonised energy industry. Here in Oz, it’s a hot potato that has poisoned politics for decades now. The increasingly rabid Right HATE anything renewable, while the Left is firmly anti-nuclear because, well, nukes are bad. In the meantime, we just continue our addiction to coal-fired electricity. Personally, I’d be open to nuclear energy here, but we probably should have started that shift twenty or thirty years ago - it’s not something we can adopt overnight.

That said, where the medium-term future lies in large electrical interconnections between countries to accelerate the decarbonisation of electricity, Australia's fairly... isolated geographical position means that it is probably not too late for you to launch civil nuclear projects, even if it does not come to fruition for 20 years.

(for god sake why is there a confused smiley reaction to this post)

[Sir Rols]

5 minutes ago, sebastien1214 said:

That said, where the medium-term future lies in large electrical interconnections between countries to accelerate the decarbonisation of electricity, Australia's fairly... isolated geographical position means that it is probably not too late for you to launch civil nuclear projects, even if it does not come to fruition for 20 years

I’m a committed leftist (and getting more - militantly so - as I get older), but I’m pretty disheartened by the Australian left’s (Labor and Greens) refusal to consider nuclear power. I mean, jeez, we’ve long exported uranium to most of the world and it’s one of the few zero carbon options for large capacity energy production. I get it, it scares people (and led to Germany and Sweden’s de-nuclearisation of power), but it really needs to be considered here outside of ideological divides.

11 minutes ago, sebastien1214 said:

(for god sake why is there a confused smiley reaction to this post)

Petty personal vendetta’s and games.