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

[Bear]

15 minutes ago, sebastien1214 said:

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)

But the IOC is at its core, an international sports organization. They have no way to make binding demands to governmental bodies. It's like the human rights argument, you can't really make governments change or do stuff they don't want to do. The only thing you can do is "Oh, this country / city doesn't respect the environment, we should choose another city".

25 minutes ago, sebastien1214 said:

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).

Well yeah, like I said, countries should be doing that independently of the Games. Would the Seine infrastructure have been delivered just as well if it was attached to the Host City Contract, meaning that you now have to wait for the IOC, then through their approval within their timeline, on top of everything else? I mean, I don't have an answer to this, you know more about this specific example than I do, but it just seems like an unnecessary step tbh

17 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

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.

i also consider myself a leftist, and i too think the fear of nuclear energy is incredibly silly.

like yeah, we had two high-profile disasters, but one of them could have been avoided if it had a proper shelter (that literally every nuclear reactor outside of the then-USSR has anyways) and a decent reactor design (that literally every nuclear reactor outside of the then-USSR has), while the second disaster could have been mitigated if it had a taller sea wall (also, the power plant was literally hit by a M9 earthquake and subsequent tsunamis, that doesn't really happen in most places).

even with those disasters, nuclear energy is incredibly safe and clean, and newer designs allow us to re-use fuel rods which can limit waste. it's our best bet right now to help mitigate climate change, it's a shame many people don't see it this way

[sebastien1214]

28 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

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.

10-15 years ago, the French left was mostly anti-nuclear, but today things have changed a lot and a clear majority of left-wing voters are pro-nuclear. I wonder if this is a French exception, or if it is a trend that we also observe in other countries where the left exists.

(it must be said that having Germany as a neighbor has helped a lot for this change in opinion within the left)

28 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Petty personal vendetta’s and games.

It's pathetic enough to be funny.

4 minutes ago, Bear said:

But the IOC is at its core, an international sports organization. They have no way to make binding demands to governmental bodies. It's like the human rights argument, you can't really make governments change or do stuff they don't want to do. The only thing you can do is "Oh, this country / city doesn't respect the environment, we should choose another city".

The IOC already imposes its demands on host countries. Article 33 of the Olympic Charter in its French version states that "The national government of the country of any candidacy must submit to the IOC a legally binding act by which this government guarantees and undertakes that the country and its public authorities will comply with and respect the Olympic Charter."

In France, this translates into an Olympic law that was passed for the 2024 Olympics (and a new one is in preparation for 2030) that provides for exceptions to the French legal framework, for example in the 2024 Olympic law there were in particular:

- the free occupation of public space by IOC sponsors (translation = no tax for them)
- the privatization of words, including words that are in common usage like "Olympian"
- exceptions to urban planning laws (I won't go into detail, you won't understand anything)
- exceptions to environmental laws, particularly concerning advertising
- a specific procedure in the event of possible disputes that would fall outside French common law: it's even less understandable than urban planning laws

So from the moment the IOC can demand this kind of thing from host countries, it leaves the door open to a lot of things.

4 minutes ago, Bear said:

Well yeah, like I said, countries should be doing that independently of the Games. Would the Seine infrastructure have been delivered just as well if it was attached to the Host City Contract, meaning that you now have to wait for the IOC, then through their approval within their timeline, on top of everything else? I mean, I don't have an answer to this, you know more about this specific example than I do, but it just seems like an unnecessary step tbh

I think the result would have been the same in this specific case.

[Sir Rols]

Okay, I’ll throw this one out there.

I’d imagine many of us would consider Watanabe’s idea of a 24-hour games across five continents a bit wacky. I personally think it would dilute a lot of the spirit and appeal of the summer games. But could this be a viable future for the winter games? Potential snow hosts are fast disappearing, and the luge/bobsled track is a real white elephant and burden for most. The IOC is talking about a potential limited pool of winter hosts to choose from in the future, but maybe it just might be better to split the games across the world. Alpine Skiing in, say, Sapporo (one of the few places forecasted to still be able to reliably offer snow cover in a few decades), bob/luge in one of the existing tracks in the US or Europe. Ice events are easy enough to find cities with venues for rinks, cross country skiing might still be viable in Scandinavia. In the winter context, such a worldwide, 24-hour split might make some sense.

[cfm Jeremie]

7 hours ago, Cyriln said:

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.

  Reveal hidden contents

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

 

There has been studies in the past on this topic. The challenge is the business model for such a solution: the cost for storage and shipping of those temporary solutions makes it challenging for them to be cost effective Vs procuring/renting directly from a supplier.