The Greenwash Games are Underway

A few years ago the 2010 Winter Olympics Games were promoted as the “greenest” games. But as they approached it beame evident that environmental sustainability was not a real priority and that a more appropriate label might be “greenwash games.” The Olympics helped start a massive highway expansion program, tens of thousands of trees were cut down, two separate red-listed (endangered) habitats were paved over, sponsorship deals signed with the worst greenhouse gas emitters, VANOC revealed a fleet of SUVs and they failed to meet their own ghg offset targets.

As the games began critics of these policies made their voices heard. When the Olympic torch arrived in Vancouver opponents took to the streets in large enough numbers that the torch had to be re-routed twice. And as the opening ceremonies began thousands marched through the streets for several blocks until they were finally stopped just across the street from the site of the ceremonies. People were in the streets for a variety of reasons including the social and financial costs of the games. But one of the prominent themes on protester's signs was the ecological costs.

Protests continued the following day. The media focused on the destruction that occured at the more militant protest but that action was not the only one in the region. Community leaders from first nations affected by the Tar Sands spoke to a crowd outside the RBC's main Vancouver branch. RBC is one of largest funders of the Tar Sands. In the suburbs another First Nations group temporarily blocked a bridge to protest the ecological damage done by that project. On a quieter note cyclists participated in Vancouver's first “tweed ride.” And campaigners dressed as polar bears prepared to be deployed.

The first few days of the games have brought above normal temperatures. But organizers and sponsors still seem to be a long way from taking responsibility for climate change.

Is VANOC really creating fewer greenhouse gas emissions?

With the Olympics only one day away there is plenty of talk about the games and the warm weather.  And commentators are weighing in on how far the games have gone to support environmental initiatives.

David Suzuki and Faisal Moola have written a commentary on this issue.  They correctly point out that sustainable transportation will not be a legacy of these games.  But they do offer VANOC some praise when they suggest that these Olympics are expected to produce few greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions than previous Winter Olympics.

I decided to take a close look at the numbers used to make this claim.  The scorecard produced by the David Suzuki Foundation (DSF) estimates that the overall emissions will be reduced by around 15%.  Where will this reduction come from?

DSF estimated that emissions from electricity at venues will be 12,000 tonnes.  VANOC and BC Hydro have claimed that this represents a 90% reduction in emissions.  Which means the reduction from electricity alone would be about 108,000 tonnes.

But 108,000 tonnes is over 30% of estimated total emissions for the games (328,000).  That means that the 15% reduction doesn't even cover the reduction from electricity.  Or in other words, if you remove venue electricity from the equation there would actually be a net INCREASE in ghg emission compared to previous games.

The reason why there is such a large reduction for electricity is that over 85% of electricity consumed in BC comes from hydro power.  And this means that other locations that have hosted the games have a much higher ghg component to their electricity.

VANOC can not really take credit for this clean electricity being available.  The hydro projects were built decades ago.  If these calculation are right, it means that in the sectors that VANOC was responsible for they actually managed to increase ghg emissions.

VANOC reveals its approach to sustainable tranporation

I think this photo pretty well sums up VANOC's approach to the sustainable transportation at the 2010 Olympic Games in Vancouver. 

One of the over 4,000 official SUVs parked in a bike lane. 

How many SUVs does it take to run an olympics?

GM has supplied over 4,000 vehicles for VANOC to use for the 2010 Winter Olympics.  They can be seen parked in several large lots in Vancouver and Whistler.  Almost all of the vehicles are SUVs.  Yes, a few are hybrids and there is one fuel cell vehicle, but most are just regular gas guzzling SUVs.

In the weeks leading up to the games the large white SUVs could often be spotted around town.  They almost without exception would contain just a single occupant.  A Squamish resident related seeing four stopped at a light all going the same direction and all with single occupant.

If VANOC was truly interested in sustainability couldn't they have found better transportation solutions? Why not public transit or even bikes for all those single occupancy trips?  Or at the very least they should have found something more fuel efficient than an SUV.

Bikes Invade Richmond

On Saturday morning hundreds of cyclists road Critical Mass style through the street of Richmond, BC.  It was a "Go Green Go Dutch Go Bike" event that was also the kick-off for a program that saw the Netherlands Consulate donate 400 bikes for use during the Olympic period. The Third Wave Cycling blog has a good description of the ride.

The program to donate 400 bikes for use at the Richmond venues seems to me to be one of the few truly "green" elements to the 2010 games.  Not surprisingly it is not VANOC initiative.

Two Lists

29 examples of negative environmental mistakes and impacts of the 2010 games:

1. major highway expansion instead of using rail connections to Whistler
2. rare ecosystems lost from Sea to Sky highway upgrade
3. endangered species habitat destroyed in Sea to Sky highway upgrade
4. encroachment on Grizzly habitat in Callaghan Valley
5. over 80,000 trees cut down in Callaghan Valley
6. huge sewage treatment plant built in Callaghan Valley (previously wilderness) to facilitate future development instead of a more sustainable composting system
7. ski trail cut without proper buffers next to riparian habitat in Callaghan Valley
8. paving over the red-listed (endangered) wet land in Whistler for bus parking (even though the huge parking lots regularly used by the public will be available for the Olympics)
9. over 800 old-growth trees were cut in the heart of Whistler village for an unnecessary celebration plaza.
10. construction that degraded creek at Downhill Course (work went beyond what Biologists indicated was “safe”) despite the fact the existing course has been used for FIS World Cup downhills for years
11. use of over 4,000 SUV vehicles (often with a single occupant) for Olympic business instead of more fuel efficient transportation options
12. use of Hydrogen buses with fuel shipped in from Quebec instead of using more electrically efficient options like trolley buses or electric trains
13. closing cycling routes in Vancouver and failing to implement safe, efficient detours despite promises to do so
14. poor management of LEED buildings used for venues (unnecessary lights left on 24 hours a day)
15. hundreds of generators generating excess C02 and dangerous particulate matter (the generators are being used beyond VANOC claims they are needed for and beyond what BC Hydro says they are needed for)
16. back-tracking on promises to implement renewable energy at venues
17. refusing offer to use trains for Olympics and using SUVs / buses instead
18. blacking out energy efficient daylight features at Richmond Oval
19. using bio-accumulative chemicals at Cypress bowl venue
20. claiming that the Games are carbon neutral but only offsetting 1/3 of the emissions
21. failing to account for all the ghg emissions from the games
22. failing to meet 90% ghg reduction target for energy use at venues
23. large pollution impact from trucking (and flying?) snow to Cypress Bowl venue
24. allowing RBC the largest commercial bank financier of the Tar Sands to be a major Olympic sponsor.
25. allowing PetroCanada the retail arm of the first and one of the largest Tar Sands extractors to be a major Olympic sponsor
26. allowing TransCanada pipelines which brings products from the Tar Sands to be an Olympic supplier.
27. allowing General Motors, one of the leading corporate opponents of effective action on climate change to be an Olympic sponsor (Only two years ago, a vice-chairman of GM called global warming a "total crock of shit.")
28. ammonia leaks from Whistler sliding centre
29. Sliding Centre that use more energy than all the lifts, restaurants and lodges Whistler and Blackcomb mountains combined but is used by only a small groups of specialized athletes

3 positive environmental projects at the Games

1. the Olympic Line Street car (a City of Vancouver project)
2. the Austria House (passivhaus) in Whistler (thanks to the Austrian team)
3. free biking sharing in Richmond (donated by the Dutch)

Would you like some chemicals with your snow?

With the continuing warm temperatures in Vancouver, VANOC has had to resort to drastic measures to keep the snow at Cypress Bowl, the local snowboarding and ski venue.  They have said that they may use "snow hardening" chemicals to help prepare the snow for the games.  And this has local residents expressing concerns about those chemicals.

VANOC has ignored requests to identify which chemicals they will be using.  They have claimed that this measure was included in the provincial environmental assessment for the venue.  However, I was unable to find any mention of snow hardening or preserving chemicals in the assessment.

Generally the chemicals used to prepare ski and snowboard courses can include sodium chloride (salt), calcium chloride, urea, ammonium nitrate , and potassium nitrate.  Some of the chemicals used can be bio-accumulative.

A Swiss study found that water in streams fed by treated ski runs had much higher concentrations of salts than background levels measured in neighbouring streams. In fact, elevated levels were detected more than 15 years after treatment ended.  The chemicals also can contribute to higher levels of chlorides, nitrogen and phosphorous in the local water systems.

7YFQ2QFPM95C