Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English.

There are 6 comments on POV: Earth to Boston Olympics: You Haven’t Polled Me

  1. Actually the Planet and Sustainability is one of the #1 requirements by the IOC now…
    It started to become part of the Olympic Process and Legacy in 1994.
    – LILLEHAMMER 1994: For the First time, The Environment Becomes Fundamental Principle in Organizing the Games. The IOC and UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) signed a cooperation agreement and the environment was included in the Olympic Charter as a fundamental principle.
    – SYDNEY 2000: Environmental Considerations were incorporated into all aspects of Games Management including Green Construction. The Olympic Village was built using green technology, ending the myth that high costs made this type of building unfeasible for large-scale projects.
    – TURIN 2006: The Environment became a consideration in Games Legacy Planning. The organising committee formed a strategic alliance with UNEP to provide support and cooperation in implementing environmental projects linked to the Games and their legacy.
    – VANCOUVER 2010: The Games drew attention by fully engaging in the move towards sustainability. The organising committee created a sustainability governance model to be adopted by socially responsible businesses and big sporting events.
    – LONDON 2012: Total Engagement – Sustainability was an integral part of the games, from the city’s candidature through to hosting the games. The London 2012 Games were the first to incorporate sustainable design into all processes, including planning, construction and fund-raising, based on the WWF concept of ‘One planet living’
    – RIO 2016: Embracing Sustainability – With a modern sustainability plan, Rio 2016 aims to be a catalyst for positive change, benefiting brazil and it’s population. In conjunction with various stakeholders, the organising committee is working so that the changes and improvements instigated for the Games become a lasting legacy for the city of Rio and across Brazil.
    http://www.rio2016.com/sustentabilidade/en/

    1. Good points … BUT … the Olympics gathering has never yet been a net positive event on the planet.

      Professor Zook’s points are still worthy.

    2. This comment simply repeats boilerplate publicity from the IOC. They say the right things, then grab all the $$$ they can from cities gullible enough to submit bids. IOC corruption is reason enough in itself to keep the Olympics far, far away from our fair city. for further reasons, see my comment below.

  2. I appreciate Mr. Peters comment. However, if he cannot cite any real numbers in all these Olympic environmental pledges — such as amount of greenhouse gas emissions from the event and other data in response to the earth-questions in my POV — it stands on barren ground.

  3. While the environmental aspects and impact are quite important, the bottom line is that the present infrastructure is insufficient to support such a venture. Where the funding will come from is questionable. The “Big Dig” will not be paid off for until 2038. With less than 10 years until opening ceremonies, Boston is not a good choice. I am pro-Olympics and pro-Boston but not pro Olympics in Boston.

    Read the following for a recent past Olympics:

    http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-eroding-legacy-of-the-1996-olympics-in-atlanta/

  4. This is a good article on a significant aspect of hosting the Olympics, a secondary one, but it needs more consideration.

    Richard Peters provides some helpful details. But overall his comment is credible only if one assumes that sports mega-events must be held, & especially that they MUST be moved around the globe every few years. The best way to minimize negative impacts of wasteful & superfluous activity is to not engage in those activities.

    Hosting the Olympics in Boston is a terrible idea, except for developers hoping to go from multimillionaires to billionaires, & some are billionaires already. Boston is much too small in land area; it will cost far too much — don’t believe any PR saying that no public funds will be used; it will wreck too much of our fair city — hands OFF the Boston Common! Most important, it will gobble up so much public funding that public policy will be devastated for decades to come. As someone astutely commented in the Boston Globe:

    “The athletes are welcome. The Olympics are not.”

    It’s hard to state it any better than that.

Post a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *