How Green Will the London Olympics Be?
by Bonnie Alter, London on 02.12.07
London’s 2012 Olympic Games are less than 2012 days away. The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA), the public body that has to deliver the goods, has launched their plans to make the event the “greenest games in modern times”. Their newly released report sets the sustainable standard for everything from building practices to the use of renewable energy. It focuses on reducing carbon emissions, green transport and a high reuse of materials during construction. It says that “90% of demolition materials from the site will be recycled or reused and that at least 20% of materials used in permanent venues and associated works and the Olympic village will be recycled. Some 20% of electricity demand will be met by renewable sources”. The Olympic village will be one quarter more energy efficient than current building regulations require and buildings will use 40% less water than current industry standards. It also "aspires" to bring in 50% of all building materials to the site by rail and local waterways - though this would require an extensive upgrade to the existing channel. The site will have its own mini electricity grid, including a state-of-the-art wind turbine 120 metres high, providing enough electricity to supply 1,200 homes for a year.
Critics say that the plans are a “disappointing missed opportunity”. The president of the architecture association said that “sustainability targets for the Olympic village lag worryingly behind the government's own proposals. The ODA sustainability strategy states that the village will be 25% more energy-efficient than buildings built today using current building regulations. Yet the government is already proposing that all new housing should meet that target by 2010 - two years before the games take place”. Meanwhile a one hundred year old community allotment garden is to be bulldozed to make way for a footpath. To make matters worse, a report has already been issued that criticizes the handling of the Olympic budget. Stay tuned for years more of controversy. :: Guardian
sigh... sounds greener than the China Olympics. The whole Beijing going green thing was such a huge joke.
Be a whole lot greener if they didn't stage them at all and spent the £billions on something more useful. The ODA can shout about being green all they want, but I don't really see how attracting tens of thousands of people to East London for two weeks is especially environmentally friendly. How are those people going to get there? Where will they stay? How much extra energy demand and pollution will be caused by such an influx of people? The whole notion of a "green" event of this scale is laughable.
I appreciate your point that the environmental standards of the project are being put under close review and may be seen as not being strict enough, while the idea of local indigenous communities being destroyed doesn’t raise concern. This gets into the issue of what is more sustainable: buying a brand new hybrid car, or just repairing the old one in the garage? Although I do believe it is more environmentally sound to take better advantage of existing structures and public spaces than to erect new ones that cause more pollution and create other environmental dilemmas, I do think the creating of a new Olympic Village is vital. As seen in past proposals, the designs for these “global villages” represent international community and promote peace among nations. The erecting of new structures is symbolic of this effort and, without it I believe that the potency of the project would diminish. Given this, by erecting a building that is “green” is by all means appropriate in that it represents the global effort to be more environmentally efficient.
I appreciate your point that the environmental standards of the project are being put under close review and may be seen as not being strict enough, while the idea of local indigenous communities being destroyed doesn’t raise concern. This gets into the issue of what is more sustainable: buying a brand new hybrid car, or just repairing the old one in the garage? Although I do believe it is more environmentally sound to take better advantage of existing structures and public spaces than to erect new ones that cause more pollution and create other environmental dilemmas, I do think the creating of a new Olympic Village is vital. As seen in past proposals, the designs for these “global villages” represent international community and promote peace among nations. The erecting of new structures is symbolic of this effort and, without it I believe that the potency of the project would diminish. Given this, by erecting a building that is “green” is by all means appropriate in that it represents the global effort to be more environmentally efficient.
A few life cycle analysis I've seen said that from 80 to 90% of a car's life cycle impact came from driving it (mostly gasoline). So in some cases getting a new more efficient vehicle might make sense, especially if the old one can be reasonably recycled (at least the metal, maybe some spare pieces).
But I'd definitely want to know more about this.
hmmm... very interesting. I guess the real question, then, would be if the Olympic development would in fact offer a sustainable benifit for the community that will be used not only for the olympics but for future generations of people as well (and not just sit there like a shinny new car). I have hopes that it will, and based on the fact that they are making a concious effort to incorporate green systems is very promising.
hmmm... very interesting. I guess the real question, then, would be if the Olympic development would in fact offer a sustainable benifit for the community that will be used not only for the olympics but for future generations of people as well (and not just sit there like a shinny new car). I have hopes that it will, and based on the fact that they are making a concious effort to incorporate green systems is very promising.