what do i think?

Welllll....
After reading the full review of the David Suzuki Foundation, here's what I'd give Vancouver 2010, http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/climate/Climate_Scorecard_for_the_2010_Vancouver_Olympics.pdf
Goals - C
Transparency - B
Measuring Climate Change - B
Venues - A+
Energy Use -A
Transportation - C-
Overall Greenhouse Gas Emissions - C
Offsetting Remaining Emissions - C
Mobilizing Sponsors and Others - B+
Public Engagement - C

VANOC definitely missed the mark on important ones like Transportation, and Public Engagement. These are the areas that will make a difference in the long run for the issues we're facing, specifically climate change.

However, this was a good accomplishment compared to previous Winter Games and I am proud to say that "the greenest Olympics so far" (whether they really were or not actually, it's the attempt at least) were held in my country, in my province. Beautiful British Columbia truly is the best place on earth and I'd like to keep it that way for as long as possible!

vancouver 2010 gets a bronze

In 2007, The David Suzuki Foundation created a discussion report called "Meeting the Challenge"

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/reports/Meeting-the-Challenge.pdf

this discussion report explained what the Foundation felt VANOC needed to do in order to actually be able to meet their goal of being the greenest Olympic Games.

"Climate change is a defining issue of our time, and the Winter Olympics are an opportunity to show leadership by reaching and inspiring billions of fans and spectators with solutions to global warming," says Paul Lingl of the David Suzuki Foundation. "Despite some missed opportunities, the steps taken by the 2010 Olympics demonstrate that climate solutions are doable, affordable and can have a lasting legacy."

On February 3rd (1 week before the games were to begin) the Foundation graded the overall efforts and results of VANOC's attempt to make the 2010 Games the "most sustainable games yet". The result = a bronze. Which in my opinion - is pretty sad if this was the attempt to be the greenest games and it got a bronze... dare I even want to know what the previous Games would've gotten...

The evaluation was broken down into 10 categories. Categories that the Foundation "felt were together a good measure of overall performance with respect to climate action and leadership".

1. GOALS - clear goals were set towards energy efficiency and renewable energy... however no goals were set related to a sustainable transportation legacy, nor very clear on how they would "move towards carbon-neutral games".


2. TRANSPARENCY - VANOC provided information of it's climate-related initiatives, and published in total 5 sustainability reports (more than any other organizing committee). VANOC communicated often with local environmental groups that provided feedback on sustainability issues. However, there was a poor information provided on their overall transportation program, and a breakdown of their overall budget for sustainability issues.


3. MEASURING CLIMATE CHANGE -VANOC provided reasonable estimates for all emissions that would be emitted from the Games, and made an extraordinary effort to reduce them over seven years which had never been done for any other games. However, they didn't account in fugitive emissions from refrigeration, or those from suppliers and contractors.


4. VENUES - 8/9 of the new venues were certified under the LEED building rating system. VANOC gets an A for Venues. Once the games are over, the community will be left with innovative, energy-efficient buildings that will reduce greenhouse gases and and save money for years into the future.


5. ENERGY USE - VANOC delivered on it's committment to use clean, renewable energy sources through use of micro-hydro, fuel cells, solar heating and ground source heat pumps, seawater, and many other green sources. They successfully reduced greenhouse gas emissions from generator use by 90% compared to the Turin 2006 Winter Games.


6. TRANSPORTATION - PROS: VANOC did develop sustainable transportation guidelines that include initiatives such as ride sharing, route optimization, and a no-idling policy for their operations. The new Canada Line to the airport will benefit greatly for tourists and locals in the future. Also, many of the streets that were closed during the games were open still to pedestrians and cyclists giving an incentive for people to choose not to drive, and of course the 30% reduction in vehicle traffic goal during the games. CONS: Instead of expanding the existing rail lines, the Sea to Sky highway was widened at a cost of $600 million. This is going to encourage more traffic once the games are over, and result in more greenhouse gas emissions from transportation. The buses used to transport spectators were diesel buses. Even though 30% was a measurable goal, residents will go right back to using their personal vehicles rather than using public transportation.


7. OVERALL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS - it was estimated that the Games would reduce overall emissions by 15%, however VANOC didn't publicly announce any emission reduction targets, therefore it is hard to evaluate their success, and it's possible they may have reduction opportunities that were missed.


8. OFFSETTING REMAINING EMISSIONS -VANOC had committed to offset 118,000 tonnes of their emissions, which is substantial but it stills represents under half of overall Games-related emissions.
   
   
9. MOBILIZING SPONSERS AND OTHERS -VANOC reached out to sponsors and encouraged their feedback on sustainability issues. In 2009, VANOC held the World Conference on Sport and the Environment bringing together athletes, sponsors, and organizations to discuss climate change and other environmental concerns on sporting events.
   
   
10. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT - the Olympics were a major opportunity to inspire and educate the world on climate change issues, but VANOC failed to take advantage of it's high profile and reach out to the people on these issues. They did a lot of work behind the scenes to make the games as green as possible but didn't promote enough for others to do their part.

waste management

For the 2010 Games, VANOC wanted to go greener in terms of waste management. For the 27 day period they had a target of diverting from landfill at least 85% of solid waste generated during all operations of the Games.

VANOC's Sustainability Report states that they would go greener by:
-Reducing Sources: Do we need this product? Can we rent it rather than own? Can packaging be reduced or eliminated?
-Reuse: Can they use recycled or recyclable materials? Can they reuse old items in creative ways?
-Recycle: They would recycle and compost all disposable items.
-Waste to Energy: They would divert non-recyclable waste to facilities that convert waste materials to energy through combustion.
-Disposal at Landfill: An is sent to gas-to-energy or standard landfills (the last resort)

Here's a diagram from the Sustainability Report showing just how much waste was generated and how it was disposed of

This is pretty cool to see... wow, 712 metric tonnes of waste was recycled in 1 year from the Games.

With something like the Olympics which draws in international and global attention, it's important to link the "environment" with the Games because this draws awareness (a key factor) to world-wide environmental issues... making people realize that maybe they need to start thinking about how they're affecting our earth, because if the Olympics have taken on the huge challenge to incorporate green practices into every planning stage of the Games, then it has to show to people that the issues we're facing are obviously big ones.

Especially with the Olympics being in Vancouver and showcasing how natural, beautiful, fresh, and clean it is. Whether people saw it on the TV or they were there in person, it truly looks like a painting... you stand at the harbour, look across at the sun shining on the snow capped mountains reflecting on the ocean. This is our earth, and lets keep it looking this beautiful for the next generations.

let's go vancouver!

So... here's a recap,
VANOC's plan
1) KNOW - they estimated 268,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases would be emitted from the Games
2) REDUCE - they reduced their fuel use and integrated LEED green principles into planning and operations that reduced emissions by 57,000 tonnes
3) OFFSET - VANOC teams up with Offsetters, and together helps grow the clean technology sector in BC and contribute to the shift from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources
and lastly,
4) ENABLE & INSPIRE -increase awareness and get others to "do their part"

So how much of this awareness got to people? Did others actually "do their part"? Or will anyone care now that the Games are over? In "The Province" newspaper it stated that according to city statistics, Vancouver reduced traffic downtown by 30% in time for the opening ceremony. Another stat found was that 88% of people voted that they would like to see more frequent SeaBus and SkyTrain service over more hours. The city should take this information and do a trial period where they put in more frequent SeaBus and SkyTrain service throughout the city, market it, and see if the percentage of locals will actually make the decision to switch and start taking public transportation. So it'll be interesting to see if they actually take the feedback and get more locals on board with taking greener options for their everyday transportation.

However, lets not forget that there are still the Paralympic Games starting March 12, 2010. A statement was released yesterday by VANOC (http://www.vancouver2010.com/olympic-news/n/news/2010-olympic-transportation-plan-a-success_303738sk.html) stating that they were extremely happy with the transportation choices that citizens made during the February 12-28th period, and that the urge them to keep travelling smart throughout the next phase of the Games. However, they are also not having as many road closures as there were before, so there's a good chance that was the main reason for people taking public transportation and that now they will go back to their regular routine and route for getting to/from work. It will be interesting to see just how much those record numbers in my post "is no one driving" drops when the Paralympic Games are in Vancouver.

carbon-neutral eh?

The Winter Games use energy to heat buildings, make snow, freeze ice sheets and sliding tracks, run power equipment, and transport large numbers of people and goods - all of which generates greenhouse gases, which causes global warming, which is currently melting all our glaciers and causing changes in weather patterns (everyone would like to know where Canada's snow is?)...... and yet the Winter Games depend on snow and ice. How ironic eh?

Here's a diagram showing the estimated tonnes of greenhouse gases that would be generated by the games directly and indirecty -

http://www.vancouver2010.com/dl/00/19/23/vanoc-carbon-management-fact-sheet_60d-jJ.pdf

"Climate change is an enormous threat, but it's also an opportunity," said Niclas Svenningsen, head of sustainable United Nations at the United Nations Environment Programme. "The Olympic Games are one of the most high-profile events in the world. If it's possible to demonstrate a carbon-neutral Games, it's an opportunity to highlight to hundreds of millions of people what really can be done. The first step is to have a basic understanding of what it’s all about and why it matters because people think, ‘Oh it’s such a big problem my little travel doesn’t matter at all’, "And of course it is small parts all together that make up the solution."

VANOC planned take action on climate change by aspiring to have carbon-neutral Games by making public buildings like arenas and low-incoming housing energy efficient, using innovative heating/cooling solutions like geothermal transfer and waste heat recovery, and by developing renewable energy sources.

In Novemeber 2009, VANOC released an updated estimate of carbon emission totals that would be caused by the Games which implemented their Carbon Management Program. Their Carbon Management Program consists of 4 steps,

1. KNOW... how much carbon we are emitting and publicly track and report on it

2. REDUCE... emissions wherever possible

3. OFFSET... direct carbon emissions that cannot be reduced or eliminated

4. ENABLE AND INSPIRE FURTHER ACTION... use the 2010 experience to increase awareness of and participation in emerging solutions to climate change

They then aimed to reduce 268,000 tonnes of carbon emissions (118,000 of direct and 150,000 of indirect) generated as a result of the Games. To put that into context, reducing 268,000 tonnes would be the equivalent of taking 49,084 passenger vehicles off the road or the equivalent electricity use to power 37,171 homes for a year.

VANOC teamed up with Offsetters, a leading BC based carbon management company to better offset the 268,000 tonnes of emissions and invest in new clean-technology projects that remove or avoid an equivalent amount of emissions from the atmosphere.

http://www.offsetters.ca/

Through all the green initiatives VANOC has done, they believe they've successfully reduced the carbon footprint of the Games by 18% or 57,000 tonnes of carbon over business-as-usual.

http://www.vancouver2010.com/dl/00/19/23/vanoc-carbon-management-fact-sheet_60d-jJ.pdf

Yeah, 118,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions sounds like an aweful lot, but the Winter Games in Turin produced about 160,000 tonnes just in the 17 day period, and Salt Lake City spewed out 248,000 tonnes in just 17 days also. 118,000 is the total over 7 years! So Vancouver 2010 has certainly raised the bar for future Olympic Games I'd say ...