Bay Area bid for Olympics features green initiatives - solar, recycling, organic food...

Source: Paul Rogers San Jose Mercury News 2001.11.24

Solar power. Zealous recycling. Electric shuttle buses. Tofu dogs at the concession stands.

If the Bay Area is successful in its bid to host 2012 Olympic Games, the Olympic motto of ``Faster, higher, stronger'' may have to be amended to include:
``Greener, cleaner, most organic.''

Hoping to gain an edge on other world cities -- and to head off potential opposition from area environmental groups -- organizers of the Bay Area's campaign
for the 2012 Olympics are making unprecedented environmental promises.

From smog to recycling, clean water to alternative energy, tucked away in the fine print of the Bay Area's 600-page bid for the games is a litany of
eco-commitments that would establish a Bay Area 2012 Olympics as the most environmentally minded in history.

While cynics may joke that organizers are trying to make tree-hugging an Olympic sport, Bay Area Olympic backers say going green offers a strategic
advantage. The promise by Sydney, Australia, of a ``Green Games'' helped that city edge out Beijing to host the 2000 Olympics, they note.

``It's the right thing to do. It's the practical thing to do. Having the Olympics here will make the Bay Area a better place afterward,'' said Mark Jordan,
environmental team leader for the Bay Area Sports Organizing Committee, a group of political, sports and business leaders spearheading the bid.

Last month, the Bay Area made an important first cut. The U.S. Olympic Committee named San Francisco as one of four finalists, along with New York,
Houston and Washington, D.C., for its candidate city to host the 2012 summer games.

The USOC plans to name its winner next November. In 2005, the International Olympic Committee will choose the host city from a list of about a dozen
worldwide.

Lasting effect

Some Bay Area residents already are groaning about potential traffic and other chaos.

The effects of the Olympics are enormous. Sydney sold 7 million tickets and hosted 47,000 volunteers, 21,000 reporters and 10,500 athletes last year during its
successful games.

But residents should support the bid in part for environmental reasons, supporters say, because the planning required to host the Olympics would pump state
and federal money into expanding mass transit, such as BART. They also say the games would help create more carpool lanes, solar power for public buildings
and spending on water recycling and in-fill development.

``There is a lot of potential here. The question is how you harness it,'' said Jordan, who also works as chairman of Waterkeepers, an environmental group based
in San Francisco that patrols the bay and sues industrial polluters for violations of the Clean Water Act.

Whether the wish list is feasible remains to be seen.

Among the promises contained in the Bay Area's official bid package:

Every freeway ringing the bay would have a carpool lane.

There would be no parking at any venue, similar to the 2000 Sydney Olympics. All tickets would have a chip or magnetic stripe that would allow the
spectator access to BART, Caltrain, light rail, ferries and buses.

All concession stands would include organic food.

All lumber for construction would be certified from healthy logging practices, and no refrigeration systems at arenas, stadiums or athlete housing would contain
ozone-depleting chemicals.

At least 80 percent of the events would take place at existing venues, minimizing the need for construction. Stanford Stadium would be rebuilt to host the
opening and closing ceremonies. Baseball would be at Pacific Bell Park, basketball would be at the Oakland Coliseum, and gymnastics and wrestling would be
at Compaq Center.

Chlorine in swimming pools would be minimized and replaced with high-tech ozone treatment.

Using a color-coded recycling system, organizers say they would divert from landfills ``a minimum'' of 95 percent of all garbage, including construction waste,
packaging and food waste.

Housing would be built on 70 acres on the north side of Moffett Field for 3,000 athletes. The buildings would be powered by solar and wind energy, and
would and would supply energy to the state power grid.

All sewage and wastewater from the Olympic Village would be treated and recycled for use in irrigation and industrial processes.

Venues would have lots of secured bicycle parking. Spectators would be driven to sites in electric shuttle buses.

Organizers hope to convert the railroad bridge that parallels the Dumbarton Bridge for use by shuttle buses.

All vendors and contractors would have to follow strict international standards, known as ISO 14000, and the U.S. Green Building Council's ``platinum
standard,'' which requires recycled materials and energy-efficient construction.

Wary optimism

Bay Area Olympics boosters already have consulted with the Sierra Club, Audubon Society, Greenbelt Alliance, Rocky Mountain Institute and Earth Island
Institute.

So far, environmentalists seem to like what they hear but are withholding judgment.

``Some of the things they have proposed sound good,'' said Dan Kalb, director of the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club, based in Palo Alto.

``But we'll be looking at preservation of open space, the impact on air quality and traffic. The visitors will have a good time, but what will those of us who live
here be left with? What will we have to clean up?''

One that might be hard to deliver on: Organizers claim they will be able to offset 150 percent of the greenhouse gases generated by the events and construction
by planting hundreds of thousands -- perhaps millions -- of new trees.

``That is really ambitious,'' said Roger Pearson, editor of the California Environmental Insider, a newsletter based in the East Bay. ``That sounds like a lot of
trees.''

Global vs. local

Pearson attended the 1992 Barcelona Olympics and was in Munich shortly after the 1972 games. Both places ended up with better mass transit systems, he
said. At this early stage, most of the lofty environmental goals the Bay Area is setting appear feasible, he said.

``It may help with some of the groups that take a more global view of things, like the national Sierra Club,'' he said. ``But a lot of this is local. If a particular
venue is selected, the neighbors there are likely to oppose it, regardless of the environmental benignness of it.''

Greenpeace was asked to help plan the Sydney Olympics. Afterward, the group gave Sydney a ``bronze medal,'' praising recycling, solar power and water
recycling. But Greenpeace leaders complained that most refrigeration at the games used hydrofluorocarbons, chemicals that harm the ozone layer. And they said
not enough had been done to clean up dioxins at an old toxic site near the main Olympic Village.

Pearson agreed that the Olympics can prompt better regional planning to improve transportation, air pollution and housing.

``We've got a lot of warring local agencies, and this might be the kind of kick in the pants that will make transportation and regional planning operate more
smoothly,'' he said.

``And overall, I think it will be a net benefit because of the amount of money sunk into it. But it is a large development, let's face it. You'll always have some
opposition.''

For more on the Bay Area's bid, see the Bay Area Sports Organizing Committee's Web site at www.basoc2012.com.