Denver’s Winter Olympics exploratory committee met a few weeks ago to discuss a possible bid for the 2026 Winter Olympics. While there has been no news yet on any decisions reached during the meeting, many are anticipating what a Denver Olympic Games might entail.
Denver previously turned down an opportunity to host the 1976 Winter Games due to the impact it would have on the environment, a move somewhat ahead of its time. With many countries still recovering from the impact of past large sporting events, such as the Olympics or the World Cup, it is hard to fault the city for that decision. 2016’s Summer Games in Rio de Janeiro were wrought with worry over various issues in the country, such as the Zika virus, pollution and Brazil’s political climate at the time. However, these fears were voiced more out of concern for the athletes rather than for the environmental and economic toll it was taking on the country and its citizens. Life in Rio since the Olympics has seen its fair share of negative impacts, as the anticipated economic growth from the events did not pan out as planned, instead worsening Brazil’s recession and agitating the political climate even more that it already was. Not to mention the added pollution and environmental damage from constructing the stadiums that are empty most of the time.
Cities have been known to invest millions of dollars in creating venues for these events, often in hopes that the money will come back to them tenfold, end up boosting the economy through creating more jobs and increasing tourism and consumer spending. But the problem is that most of the time, arenas, stadiums, courses etc. get created for the events and then never get used again. It becomes a massive task for something that lasts about sixteen days, and one has to worry if the effort is worth it.
Denver should not take any risks with these possible consequences, and decline the bid. With climate change having reached the critical point that it has, in which humans are one of the main causes of environmental destruction and extreme weather, massive infrastructure construction for little payout does not seem worth it. We should not risk doing more damage to the environment than we already have. Not to mention that we could possibly be spending large amounts of money to construct venues from which we never reap any rewards.
The Games should be taken to places that already have the infrastructure and ability to accommodate them, rather than force other cities to devote time, resources and damage their environment for sixteen days of televised sporting events, only to never be touched again.
