This is kind of a dumb argument. The point of the Olympics is that it is worldwide: it brings huge numbers of tourists into a city, it helps a country project their soft power by displaying their...
This is kind of a dumb argument. The point of the Olympics is that it is worldwide: it brings huge numbers of tourists into a city, it helps a country project their soft power by displaying their ability to handle the incredible logistics of the event, and it provides a mechanism to advertise to those people to come again in the future. If these things weren't the case, then hosting the Olympics would lose most of its value proposition, and no-one would do it.
If the goal is to reduce travel, then addressing the root cause seems to be more sensible: pricing in carbon costs better through taxes and levies on fuel would still have people making the journey, but reduce the numbers, and raise funds that could be used in turn to support green energy, public transport, etc.
Agreed, the columnist had a flaming hot take and didn't look back. You could argue that having olympics at all is a carbon problem, I wouldn't necessarily agree but it would at least be a valid...
Agreed, the columnist had a flaming hot take and didn't look back.
You could argue that having olympics at all is a carbon problem, I wouldn't necessarily agree but it would at least be a valid argument.
And really that's what they're arguing for in an indirect sort of way, because without all that (immediate and future) tourist income to offset the cost of hosting the olympics, few cities would do it. And those that did would be incentivized to cut costs, which would be bad for the games. Cities are willing to take a loss on the olympics, but not a loss that big.
Do you mean that the article's proposal would be good for society? Or pricing airplanes and other forms of tourism to match their carbon cost would be good for society. I agree with the second,...
Do you mean that the article's proposal would be good for society? Or pricing airplanes and other forms of tourism to match their carbon cost would be good for society. I agree with the second, but not the first.
This is kind of a dumb argument. The point of the Olympics is that it is worldwide: it brings huge numbers of tourists into a city, it helps a country project their soft power by displaying their ability to handle the incredible logistics of the event, and it provides a mechanism to advertise to those people to come again in the future. If these things weren't the case, then hosting the Olympics would lose most of its value proposition, and no-one would do it.
If the goal is to reduce travel, then addressing the root cause seems to be more sensible: pricing in carbon costs better through taxes and levies on fuel would still have people making the journey, but reduce the numbers, and raise funds that could be used in turn to support green energy, public transport, etc.
Agreed, the columnist had a flaming hot take and didn't look back.
You could argue that having olympics at all is a carbon problem, I wouldn't necessarily agree but it would at least be a valid argument.
And really that's what they're arguing for in an indirect sort of way, because without all that (immediate and future) tourist income to offset the cost of hosting the olympics, few cities would do it. And those that did would be incentivized to cut costs, which would be bad for the games. Cities are willing to take a loss on the olympics, but not a loss that big.
It's one of those things that would be good for society. But it's not so good for giant corporations.
Do you mean that the article's proposal would be good for society? Or pricing airplanes and other forms of tourism to match their carbon cost would be good for society. I agree with the second, but not the first.
Isn’t bringing people from far away parts together a net good for society?
Mirror: https://archive.is/1FcQY