Keeping Olympic cauldron burning indefinitely “sends the wrong message”

by Carlito Pablo on Feb 17, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Olympic cauldron.
GUITARTWIN

When the Straight posted on-line a February 12 article about the decision to keep the Olympic flame burning in perpetuity in a 10-metre cauldron, one reader made a comment asking for an opinion from the David Suzuki Foundation.

The reader wrote that keeping the flame lit is an “unneccsesarry [sic] carbon emission source”.

Today (February 17), the Straight sought a comment from the Suzuki Foundation.

Here’s what Suzuki Foundation climate-change campaigner Deborah Carlson had to say by e-mail:

The decision to keep the Olympic cauldron burning fossil fuel indefinitely is wasteful, and sends the wrong message to the public. The Vancouver Olympics have been applauded for constructing energy-efficient venues and villages, but keeping the cauldron lit is a high-profile way to undermine these achievements. Yet with the trucked-in snow disappearing rapidly on Cypress Mountain, no one will be surprised to hear that scientists are telling us this is the warmest winter on record. More than ever we need to focus on solutions that help us reduce our dependence on fossil fuels today, so that we won’t be facing even worse impacts in the future. Improving Vancouver’s sustainable transportation option (how about a commitment to operate the Olympic streetcar in perpetuity?) would be a much more compelling legacy, and could be part of a truly ”˜green’ vision of the future for Vancouver.

Comments (28) Add New Comment
Priorities
Feb 17, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Let's get real: solving the climate change problem does not mean never burning anything ever again. Focusing on the cauldron (symbolic as it is) is the worst kind of nit-picking. People committed to reducing GHGs should worry about real climate problems (how about those dozen tanker ships that make the backdrop of the cauldron??) instead of trying to tip out the punch in the middle of the party.

Or maybe we should snuff out the flame in front of parliament too...
1
5
Rating: -4
TransitRider
Feb 17, 2010 at 2:03 pm
The Olympic Flame is an eternal symbol that has captured the imagination of tens of thousands of Vancouverites. It is precisely the nagging, pious negativity of people like Charlie Smith that turns people off the issues they espouse. Fortunately for Vancouver, the games have proven once and for all that there are people who have a positive, productive vison of Vancouver and people who have nothing but negativity, self-interest and destruction to offer the overwhelming majority of citizens.
3
2
Rating: +1
RodSmelser
Feb 17, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Typical Vancouver silly bugger material all around.
Rod Smelser
3
2
Rating: +1
Please...
Feb 17, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Find something useful to complain about. Such stupid whining. You need something productive to do, some people have too much time on their hands. The anti Olympic people will complain and make bigs issues of such the smallest items.
3
7
Rating: -4
DC
Feb 17, 2010 at 3:49 pm
GHGs aside, when the olympics are over, the cauldron goes out, and a new one is lit two years later in another part of the world. I know it's sad and some of us would never want the olympics to end, but it will and we just have to accept it as a fact of life. Plus the legacy will be with us for some time, especially when the bill for these games is presented to us BCers and we're paying for it for the next twenty years or so.
4
5
Rating: -1
historian
Feb 17, 2010 at 4:50 pm
the olypmpic flame was an invention the propagandists of Nazi Germany, meant to whip crowds into an excited frenzy. which traditions exactly are we upholding?
5
2
Rating: +3
Eric Doherty
Feb 17, 2010 at 6:19 pm
It is a fitting symbol for the 2010 Olympics, except instead of petroleum gas it should burn Petro Canada gasoline made from Tar Sands bitumen.

This may be a small climate crime, but it reflects the much bigger climate crime of the $1 billion Olympic Sea-to-Sky highway expansion. Snuff it out as soon as the Owe-lympic Games are gone!
4
3
Rating: +1
ehodl
Feb 17, 2010 at 7:17 pm
When the games are over, the last one out turns out the light. Otherwise, it dilutes the symbolism of the next Olympics. Besides, it's not that attractive, outside of it's moment.
5
5
Rating: 0
maggie zuk
Feb 17, 2010 at 8:34 pm
Who cares ?????
3
4
Rating: -1
Transitrider
Feb 17, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Actually Historian, you're wrong. While 1936 was the first Olympic torch relay, the Olympic Cauldron made it's debut at the 1928 games in Amsterdam.
1
6
Rating: -5
Shane Lobsinger
Feb 17, 2010 at 9:29 pm
I can't wait until the Olympics are over... I don't personally care how fast somebody can go down a hill or how many times they can put a piece of rubber into a net, and seeing reminders of our superficial, easily pacified and distracted consumer society everywhere makes me depressed. Sure, burning this flame in perpetuity is a waste of fuel, but more importantly, it's hubristic. Most Vancouverites I've spoken to about the games are willing to party while they're here, but are ready to put them behind us. Please... can we put out the flame, end this 6 billion dollar dose of soma, and get back to the unpleasant task of wrestling with reality?
1
2
Rating: -1
PoliticsReSpun.org
Feb 17, 2010 at 9:34 pm
i'm going to start a pool on how many hours after the games end that someone puts out that thing.

and what will happen at the closing ceremonies at the time when they usually extinguish the flame because...wait for it...the Olympics are over?
stephen elliott-buckley
1
1
Rating: 0
Eric Doherty
Feb 18, 2010 at 2:50 pm
So how much petroleum gas does the thing burn per year? And how many tonnes of GHG emissions does that add up to over the first 100 years of operation? Maybe the Straight could ask for the data?
1
2
Rating: -1
rome_is_burning
Feb 19, 2010 at 12:05 am
does anyone else think that 'cauldron' looks like a collapsed building in flames?
2
1
Rating: +1
RodSmelser
Feb 19, 2010 at 9:12 am
I was right the first time. Typical Vancouver silly-bugger material.

But then what does anyone expect?

Rod Smelser
0
2
Rating: -2
Transitrider
Feb 20, 2010 at 8:17 am
But it definitely speaks volumes that within one week, the cauldron has become Vancouver's most popular and powerful piece of public art. It should continue as an eternal flame.
1
1
Rating: 0
Dungeness Crab
Feb 20, 2010 at 9:00 am
I think we need to clarify exactly what "in perpetuity" means WRT the cauldron. If it's shut down after the games, this is a tempest in a teapot. If not, then the symbolism is more signifigant, and needs to be addressed.

After the games, put it out. This ain't rocket surgery, folks.
2
2
Rating: 0
Skeeter
Feb 21, 2010 at 10:00 am
Crayons on fire. I personally find it unattractive and industrial-looking in a city that claims to pride itself on its connections to nature. Even if it wastes little energy in the grand scheme, symbols are important, and this one makes me queasy.
1
0
Rating: +1
Transitrider
Feb 21, 2010 at 11:27 am
The people who want it put out just want to erase any record that Vancouver hosted a successful Winter Olympics. It's history revisionism, plain and simple.
2
2
Rating: 0
UGLY Chinese Canadian
Feb 22, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Never mind the cauldron. Keep the friggen "Keep OUT" fence!

Nothing speaks more of the creative prowess we have in this city then that ratty, chainlink-cum plexiglass fence.

Go Canada Go!!!

Go Fence GO!!! uh, no... STAY Fence STAY!!!
2
1
Rating: +1

Pages

Add new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.