Brisbane 2032: Can It Still Achieve a Green Legacy Without Climate Positivity?

When Brisbane won the bid for the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, it made a big promise: to host the world’s first “climate-positive” games. This meant that Brisbane would not just reduce carbon emissions but would remove more carbon from the atmosphere than the event would produce.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) had already announced that all Olympic games would aim to be climate-positive from 2030. The goal was to protect the environment actively, rather than just trying to limit damage. However, Brisbane was the first city to make this commitment a formal part of its contract with the IOC, tapping into the growing global concern about climate change.

Yet, things have taken a turn. The original contract has been quietly altered, and references to “climate-positive” commitments have been weakened without a public announcement. This is part of a troubling trend: Olympic Games often make bold sustainability commitments that fade over time.

Research indicates that when the climate-positive announcement was made, it sparked enthusiasm around Brisbane’s potential for sustainable urban development. It was seen as a chance to shift toward more mindful city planning. This planning could have set a precedent for future events by focusing not just on reducing harm but also on actively improving the environment.

However, in December 2023, the IOC amended the host contract, loosening the sustainability obligations for Brisbane. Although IOC officials said the ambition to tackle climate issues remains, the new wording enables Brisbane to only “aim” for reducing emissions without making it a binding requirement to do so.

This shift raises concerns about whether Brisbane can still meet its sustainability goals. Critics point out that this pattern isn’t new; other Olympic Games have historically backed down on ambitious environmental promises due to various pressures.

For example, the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi damaged a UNESCO World Heritage Site, while Rio 2016 struggled to clean up Guanabara Bay despite pledging to cut pollution. Similar failings occurred at the PyeongChang Games, where ancient forests were cleared to make way for ski slopes.

The revision of key commitments for Brisbane highlights issues like these. Community reactions have also been vocal. Plans for a new Olympic stadium in Victoria Park, Brisbane’s largest inner-city green space, face opposition from local activists. Victoria Park, known as Barrambin to Indigenous peoples, holds cultural and environmental significance and is listed on the Queensland Heritage Register.

In 2021, a KPMG report detailed how the games could deliver on their climate goals, suggesting upgrades to existing infrastructure. Now, however, plans may undermine the very environment these initiatives aimed to protect.

With both changes to the climate-positive promises and plans for development that contradict earlier commitments, many wonder what impact the Brisbane 2032 games will ultimately have on the city and the environment.

As we look ahead, there’s a pressing need for transparency and accountability. The journey toward a sustainable legacy for Brisbane 2032 is still unfolding, but without a true commitment to these goals, it risks falling short.

Check out this related article: Why Clean Air is a Global Concern: Millions of Professionals Demand Action – Insights from Havana Times