Mount Gariwang: An Olympic Casualty (ENG)

Summary

The 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympics sparked controversy due to the environmental destruction of Mount Gariwang's ancient forest for an alpine ski course. Critics argue that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and local authorities prioritized economic benefits over ecological and social concerns, leading to irreversible damage and displacement. The video challenges the sustainability claims of the Games, highlighting the need for a reevaluation of mega-events' impact on the environment and communities.

Takeaways

• 🏔️ The 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympics led to the destruction of Mount Gariwang's 500-year-old ancient forest, with over 60,000 trees cut down to build an alpine ski course.
• 🌳 Environmentalists criticized the irreversible damage to the ecosystem and the displacement of species, despite claims that the forest could be regrown.
• 🏅 The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has a history of promoting Olympics as environmentally friendly events, despite the environmental costs.
• 💬 There were alternative venues proposed that could have met Olympic standards with minimal environmental impact, but they were overlooked.
• 🏗️ The decision to develop Mount Gariwang raised questions about the influence of vested interests, including landowners and construction companies.
• 🌱 The recovery plan for the forest was deemed inadequate, with a fraction of the cut trees replanted and many of them withering away.
• 🌐 The script highlights the broader issue of environmental destruction being linked to social inequalities and the need for a more equitable approach to development.
• 📉 The economic benefits of hosting the Olympics are questioned, with high-profile figures like Mitt Romney acknowledging the weak economic case for such events.
• 🗳️ The script suggests that the decision-making process for Olympic venues could be more democratic and inclusive, considering the voices of local communities and environmental concerns.
• 🌱 The narrative of 'ecological modernization' that suggests environmental problems can be fixed by human innovation is challenged, with calls for a more realistic approach to sustainability.

Q & A

Which city hosted the 23rd Olympic Winter Games in 2018?

The 23rd Olympic Winter Games in 2018 were hosted by PyeongChang.

What significant environmental impact did the preparation for the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympics have?

The preparation for the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympics led to the destruction of a 500-year-old ancient forest on Mount Gariwang, where over 60,000 trees were cut down to build an alpine ski course.

How did the local community and environmentalists react to the deforestation for the Olympic ski course?

The local community saw the Olympic events as a unique opportunity for economic benefits, while environmentalists found the deforestation of the historic forest to be 'gut-wrenching' and irreversible.

What were the alternative options discussed for the ski venue that could have minimized environmental damage?

Alternatives included using the existing YongPyong resort, which was less than an hour away and could have met Olympic standards with minor modifications, thus avoiding the extensive environmental impact.

What were the social inequalities highlighted by the script in relation to the Olympic Games?

The script highlighted social inequalities across social classes, countries, regions, generations, and between humans and non-humans, particularly in the context of environmental disasters and displacement due to mega-events.

How did the International Olympic Committee (IOC) promote the environmental aspect of the PyeongChang Games?

The IOC promoted the PyeongChang Games as 'low carbon Games', 'environmental Games', or 'O2 positive Games', using labels and branding to associate the event with positive environmental initiatives.

What was the issue with the recovery plan for the forest after the Olympic Games?

The recovery plan was criticized as flawed and ineffective, with reports indicating that of the 272 trees replanted, most withered away, and ecologists stating that full recovery would be difficult due to the extensive damage.

What role did vested interests play in the decision to develop Mount Gariwang for the Olympics?

Investigative reports suggest that an unnamed CEO of a construction company, who owned land around the base of Mount Gariwang, had been buying land since 1998 and was instrumental in suggesting Mount Gariwang as a venue site.

What challenges were faced by the local population due to the relocation for the Olympic venue?

Local landowners were compensated to relocate, but the compensation was generally insufficient to purchase new land or build new homes. Many lost their farmland, which was their source of livelihood.

What broader questions does the script suggest for future discussions on hosting the Olympic Games?

The script suggests questions such as whether the Olympics are necessary to achieve promised benefits, if all stakeholders have enough information, how to include the least powerful voices, how to include non-human interests, and when to agree that the Games are too unsustainable to proceed.

Outlines

00:00

🌲 Environmental Impact of PyeongChang Olympics

The script discusses the environmental consequences of hosting the 2018 Winter Olympics in PyeongChang. It details the destruction of a 500-year-old forest on Mount Gariwang, where over 60,000 trees were cut down to construct an alpine ski course. The decision sparked criticism from environmentalists and athletes alike, who highlighted the irreversible damage to the ecosystem and the social inequality issues arising from such development. The narrative also touches on the broader themes of environmental destruction being linked to various forms of inequality, including social, regional, and intergenerational disparities.

05:10

🏔️ Controversy Over Development and Inequality

This paragraph delves into the controversy surrounding the development for the Olympics, emphasizing the social and economic inequalities that were exacerbated by the event. It points out that while some local communities saw potential benefits, others faced displacement and environmental degradation. The narrative questions the International Olympic Committee's (IOC) claims of rejuvenation and economic benefits, suggesting that these are often overestimated or short-lived. It also addresses the issue of intergenerational inequality, raising concerns about the long-term environmental impact and the legacy left for future generations.

10:31

🌳 Alternatives and the Rhetoric of Sustainability

The script examines the claim that Mount Gariwang was the only viable location for the ski venue, presenting alternative options that could have been less environmentally damaging. It critiques the IOC's promotion of the Games as 'green' and sustainable, suggesting that this rhetoric is often used to justify environmentally harmful decisions. The paragraph also discusses the flawed recovery plan for the forest and the broader concept of ecological modernization, which assumes that environmental problems can always be solved by human innovation and technology.

15:31

🏗️ The Politics of Development and Post-Politics

This section explores the political and economic motivations behind the decision to develop Mount Gariwang, suggesting that powerful interests may have influenced the choice of venue. It introduces the concept of 'post-politics,' where the real decisions are made behind the scenes, and public participation is limited to less contentious issues. The narrative also touches on the idea of 'greenwashing,' where environmental concerns are exploited for economic gain, and the challenges of achieving true sustainability when economic interests often take precedence.

20:35

🌐 Broader Implications and the Future of the Olympics

The final paragraph broadens the discussion to consider the implications of hosting the Olympics beyond South Korea, raising questions about the necessity of the Games for achieving environmental and social benefits. It calls for a reevaluation of the concept of sustainability in the context of mega-events and suggests that future Games should prioritize social and environmental justice over the interests of a few. The script concludes by emphasizing the importance of learning from past mistakes and imagining a more sustainable future for the Olympics.

Keywords

💡PyeongChang Winter Olympic

The PyeongChang Winter Olympic refers to the 23rd Olympic Winter Games held in 2018 in PyeongChang, South Korea. This event is central to the video's narrative as it explores the environmental and social impacts associated with hosting such a large-scale sporting event. The decision to build an alpine ski course for these games led to the destruction of a 500-year-old forest, highlighting the theme of environmental costs versus the benefits of hosting the Olympics.

💡Environmental Destruction

Environmental destruction in the context of the video refers to the irreversible damage caused to natural habitats, such as the ancient forest on Mount Gariwang, to make way for Olympic facilities. This term is pivotal as it encapsulates the video's core message about the ecological consequences of mega-events. The script mentions the cutting down of over 60,000 trees, illustrating the scale of environmental destruction.

💡Inequality

Inequality, as discussed in the video, encompasses the disparities across social classes, regions, and generations that can be exacerbated by events like the Olympics. The video suggests that such events can lead to social displacement and environmental injustice, where those with fewer resources bear the brunt of the negative impacts. It is used to critique the social implications of development for mega-events.

💡Sustainability

Sustainability in this video is questioned in the context of the environmental, social, and economic impacts of hosting the Olympics. It challenges the notion that these mega-events can be balanced to achieve positive outcomes in all three areas. The script critiques the 'sustainability' claims made by the IOC and organizing committees, suggesting that these claims are often used to justify environmentally damaging projects.

💡Greenwashing

Greenwashing is the practice of making an unjustified claim to environmental benefits, often to promote a product, service, or event. In the video, this term is used critically to describe how the Olympic Games are marketed as environmentally friendly while causing significant ecological harm. The script points out the discrepancy between the 'green' branding and the actual environmental impact.

💡Inter-generational Inequalities

Inter-generational inequalities refer to the disparities between different generations, often in terms of access to resources and the impacts of current decisions on future generations. The video uses this concept to discuss how decisions made for the Olympics, such as deforestation, affect the environment in a way that future generations will have to contend with, thus creating a form of environmental injustice.

💡Post-politics

Post-politics in the video refers to a strategy where major decisions are made behind the scenes, and the public is only involved in minor, less contentious decisions afterward. This concept is used to critique the way in which the Olympic Games are organized, suggesting that the real decisions that have the most significant impact are made without full public participation or consent.

💡Ecological Modernization

Ecological modernization is a concept that suggests environmental problems can be solved through human innovation, science, and technology. The video challenges this notion by presenting cases where such problems, once caused, are difficult or impossible to reverse, even with advanced technology. It is used to critique the overconfidence in human ability to mitigate environmental damage.

💡Displacement

Displacement in the video refers to the forced movement of people from their homes or lands due to development projects, such as the construction of Olympic venues. The script discusses how the local communities around PyeongChang were affected by this process, often leading to a loss of livelihood and a disruption of social structures.

💡Socio-economic Impact

Socio-economic impact encompasses the effects of events or developments on the social and economic conditions of a community. The video discusses how the Olympics can lead to both positive and negative socio-economic impacts, with the latter often being underplayed or ignored. It is used to highlight the uneven distribution of benefits and burdens associated with hosting the Games.

💡Citizen Participation

Citizen participation refers to the involvement of the public in decision-making processes, particularly regarding issues that affect their lives. The video suggests that true participation is often lacking in the planning and execution of Olympic Games, leading to decisions that may not reflect the interests or concerns of the local population.

Highlights

The 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympics led to the destruction of a 500-year-old ancient forest on Mount Gariwang.

Over 60,000 trees were cut down to build an alpine ski course.

Athletes and environmentalists criticized the decision to destroy the forest for the Games.

Existing ski slopes were almost long enough, but a historic forest was cut down to extend them.

Environmental destruction for sports events is linked to social inequality and injustice.

Displacement caused by environmental disasters disproportionately affects those with fewer resources.

The decision to develop Mount Gariwang raised questions about inter-generational inequality.

The IOC promotes the Olympic Games as a chance for cities to rejuvenate, but this is often questionable.

The local community of Jeongseon saw the Olympics as a unique opportunity for economic benefits.

Critics argue that the IOC's claims of environmental sustainability are often unfulfilled.

The recovery plan for Mount Gariwang was flawed, with a low survival rate for re-planted trees.

Alternative venues to Mount Gariwang were available but were not chosen, raising questions about decision-making.

The concept of 'post-politics' is used to generate consent for controversial decisions by involving the public in minor aspects.

Ecological modernization assumes that environmental problems can be fixed by human innovation, which is not always the case.

Greenwashing is a practice where businesses appear to be sustainable but prioritize economic gains.

The decision to develop Mount Gariwang may have been influenced by vested interests in land around the area.

The narrative around relocation for Olympic venues often doesn't reflect the reality for those displaced.

Democracy and inequality are broader challenges raised by the decision to host the Olympics in certain locations.

Activists around Mount Gariwang remind us that such incidents are not isolated and raise awareness about the impacts of hosting the Games.

Discussions about the Olympics should align with global conversations about climate change and sustainability.

Transcripts

The 23rd Olympic Winter Games in 2018

are awarded to the city of...

PyeongChang!

(crowd cheering)

(music)

- [Narrator] Mount Gariwang was home

to a 500-year old ancient forest,

formerly protected by federal law

from any kind of development.

(speaking in Korean)

A decision was made to knock down

more than 60,000 trees to build an alpine ski course

for the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympic

and Paralympic Games.

(speaking in Korean)

- As an athlete, I don't mind criticizing,

because I care about it

and I wanna see success in the future.

I wanna see the IOC have success in the future,

but we can't ignore that these are real problems.

- They had existing ski slopes that were almost long enough,

this is one of the most exasperating things about it.

They just needed to be a little bit longer,

and in order to get that, they cut down a historic forest.

(speaking in Korean)

If you're an environmentalist,

who attaches a lot of importance to these forests,

that's gut-wrenching to watch, and fairly irreversible.

(speaking in Korean)

(music)

- [Narrator] The reason that these cases

of environmental destruction are such a concern

is that they are associated

with multiple forms of inequality,

inequality across social classes,

across countries and regions of the world,

across generations, and between humans and non-humans.

- It's particularly around environmental disasters

when you can actually see

some of these inequalities manifest themselves the most.

So for example, if there's a hurricane,

those who were displaced because of that disaster,

those who have more resources are more likely

than those who have less resources

to actually come out of that okay.

It's not that different in some ways

than a sport mega-event where you actually ask people

who live in particular areas to move

because of the event.

Again, those who have more resources in those cases

might be less impacted, might actually have more say

as to how that plays out.

for those with fewer resources, it might be harder,

and that's certainly something

that was part of the discussion around PyeongChang

this also relates to inter-generational inequalities,

how is it that people 100 years from now

might actually look back on the kinds of decisions

that we've made 'cause that is also a stark inequality

associated with environmental issues.

That's not at all even to mention, the inequalities

associated with non-humans who have no voice

when it actually comes to decision-making

around these sorts of issues.

But of course, like any form of inequality,

it's not as though everybody is getting a bad deal,

so there are absolutely those who benefit from the Games

and there are really good arguments too

why people would support the games,

and I think it's also worth considering those

at least on balance with the others

as part of thinking through these issues.

(speaking in Korean)

- There is nothing wrong

about the local community desires,

there's more savvy economic benefits through this event.

One of the guest said the local Jeongseon people

are really selfish and I think it is bullshit.

For the local communities, Olympic events

is the single unique opportunity.

(speaking in Korean)

- I think that there are a lot of things

that the IOC says are happening that are not happening.

I think they promote the Olympic Games

as a chance for cities to sort of rejuvenate themselves,

it's gonna bring in a ton of tourist dollars,

it's gonna be great for the city's moving forward,

leave an Olympic legacy.

(speaking in Korean)

- So what you have is aging population

who grew up during this crucial two decades

of miraculous development.

So for them, development, in general, is a very good thing.

(speaking in Korean)

Also, in the most rural areas,

although the country as a whole has developed a lot,

there's still people that feel they want a piece of the pie

because the development's been concentrated in Seoul

and the metropolitan area around Seoul

and in the southeast in Pohang, Ulsan, Busan.

- [Narrator] Research out of the Netherlands suggests that,

in that context anyway,

the best way to predict whether there are good feelings

about one's own national community after a sport mega-event

is to look at what those feelings were before the event,

noting that at best there might be a spike

around an event that does not last.

The same with the economic benefits.

To say that there are economic benefits

associated with hosting an Olympics

is questionable to say the least,

with high profile politicians like Mitt Romney,

openly admitting that the economic case

for hosting an Olympics is not a strong one.

So why did some think that this was a good idea?

Why were other options not used?

- Well here's the thing,

it's not as though it's a secret that the IOC

and organizing committees aren't highly skilled

at promoting messages around how they're doing a good job

around organizing the Games,

and that's very prominent and prevalent

when it comes to environmental issues.

So if you go back as far as 2000 in Sydney

when the games were promoted as the Green Games,

just sort of the beginning of a series

of subsequent Olympics where there would be some grand claim

associated with the Games sort of being 'pro-environment',

'highly sustainable', 'the most sustainable ever',

'the greenest Games ever', and you can see that

actually up to now with the PyeongChang Games

where similar kinds of claims are made

around it being the 'low carbon Games',

the 'environmental Games', or 'the O2 positive Games'.

So again, this kind of labeling and branding of Games

as being sort of positive and related to something good,

that's associated with the environment,

this is something that they're quite skilled at.

(speaking in Korean)

- [Narrator] Another common argument

from supporters of the development

was that the trees could be regrown,

the mountain will be recovered,

and that the damage will be reversed, or be fixed.

(speaking in Korean)

Many South Korean outlets have highlighted

that the so-called recovery plan

was flawed from the beginning.

There are reports that of the 272 trees

that were re-planted, which by the way,

are replacing near 60,000 felled,

have pretty much withered away already.

(speaking in Korean)

Ecologists have said realistically speaking,

recovery will be difficult,

given the extensive scope of damage.

Recovery plans like these are also limited

in that they only address trees felled,

rather than the bigger ecosystem that was disrupted,

including species that lost their homes.

Of course, once the Olympics were awarded,

the race was on to find appropriate venues,

and Mount Gariwang was obviously a venue

that fit the criteria for hosting the ski events.

But were there other options that would have done the job,

without the environmental and social costs?

The answer is a curious one.

(speaking in Korean)

If we look more closely at the claim

that Mount Gariwang was the only option for the ski venue,

that other ski facilities did not meet the requirements,

this is at best, only technically true.

Environmental groups suggested alternatives,

only some of which required the 2-Run Rule.

One alternative was YongPyong resort,

an existing ski facility less than an hour away

that would have met Olympic standards

with a bit of slope-cutting and ground-filling.

Compare this slight modification to an existing facility,

that would have meant little environmental damage,

and no further displacement of people

to what was needed to turn a mountain

that had no development, into a mountain that had one.

Put another way, if we agreed that no ski facilities

near PyeongChang technically met Olympic standards,

why would the first option be

to knock down an ancient forest on a mountain

that had no development,

instead of reworking an existing facility,

especially when there's precedent for doing

this sort of revision at previous Olympic sites?

- One of the great ways to actually generate consent

for a particular kind of event

or a particular kind of decision

that actually might be controversial

is to make people feel like they've actually had a say

or they can actually participate in dealing

with some of the ramifications of this decision.

The key here though is that the most contentious decision

has already been made, which is the building of that stadium

or the holding of all these events.

They call this post-politics

because actually, the genius here

in terms of actually generating consent,

is to make the real decision background,

that decision's already been made, don't worry about it,

but hey, you can be involved

in some of the smaller decisions

about actually how we're gonna hold the event

or how we're going to build the facility.

So this is actually after the contentious politics piece

which has been sort of buried in all of this.

(music)

- [Narrator] Of course, if we stand behind the idea

that humans can fix it,

then there's nothing to worry about, is there?

Well, not everyone has this much faith

in human innovation and knowhow.

- We call it ecological modernization

literature and discourse.

The basic premises is that environment

and environmental problems can be fixed by humans,

science, and technology.

So once you are convinced

by that ecological modernization rethoric,

then it's easy to develop precious nature

and it's easy to see these environmental problems

because 'our cutting edge science and technology will fix it.'

That is the fundamental premise

of this environment modernization discourse.

- [Narrator] Thomas Homer-Dixon,

Professor at the University of Waterloo,

in 2000 wrote "The Ingenuity Gap"

as a way of highlighting the gap

between what humans think they can do

and what they have been shown to do,

when it comes to addressing highly complex problems

full of unknowns and changing variables.

What Homer-Dixon shows is that the track record

is, at best, mixed, with commentators like Naomi Klein

pointing no further than the partial attempts

to address the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 that went on for 87 days

and is generally considered to be the largest

marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry.

The effort to fix the leak included a junk shot

of golf balls and other various apparent leak pluggers.

- I mean, you can see why this sustainability approach

is so appealing.

I mean, if sustainability is about economics,

social, and environment coming together,

and you think about how this is actually operationalized

when you talk about it in terms

of holding a sporting event or doing business,

you have businesses that are motivated

to create and sell green products

to consumers who demand this.

So you actually have this interaction

that actually results in something

that can be good economically and underlying all of this

is you're actually doing things

that are good for the environment.

Who can't be for that?

Of course there are problems with this

in a sense that businesses,

while they're motivated to create green products

in some ways, what they're really motivated to do

is reach their bottom line.

This is where greenwashing comes in,

it's not to say that there aren't excellent businesses

out there that are doing pro-environment work,

but the incentive system isn't necessarily

lined up perfectly for this to take place,

and we do know that one of the ways that sustainability

as a concept is exploited

as prioritizing economic sustainability.

So although it is a really compelling storyline

and one of the things that makes it compelling

is that we can all be winners in this,

we can all keep generating products

because we're going to be innovative

and doing so it's going to make us money,

it's gonna be good for the environment,

and it's good for people.

Not everybody actually agrees that it plays out that way,

so maybe we're not all winners.

(music)

- [Narrator] People often ask, "What's the alternative

"to a sustainability approach?"

One response to that is to not hold the games

if it's sustainable enough.

While that's not really an alternative to sustainability,

it is a commitment to truly doing sustainability

that prioritizes environmental and social issues

in addition to economic ones.

And also, not leaving it to the IOC to decide

for a community about what is sustainable enough.

Another strategy is to put more time

into thinking about what an alternative actually looks like

for one's community.

Instead of focusing only on how to execute

a conventionally sustainable Games

that are often in fact not always citizen-

or environmentally-friendly Games

and may in fact benefit only some businesses and not others.

And not all cases for government's

either for their bottom line.

(speaking in Korean)

If we consider that POCOG and the South Korean government

had a vested interest in defending their decision

to develop Mount Gariwang, it becomes easier to understand

why voices against the development

had trouble breaking through.

- It's not as though many journalists, activists,

and others actually haven't articulated

some of the really important and compelling critiques.

So if we're actually wondering why some of the critiques

might not be taken up, it might be simply

because they're buried in a broader landscape

where there are more powerful messages out there,

and this has very little to do with whether the messages

that are more prominent are actually better reasoned

than the critiques, it's simply about the variety of sources

that are producing messages

and how powerful those messages are.

It's actually thinking about the context

within which these messages move.

- [Narrator] So why did they do this?

There were options besides Mount Gariwang for the ski venue,

that would fit all of the IOC's criteria

with only minor changes, but they were not chosen.

How can we explain this?

To be clear, we don't know for sure.

Explaining why powerful decision makers

make the decisions they do

requires behind closed doors knowledge,

which we're not privy to.

But let's take a look at what we do know.

According to investigative reports,

an unnamed CEO of a South Korean construction company

owns about 132,000 squared meters of land

around the base of Mt. Gariwang.

That is, the location of the eventual finish line

for the alpine ski course.

Records show that this individual

has been buying land here since 1998,

and in 2001, this individual suggested Mount Gariwang

as a potential alpine venue site

to the bidding committee for the Games,

and was present for many of the committee's site visits.

This individual was not the only one

highly invested in the area.

Since 1999, when there was talk

about hosting the Games here, over 75% of all land sold

has been to those living in or near Seoul,

the capital city of South Korea, and not the locals.

There were other interests too.

- Local politicians generally see it as good points

on their resume to introduce a big project,

a development project.

With the PyeongChang Winter Olympics,

you've got that one at a national scale,

also got it on the local scale,

you know, PyeongChang won it.

So that's brownie points

for the officials at PyeongChang County,

Gangwon Province level as well as a national level.

- You wouldn't be surprised to know

that government officials and organizing committee members

have a vested interest in looking good

when it comes to portraying what they're doing.

And certainly this is the case when it comes

to one of the more controversial issues often around Games

which is asking people or requiring people

to move from their homes for the building of a venue

and while that might be portrayed in some cases

and certainly this was the case with PyeongChang,

as a situation where this was actually

going to improve people's lives, make things better,

there is research out there that would actually suggest

in some cases that that's not exactly the case,

and it might even be the opposite.

Jacki Kennelly is

someone who has studied this specifically

when it came to Vancouver and London,

and what she found was that if you actually ask people

on the ground, you would hear a different story

than you might hear from what's portrayed

by the Games Committee.

(speaking in Korean)

- [Narrator] Unsurprisingly,

there are other important details about relocation

that were not highlighted by POCOG.

For example, although landowners

were compensated to relocate,

it was generally not enough to allow for the purchase

of new land or the building of new homes.

Many had farmland in their backyard

from which they made a living, and this land is now gone.

(speaking in Korean)

There are larger challenges here pertaining to democracy

and multiple forms of inequality that extend

far beyond sport and the Olympics

and far beyond the geographical boundaries of South Korea.

One of these challenges is to rethink dominant paradigms

like sustainability, as in, can we get past assuming

that an equal balancing of environmental,

social, and economic concerns is always desirable,

or even possible?

The creative momentum and energy

that's most often put into promoting

a taken for granted approach like sustainability,

could be put into organizing the games

that has immense integrity when it comes

to addressing social and environmental concerns.

Looking to the future,

it's important to remember those

who've raised their voices about these issues,

like those around Mount Gariwang.

Although these activists are sometimes remembered

only for having failed to stop Olympic-related problems,

it's important to also remember

that they were often very successful

in raising awareness about what happened,

and reminding us that what happened around Mount Gariwang

is not an isolated incident.

In this way, we might learn from the work of those

who stood up against the development of Mount Gariwang,

and be inspired to do something differently in the future.

And in some ways, there's never been a better moment

to do something differently,

because, we now know the questions we need to ask

about hosting the Games, questions like:

Do we need the Olympics to achieve the environmental,

social, and economic benefits that the Games promise?

Do all stakeholders in the Games

have enough information about the problems

and benefits of the Games to make a proper assessment?

Who has the least powerful voice,

and how can they be heard?

How can the interests of non-humans be included?

And what would it take for all stakeholders

to agree that the Games are too unsustainable to go forward?

Of course, broader questions

about how to address climate change

have never been so prominent on the global agenda.

Why shouldn't discussions about the Olympics

be in step with talks about the future of our planet?

There's also never been a better moment

for Tokyo, for Beijing, for Paris, and for L.A.

to imagine a Games that is in fact

much more environmentally friendly.

The opportunity here is not just for the organizers,

but for all stakeholders to learn from the past,

to honor the work of those before,

to imagine a world where social and environmental justice

actually take precedent over a mega-event.

(music)