The Boston Marathon goes green and so do other road races
By Judy Lowe | 04.20.09
Sunday’s Boston Globe had an interesting article about the steps the organizers of the 113th Boston Marathon — being run today — are taking to make the race more environmentally friendly. This is a trend being seen in other US road races, too.
More than 26,000 runners (from all 50 states and 60 countries) can create quite an environmental impact. In addition to the carbon used to get to Boston — flying, driving, etc. — they’re bused to the starting line in Hopkinton, Mass., using approximately 22,400 pounds of Co2. They will use an estimated 1,400,000 cups, more than 62,00 water bottles, and 28,00 mylar blankets (today’s high in Boston is predicted to be 48).
How do you begin to green up those numbers? First, the Boston Athletic Association is using diesel fuel in the buses that transport the runners, and it bought 22,440 pounds of carbon emission credits to offset the impact of the busing. They’re also using electric scooters (instead of traditional motorcycles) to lead the runners.
Poland Spring, one of the Boston Marathon sponsors, is supplying its new bottles, which it says use 30 percent less plastic than the old shape. Although bottled water gets a bad rap environmentally, it’s hard to imagine a road race without it. Still, some races are banning bottles made with petroleum and others are saying no bottles at the end of the race.
The cups used for water and Gatorade are biodegradable and will be collected by volunteers for recycling.
But instead of the plastic race bags handed out here in Boston, some races are switching to canvas.
The Council for Responsible Sport sets standards for certifying races as environmentally responsible to ensure that organizers recycle everything from cardboard to aluminum to glass; that they use renewable energy sources for 50 percent of power consumed; that the race site is accessible by public or mass transportation, or organizers initiate carpooling; alternative-fuel vehicles are used by race production teams; e “local” (within 250 miles) food is served; at least one food item be third-party certified (Fair Trade, organic, Food Alliance); water consumption is reduced; and carbon is offset by credits.
You can see the whole list here. It’s pretty extensive. Races that have been certified include the ING Hartford Marathon and the City of Portland Triathlon.
By those standards, Boston has a ways to go. It’s just getting started. But it’s interesting — especially in the week of Earth Day — that it and so many other races around the country are thinking about their environmental impact. What are your experiences with this? Do you think it’s a good idea, or maybe going a bit far?
<< Are we loving the Galápagos to death? | MainComments
2. E Bo | 04.20.09
Sounds great! In my experience, most people who care enough about their body and their physical shape to be able to run a marathon, tend to also care about the issues of pollution and the wellness of Mother Earth.
I could see trouble with the public transportation requirement, for some races, but in all it is a good goal to set. And I can’t argue with giving out fewer plastic bags, banning bottles, and having recyclable cups.
3. Brad | 04.20.09
They should have just told the participants to not breathe so hard. Carbon credits are as ridiculous as monetary indulgences. By the way, I rode in my 7th MS 150 this past weekend. I tried to hold my breath the entire way to be greener, but alas I was unsuccessful.
4. Jennifer W | 04.20.09
I think it is a great idea. I have seen articles about individual runners who promote eco-friendly running practices. This is the first I have seen about a race practicing conservation. It would be great for this trend to catch on at even the smaller 5ks or 10k races.
5. Jeff | 04.20.09
I am disapointed in the direction of the environmental movement.
Most people are reducing their impact because of consumer guilt.
We need to hold the producers of the consumer products liable for the externalities they produce. What I mean by that is the producers should be reducing ther impact on the environment. The cost should not be transferred to the consumer.
6. Tom | 04.20.09
Who are they buying the carbon emissions credits from? I sure would like to get in on that giant money making gimmick. Green is a joke and people are getting ridiculously rich off of the public ignorance.
7. Matthew | 04.20.09
Some races here in the Pacific Northwest have gone to no water bottles or cups. Each racer is required to carry a hand held water bottle. I cannot imagine larger races like Boston, Comrades, London…etc taking it that far. They should.
8. Dave R | 04.21.09
How strange. Let’s see. Canvas bags which are definitely organic, have processing and weaving and all kinds of energy used to make them. They weigh more than the plastic bags and so cost more to transport. Some studies indicate that the canvas is 40 times more eco-friendly than plastic, but those same studies admit that they have discounted the cost of landfilling, and some of the manufacturing costs.
Electric Vehicles? Please. Where does the electricty come from? You guessed it, Coal. Green? Better than hydrocarbon fuels? NO! In fact electric vehicles are less efficient and consume more resources on a per -use basis than regular vehicles. If they were serious, they would have powered the vehicles with fuel cells.
What is really needed is a sound basis for counting costs and life cycle assessment so that the various communities can make real environmental choices rather than “faux” environmental choices.
9. Annie | 04.24.09
As a runner, I’ve long been dismayed just to look at the piles of cups thrown into the street (bad form, by the way- considerate runners toss them to the curb, not right in someone’s path). For a long race such as a marathon, or a race in hot weather, water is essential- but for a 5K on a fall or winter day? And we surely don’t need bottles- give out recyclable paper cups, provide receptacles, and let anyone who wants bottles of water bring their own.
As for the plastic bags handed out at the end- why? Are we running a race for the trash and trinkets, or for the joy of the activity itself? Do we need to be handed anything? Do we need yet another t-shirt made in the far East that we will probably never wear?
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
4. Cool Green Science: The Conservation Blog of The Nature Conservancy » Cool Green Morning: Tuesday, April 21 | 04.21.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Rachel Randall | 04.20.09
What a relief!! Its only sensible that new green technologies be utilized, they have been developed exactly for this type of carbon foot-print! Hooray for a very positive change.