Climate bill: the inevitable borrowing of the Olympic dream

Being environmentally responsible: such was the fine promise made by the organizers of the Milan-Cortina 2026 Olympic Games. It is also what made them the most geographically extensive Games in history, with competitions held in the Dolomites as well as on the Po plain and in Veneto. To avoid excessive resource waste, the IOC favored the use of existing infrastructure, hence the seven sites selected and spread across Italy.

Naturally, reusing 80% — or even more — of available equipment was a laudable approach. A report published by Scientists for Global Responsibility and the New Weather Institute notes in particular that the absence of new infrastructure construction saved between 350,000 and 720,000 tCO₂e. Additionally, further reductions, estimated between 130,000 and 310,000 tCO₂e, were achieved thanks to the use of renewable energy and low-carbon construction materials. These advances, although positive, are they nonetheless sufficient to make these Games a "source of inspiration for future generations"? From a strictly environmental standpoint, it's not certain.

Trauma of Sochi

In Milan, the IOC sought to restore a reputation tarnished by several editions that were pure disasters from a climate standpoint. In the sights: the Sochi Games, held in Russia in 2014. The sublime forests of the Caucasus, some of them listed as UNESCO World Heritage, were ravaged to make way for a highway, hotel complexes, and the entire sporting infrastructure, which did not exist before the Olympic competitions.

Again four years later, at the Pyeongchang Games where the alpine skiing events required the felling of 60,000 trees in an old-growth forest more than five hundred years old. Long protected, Mount Gariwang was one of the collateral victims of staging the events in South Korea. Yet at each edition, the same refrain returns, accompanied by assurances that such destruction of the environment and biodiversity will not happen again.

In Italy, despite the promises and for reasons of national pride, history ended up repeating itself with the construction of the bobsleigh track. Besides its cost — the tidy sum of 120 million euros — the construction site caused the destruction of a forest of centennial larches. This choice seems all the more regrettable as alternatives in Switzerland and Austria had been offered to Italy.

The limits of the model

According to calculations by Scientists for Global Responsibility and the New Weather Institute, the Milan Games generated nearly one million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent, mainly due to spectator travel between the different sites. This figure, which still needs to be confirmed, could also put into perspective the value of the model of geographically extended Games.

Added to this are the 948,000 cubic meters of water pumped to produce the 2.4 million cubic meters of planned artificial snow. In Anterselva (Trentino-Alto Adige), a reservoir with a capacity of 30,000 m³ was used to snow the cross-country ski tracks; in Livigno (Lombardy), a 200,000 m³ retention basin supplied the freestyle and snowboard slopes. This increased pressure on water resources, in a context of global warming and drought, logically raises serious concerns.

Published by the University of Lausanne, a study calls for a deep rethink of the Olympic model to make it compatible with the Paris agreements. "Since 2020, the IOC has required host cities to reduce their emissions, but without providing a concrete roadmap. This situation opens the door to the purchase of carbon credits to show a "neutral" balance, without changes in practices and with a risk of greenwashing," explains David Gogishvili, first author of this research carried out within the Faculty of Geosciences and Environment of UNIL. "If we want the Olympic Games to remain relevant in a world facing the climate crisis, sustainability must go beyond rhetoric and become a binding requirement, responsible and independently verified," he concludes.

A "necessary" climate cost

Let's be at least minimally honest with ourselves. Moving thousands of athletes and spectators to one or more regions of the world will never produce a 100% virtuous and eco-friendly outcome. Certainly the climate cost can still be clearly reduced and will make it easier to better reconcile sport and nature. The bill will nevertheless remain negative; it's inevitable.

Should we therefore give them up in view of the importance of major international sporting competitions, and even more so the Olympic Games, with their symbolism linked to peace? Whether it is the events organized in Milan-Cortina or the World Cup scheduled in June in North America, sport remains a unifying force and a source of particular emotions. Paradoxically, we all manage to be moved by the tears of joy (and sometimes of sadness and suffering) of these exceptional athletes.

Depriving ourselves of them for the sake of the climate bill would prove counterproductive. "This is the whole paradox of some extreme environmentalist discourses: by wanting to ban everything, stop everything, they sometimes produce the opposite effect," reacted the explorer Raphaël Domjan on that same platform. Can sport alone reverse the worrying trajectory our societies have embarked on in the face of climate challenges? Probably not.

But a bit of dreaming — isn't that what we all need in these uncertain days? The fine haul of Swiss medals, the remarkable performances of the athletes in Italy and the popular enthusiasm stirred up these past days can contribute to it. Ultimately, this positive spirit could turn into a source of inspiration and make us want, in turn, to commit to a cause that is dear to us.

This article has been automatically translated using AI. If you notice any errors, please don't hesitate to contact us.