After having claimed a competition with a “positive contribution to the climate”, the organizing committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games in Paris is now putting forward the more realistic objective of halving the greenhouse gas emissions generated by the event.
It is a change of discourse as discreet as revealing the sensitivity of the subject. Two years ago, the organizers of the Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games promised the first Games in “positive contribution to the climate”. The idea was to go beyond carbon neutrality, by planning to eliminate more greenhouse gas emissions than those produced by the event. These gases, released by our consumption of fossil fuels, are the main cause of global warming.
In May 2023, this accounting construction, criticized by several scientists interviewed by franceinfo for its misleading nature, disappeared from official communication. “We are no longer talking about a positive contribution to the climate”, confirms to franceinfo Benjamin Lévêque, climate and biodiversity manager within the organizing committee (Cojo). “We find this to be unreasonable scientifically and given the urgency.”
A “significant, but much lower” impact than previous editions
The word carbon “neutrality”, which only has meaning on a planetary or country scale, is also banned. “It at least shows that the Committee for Ecological Transformation is useful and that we are listened to”reacts Benoît Leguet, member of this consultative body and director of the Institute of Economics for Climate (I4CE).
The organizers of Paris 2024 no longer want “suggest” that a competition of this magnitude “has no impact” on the climate, continues Benjamin Lévêque. The projected carbon footprint has been established by them to 1.58 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2eq), the unit used to measure greenhouse gas emissions. “It’s a significant impact, but much less than what was done before”, contextualizes the manager. Their goal now is to “halve the carbon footprint of the Games” compared to those of London (2012) and Rio (2016), which emitted an average of 3.5 million tonnes CO2eq. Tokyo (2020), which took place in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic and without spectators (1.96 million tonnes CO2eq), is excluded from the analysis.
Travel, the main source of emissions
Details of the projected carbon footprint for Paris 2024 are not public. In front of the press, Thursday, May 11, Georgina Grenon, director of environmental excellence, referred to a final report published after the Olympics. For the moment, the organization is only communicating a rough evaluation of the distribution of estimated emissions: 34% for the travel of spectators, athletes and officials, 33% for construction and 33% for operations (catering , hosting, logistics, licensed products, etc.). The emission reductions compared to London and Rio are based, according to the Cojo, on on a series of choices: 95% of existing infrastructures or temporary, less carbon-intensive constructions (700 kg of CO2eq per square meter, compared to one ton on average), no generators (which run on fuel) to supply the Olympic sites, 60% of the vegetarian catering offer for spectators, etc. So much for the communication plan.
But at the same time, the first item of emissions (the travel of spectators, athletes and officials to reach France) is not currently the subject of any specific action: “It is clearly a subject on which we have less direct control”recognizes Benjamin Lévêque, promising, despite everything, future initiatives to limit the use of the plane.
What do the experts think of these figures? Professor at the University of Lausanne (Switzerland), headquarters of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), Martin Müller has closely studied the social, environmental and economic sustainability of the Games. While he welcomes the development of a provisional carbon footprint, he is more skeptical about the figure put forward. “These are the first Games where I see a commitment not to exceed maximum CO2 emissions. But there is a lack of transparency around the 1.58 million tonnes of CO2eq. I cannot understand, as a researcher, on what basis this was calculated”he regrets, hammering that“one number is not enough”. For its part, Paris 2024 remains vague on its methodology, but puts forward a progressive work, reassessed regularly, to be as precise as possible.
Compensation, “a way to clear your conscience”
Martin Müller also regrets that Paris 2024 promises to “compensate for” its climate impact. Commitment “problem” of questionable effectiveness, he said. “It’s a way to clear your conscience”, supports climatologist Valérie Masson-Delmotte, co-chair of working group 1 of the IPCC. She points out that there is no “not yet a sufficiently strict framework on these so-called compensation actions to ensure their credibility”.
This compensation market is based on “carbon credits”. In theory, the principle is simple: after having emitted greenhouse gases, a company will finance a project – a tree planting, for example – capable of removing the same quantity of gas from the atmosphere. In practice, “it is very difficult to measure the real impact of a project”, resituates Gilles Dufrasne, expert in the sector at the NGO Carbon Market Watch. Added to this uncertainty is the fact that each player, remunerated according to the quantity of credits issued, has a financial interest in “exaggerate” the real impact of the projects, explains the specialist.
“More radical” changes proposed by scientists
Aware of the problem, Benjamin Lévêque prefers to talk about “contribution, no compensation”even though the official Paris 2024 website continues to promise “to offset more emissions than we emit”. He claims that the chosen intermediary, whose name is not yet public, meets the highest standards of the sector and that verifications will be carried out on the spot. “We are really comfortable with our selection of projects”, he assures. For her part, Georgina Grenon evokes two programs, one in France, the other abroad. “For the second, we are in the middle of a call for tenders, it will depend on the prices that we will be offered”explains the director of environmental excellence, without giving details.
Changes “more radical” in the way of organizing such an event would have been more effective in reducing the impact of the Games, believes Martin Müller. In 2021, in a study published in Nature Sustainabilitythe scientist had proposed, with his colleagues, several avenues for more ecological Games: reducing their size (fewer spectators, athletes, entourages), organizing the competition in the same “two-three host cities” and entrust the evaluation of the sustainability of the event to an independent body. “The Olympics are not essential for human life, even if it is very pleasant to watch”emphasizes the researcher, before recalling the threat posed by global warming to the future of our societies.