(Paris) “Decent” but still “insufficient” efforts: almost 100 days before the start of the Olympic Games, the impact of Paris-2024 on the planet is “too important” for them to be ecologically “sustainable”, estimates the NGO Carbon Market Watch, which calls for “radical” reform.
Originally, the Organizing Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games (COJO) promised Paris Games “with a neutral contribution to the climate”, that is to say without net greenhouse gas emissions.
But in the face of criticism, communication has changed and mentions carbon pollution half as much as during previous Olympics.
“We are really very happy that Paris-2024 […] has renounced” its initial assertion, affirms to AFP Benja Faecks, expert from Carbon Market Watch, and “we welcome the fact that they established a carbon budget before the event”, despite doubts about the “legitimacy » of the displayed calculation.
Paris-2024 foresees the emission of some 1.58 million tonnes of CO equivalent2or less than half of the 3.5 million tonnes on average for the London (2012) and Rio (2016) Games.
But the objective “seems at first glance ambitious” and “difficult to verify”, warns the NGO.
For her, the organizers’ climate strategy remains “incomplete” and “lack of transparency”: “no methodology or details regarding the method of calculation have been revealed”, explains the organization in a report.
The organizers “deserve to be commended” for their attempt to green an event of this scale, but “despite marginal improvements”, the carbon footprint of the Games “remains too high to be sustainable”.
It’s “encouraging” but “we need to do more,” summarizes Gilles Dufrasne, one of the managers of Carbon Market Watch.
Air transport
By sector, Carbon Market Watch predicts that the main greenhouse gas emissions will come from transport (around 40%) and construction (32%). The rest is distributed between food (1%), non-food purchases, such as “goodies” (20%), and energy consumption (8%).
For its part, the COJO estimates that emissions will be divided into three thirds: one for travel (and 25% of the total for spectator travel alone), another for construction (including 25% for permanent ones) and a final for Games operations (accommodation, security, catering, etc.).
“Efforts” have been made to limit emissions from construction – 95% of infrastructure is already existing or temporary – or thanks to vegetarian menus, but “the organizers have their hands tied when it comes to tackling largest sources of emissions,” the report notes.
This is the case for the air transport of athletes and spectators, whose emissions, as they currently stand, “cannot be significantly reduced”.
Radical redesign
Carbon Market Watch also highlights “inconsistencies”, particularly in the choice of sponsors: “the absence of climate criteria” imposed on partners “is a missed opportunity […] to influence large companies.
Finally, the NGO considers the organizers’ promises to compensate for unavoidable emissions with carbon credits “opaque”.
The use of this mechanism “is problematic in all cases”, believes Mme Faecks: because on the one hand this requires allowing oneself “to exceed the limits” and on the other hand because “high quality carbon credits are lacking”.
Can we still organize the Games at a time of global warming?
“It is clear that the Olympics cannot be truly compatible with respecting the barrier of 1.5 degrees of warming”, the most ambitious objective of the Paris agreements, “unless we radically rethink” their organization, estimates Carbon Market Watch .
Rather than bringing together athletes and spectators from all over the world in the same place, the NGO suggests that for each discipline the competition take place in a different city with access reserved for local populations: athletics in Mexico, aquatic sports in Buenos Aires, combat sports in Seoul, cycling in Ankara…
In addition to reducing the carbon footprint, “the other advantage would be to increase the accessibility of the Games”, visible on site to more people, argues Carbon Market Watch.