It turns out that despite the organizers’ promises of ‘sustainability’, the Games seem to be receiving a failing grade from climatists.
I am, to say the least, no fan of the Olympics. Whether in their winter or summer formats, the Games are a corrupt, self-important, and vaguely (and sometimes not so vaguely) authoritarian spectacle foisted upon the unfortunate inhabitants of some city (or cities, thus in 1980, the year of the Moscow Olympics, the sailing events were held just off Tallinn, the capital of occupied Estonia) every four years.
However, reading this article in the Scientific American by Jules Boykoff, made me look at the Olympics with, if not exactly affection, a certain amusement. It turns out that despite the organizers’ promises of “sustainability,” despite the heroic (if ultimately unsuccessful) battle against air-conditioning, despite grim menus (less meat, more greens), despite “the seats in the aquatic center, which are constructed exclusively with local plastic waste”, and despite many such despites, when it comes to climate policy, the Games, like so much human activity, seem to be receiving a failing grade from climatists, made more stinging still by allegations of, inevitably, greenwashing.
Boykoff quotes Madeleine Orr, author of Warming Up: How Climate Change Is Changing Sport, and an assistant professor of sport ecology at the University of Toronto (who had an article on the Olympics and the climate in the New York Times yesterday) as saying that “there is no version of a sustainable Games as of yet.” It’s a sentiment, relates Boykoff, “echoed by many, including Christine O’Bonsawin, an Indigenous sport scholar and member of the Abenaki Nation at Odanak in Quebec, who dubbed such measures an “Olympic sustainability smokescreen.” The modern-day supersized Olympics with its fossil-fuel-guzzling ways is simply not compatible with an authentic sustainability agenda.”
Boykoff notes:
The biggest portion of greenhouse gas emissions for major sports events—approximately 85 percent, by some estimates—derives from travel to the event by fans, journalists and athletes.
Orr, writing in the Times:
[I]international travel is a big contributor to the overall carbon impact of the Games. Organizers of the Rio Olympics in 2016 predicted that slightly more than half of the carbon emissions would come from spectators. Of that amount, 80 percent was expected to be generated by international fans traveling to and from the Games. Organizers saw a low potential to reduce those emissions and said they would need to compensate elsewhere in the preparation and running of the events.
What else is to be done? If the world is serious about reducing carbon emissions, the Olympics, like so much else, will have to change even more. Jules Boykoff, who has written extensively about the Olympic Games, rightly argues in Scientific American that “the Games need to reduce their size, limit the number of tourists who travel from afar, thoroughly greenify their capacious supply chains and open up their eco-books for bona fide accountability.”
Climate policy is inextricably linked to efforts to restrict human mobility, most notoriously the war against cars, but no one should be under any doubt that accessible and affordable air travel is in climate fundamentalists’ sights too. I wrote about this last month but, via the Financial Times on Thursday, here’s another example:
European flights are being severely disrupted by climate activists glueing themselves to runways as part of their campaign to ban fossil fuels, despite threats of tougher prison sentences for protesters breaking into airports.
Frankfurt airport cancelled about 140 flights on Thursday after members of the Letzte (Last) Generation climate protest group cut through perimeter fencing and stuck themselves to the ground while holding “Oil Kills” banners.
Or, via the Daily Telegraph earlier in the week, there was this:
Virgin Atlantic is to charge passengers a green levy on every flight as it seeks to cover the costs of using sustainable aviation fuel (Saf).
Shai Weiss, the chief executive of the UK airline, confirmed plans for the environmental surcharge, which he said will come into force over the next 18 months.
And so it goes on.
As for the Olympics, back in 2015, I suggested that Pyongyang might be worth considering as a venue for the Games. I still think that’s the case. The appalling North Korean regime would be a good fit for the Olympics’ inherent authoritarianism, and while Kim Jong Un may lack his father’s remarkable athletic prowess (Kim Jong-Il reportedly hit five — or more — holes in one during his first round of golf) he has invested heavily in sports, and would surely welcome the opportunity to host the Games. Better still, Pyongyang’s somewhat limited appeal might reduce the number of people flying to watch the Games there. The planet could breathe a little easier. Gold medals all round!