Paris 2024 Olympics: A Green Spectacle or Just Greenwashing?

In recent years, “greenwashing” has become a buzzword, denoting a disingenuous trend where companies and governments portray themselves as more environmentally friendly than they truly are. It’s a corporate sleight of hand that capitalises on growing public concern over climate change. Enter the Paris 2024 Olympics, widely branded as the most sustainable Olympic Games ever staged. With promises of climate-positive initiatives and a drastically reduced carbon footprint, Paris 2024 claims to be setting a new standard for mega-events. But is this genuinely the case, or are we witnessing greenwashing on a global stage?

The Paris 2024 Organizing Committee has promoted its sustainability agenda, promising to make the Games “climate-positive.” The committee has highlighted several measures to back this up: a pledge to cut carbon emissions by 50%, carbon-neutral venues, heavy use of existing infrastructure, and a focus on sustainable food sources and minimal plastic usage. These efforts sound impressive, particularly the use of existing venues like Stade de France and the commitment to plant-based food options.

Yet beneath this glossy surface lies a more complex reality. Despite claims of climate neutrality, environmental experts remain sceptical. The Games, built on mass consumption and global travel, are major contributors to climate change. As the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) shows, while Paris 2024 is cutting some emissions, international travel by athletes, fans, and officials could account for nearly two-thirds of the event’s total carbon footprint.

The construction of new facilities, like the Olympic Village, also contradicts efforts to minimise impact. While it’s promoted as a model of green architecture, incorporating renewable energy, critics argue that emissions from its construction significantly add to the carbon load. The Carbon Trust notes that embodied carbon in new construction can take decades to offset through energy savings, raising the question: Can a carbon-heavy event like the Olympics ever meet sustainability standards?

The Olympic Village, often held up as the crown jewel of Paris 2024’s sustainability promises, is designed to be repurposed into housing and office space. But even with its environmentally friendly designs—solar panels, rainwater collection, and energy-efficient buildings—upfront emissions are already embedded in its creation. According to a study from Carbon Brief, construction activities account for 39% of global carbon emissions, making it questionable whether building large complexes, even for later reuse, is truly sustainable.

Temporary infrastructure is another concern. Much of the event will rely on temporary facilities like fan zones and accommodations, generating waste and emissions when dismantled. This contrasts sharply with the ideals of a zero-waste event. History shows recycling and reuse rarely happen at the promised scale, as seen with the London 2012 and Rio 2016 Games, which left behind massive amounts of unused materials. Greenwashing is often defined by the gap between promises and delivery.

Paris 2024 makes bold claims about being climate-positive, but the sustainability veneer starts to fade under scrutiny. The Olympics require large-scale infrastructure, massive energy consumption, and international travel. While Paris 2024 may reduce some environmental impacts, the scope and scale of the event ultimately undermine the sustainability narrative.

To truly address the climate crisis, we need to rethink mega-events like the Olympics. Can a global event requiring new construction and extensive travel ever be truly green? A report from the University of Lausanne suggests decentralising such events across locations to reduce the environmental burden on one city.

As we look to the future, the world must recognize that sustainability is not about reducing emissions in one area while increasing them elsewhere. If we are serious about fighting climate change, it may be time to reconsider whether the Olympic Games are worth the environmental cost.