As the world heats up, sport is becoming more dangerous. Many amateur athletes risk their lives running in more extreme temperatures and, even at the elite level, some have collapsed, asking officials what happens if they die in the heat of the Summer Olympics. But how are the Winter Games impacted?
For snow sports – which will be showcased when the Winter Olympics start in the Italian Alps this week – climate change may not be as life-threatening but it is a major risk to their viability.
Many ski slopes already have to produce expensive artificial snow for much of the winter. A 2024 study found that the list of cities which are reliably cold enough to host a Winter Olympics will fall from 87 to 52 by the 2050s. For the Paralympics, which are typically held in warmer March, the threat is even worse.
But like any big event, the Winter Olympics contribute to climate change too. A report by Scientists for Global Responsibility estimates that the carbon footprint of the 2026 Games will be similar to the annual emissions of Somalia.
On top of that, the organisers of the Milano Cortina Games have drawn criticism from green groups for partnering with Eni, an Italian energy multinational whose oil and gas production has led it to be ranked as the world’s 34th highest greenhouse gas-emitting company.
For more than 16 years, Julie Duffus has worked on Olympic sustainability – first, with the organisers of London 2012, then Rio 2016 and currently as the head of sustainability at the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which picks Olympic host cities and works with them to put on the Games.
Climate Home News asked Duffus how the Winter Olympics are coping with the climate crisis and what organisers are doing to reduce their role in heating up the planet.
-
Cooling towers, fake snow: What the Beijing Winter Olympics says about climate change
The spectacle of fake snow and an old steel mill’s cooling towers has sparked climate debate among Olympics-watchers -
‘Hottest games ever’: At the Tokyo Olympics, elite sport met the climate crisis
Athletes fainted as wet bulb temperatures reached dangerous levels in Tokyo, raising questions about the future of major sporting events in an overheated world -
Saudi visa crackdown left heatwave-hit Hajj pilgrims scared to ask for help
Pilgrims without the right type of visa were denied medical treatment, survivors say, during a 52C heatwave which killed hundreds
Q: Is climate change threatening the Winter Olympics?
A: We’re certainly not sitting here in denial that climate change is impacting – not just the Games actually – but all of us around the world. For years, we’ve been doing research on the impact of climate change on the Games and the future host territories. There are some scenarios where the snow is retreating and we need to address that seriously. So this is definitely something that is on our radar and that we are taking very seriously.
Q: Are there plans to produce artificial snow for these Winter Olympics? And, if so, how green is that? What energy has been used to produce that?
Technical snow, as it’s called, has been produced now for decades and it’s not just something that’s produced for an Olympic Games. If you go skiing pretty much anywhere in the world now, a lot of them will rely on technical snow.
But Milano Cortina 2026 is significantly reducing that amount of technical snow compared to previous Games. And a lot of innovation has gone into the development of the snow machines. They’re working on HVO biofuels for the first time – so this is a very nice legacy that we will leave behind for these communities that rely on winter sports.
The snow machines also have sensors so that they can track the depth of the snow that’s fallen versus the technical snow, so they can reduce quite significantly the amount of technical snow that needs to be made. And that’s a first and this is what we love about the Games because it’s pushing innovation for the future of these communities.
Q: What are the organisers doing to reduce the greenhouse gas impact from the construction of venues?
A: The most effective way to cut construction emissions is to avoid unnecessary construction in the first place – and that’s exactly what Milano Cortina is doing.
For this Games, around 85% of the competition venues are already existing. That includes some iconic world-class venues, with a few even used back at the Olympic Games in Cortina in 1956. By relying heavily on what already exists, organisers reduce construction and related emissions that would come from any large-scale development.
This is in line with IOC’s strategy to reduce the climate impact of the Games by building less. The strategy is to adapt the Games to the host, not the other way around, and to encourage organisers to use what’s already there, adding new infrastructure only when it’s genuinely needed in the long-term and for the benefit of its communities.
Q: And how about the greenhouse gas impact from people travelling to the Games?
A: Bringing people together to celebrate sport and unity requires travel, and travel is a source of emissions for any Games. Spectator travel is also included in the IOC’s carbon methodology, so these emissions will be measured and reported transparently after the Games. The IOC delegation are travelling by train from Switzerland, and teams will move between Milan and Cortina using public transport.
At the same time, both the hosts are working to use the Games as a catalyst for public transport improvements – through upgrades to existing train and metro lines, making transport more accessible, and, as we’ve seen in many past Games editions, extending public transport services in ways that benefit host communities well beyond the event.
Q: Scientists for Global Responsibility have called for spectators who travel by train, coach or car to get cheaper tickets than those fly. Would you consider that?
A: We are currently researching many options to reduce our transport impacts. Both the IOC and the Organising Committee’s carbon management plans have transport as an important element, with spectators covered by the Organising Committee’s plan.
Q: Over 20,000 people have signed a petition against the Games being sponsored by Italian oil and gas company Eni. Do you think this partnership will accelerate climate change by promoting a fossil fuel company?
A: We’re currently at a stage in the world, not just the Games, of a transition. Eni is a domestic partner of the Milano Cortina 2026 Organising Committee, who are working with them on that transition, focusing on renewable energy and HVO biofuels.
We have to face the reality that the world needs to transition and the support that we can do to promote greener renewables sources of energy is what’s needed.
The legacy after the Games is that these communities are now connected to green energy and the renewable energy grid. So we need to be open to the fact that we do need to transition away from fossil fuels – but transition to green, stable renewable energy.
The post Q&A: How are the Winter Olympics cutting emissions and adapting to climate change? appeared first on Climate Home News.
Q&A: How are the Winter Olympics cutting emissions and adapting to climate change?
One of the key expected outcomes from the upcoming COP31 climate summit in Antalya, Turkey, is the launch of a “just transition mechanism”.
This follows years of calls from civil society to support a “just transition” as countries shift towards low-emissions energy systems and away from fossil fuels.
At the COP30 UN climate talks last year in the Brazilian city of Belém parties agreed to establish a “mechanism” to support this goal, called the “Belém-Antalya mechanism” (BAM).
Groups that have championed the BAM want it to act as a central hub on just transitions, providing support for workers and communities around the world.
However, the details of exactly what the much-touted BAM will consist of remain vague, with developed and developing countries disagreeing about its functions and purpose.
Disagreements continued at the UN climate talks in Bonn in June 2026, including on the crucial question of how the BAM will be financed.
Here, Carbon Brief looks at where the idea for the BAM came from, how it could support just transitions and what to expect from COP31.
How has a ‘just transition’ featured in UN climate talks?
A “just transition” is the idea that workers and communities should be supported in the shift to a low-carbon economy. It is a central principle behind the idea of climate justice.
Often, the term refers to those linked to the fossil-fuel industry, but it can also refer to transitions taking place in agriculture, heavy industry and various other sectors.
The concept originated in the 1980s, when US labour unions forged alliances with environmental justice groups. It has since become a key part of international climate discussions.
The preamble to the 2015 Paris Agreement includes a commitment to “tak[e] into account the imperatives of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with nationally defined development priorities”.
Bert De Wel, policy officer at the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), tells Carbon Brief:
“The labour movement is very happy with the wide audience and broad political support that the concept has received since its inception in the 1980s. The inclusion in the Paris Agreement, with the reference to the creation of decent work and quality jobs was a milestone for the movement. While other demands have been added…we continue to stress the labour dimension as being central to the concept.”
Three years after the creation of the Paris Agreement, at COP24 in the former coal-mining city of Katowice, the Polish presidency highlighted the issue of just transitions.
The need for carbon-cutting policies to ensure “a just transition of the workforce” that creates “decent work and quality jobs” was included in the “Silesia declaration”, issued by the presidency during the first week of COP24.
While the declaration was only signed by 50 countries – roughly a quarter of the parties at the summit – it was still “noted” in the final COP text.
This helped to drive momentum behind the idea, culminating in formal agreement at COP27 in Egypt to launch a “work programme on just transition” (JTWP).
De Wel says the establishment of the JTWP was a “major step forward” that allowed parties to “speak about just transition in more concrete terms”.
In the years since, negotiators have worked to flesh out the JTWP, with disagreements between parties about what its purpose should be.
Broadly, developed countries would like it to focus on domestic workforces, while some nations want a more global outlook, including support for transitions in developing countries.
The JTWP has proved a challenging negotiating space, with talks at the COP29 summit in 2024 closing without an agreement, in what one observer dubbed a “betrayal”.
However, despite these frustrations, parties at COP30 in Brazil agreed to establish a new institutional mechanism on just transitions, which has become widely known as the BAM. The move was hailed as a “victory” by civil society.
Where did the ‘just transition mechanism’ come from?
In the run-up to COP30, civil society began to push for the establishment of an “institutional arrangement” that would move work under the JTWP from talk into action.
(This was originally called the “Belém action mechanism” by civil society groups, who subsequently updated this to the “Belém-Antalya mechanism” following the outcome at COP30. However, in the JTWP text agreed at COP30 it is only described as a “mechanism”, sometimes also referred to as the “just transition mechanism”.)
Anabella Rosemberg, senior advisor on just transition at NGO umbrella group Climate Action Network (CAN) International, tells Carbon Brief:
“The idea of the mechanism emerged from the collaboration of civil society, trade unions, feminist groups, youth and Indigenous peoples in the UNFCCC.
“It was clear that the kind of activities being run under the JTWP – two dialogues a year and one ministerial – would not support the delivery of just-transition strategies on the ground, so a new approach was developed to get words into action.”
Following the inception of the idea, civil society did “tonnes of stuff to boost it up the agenda”, Dr Leon Sealey-Huggins, a senior campaigner at the charity War on Want, tells Carbon Brief.
This ranged from presenting demands and proposals to different constituents, organising joint letters and writing policy papers, all the way through to designing logos, creating memes and even a song.
These efforts ultimately paid off: during the Bonn climate negotiations in June 2025, one draft text included the idea for a new institutional arrangement. One of the options in the draft text was for a “toolbox, guidance framework, global platform, technical assistance network [or] mechanism”.
![Paragraph 28 of the JTWP text published 25 June 2025. The text reads "28. Options for further implementation of the United Arab Emirates just transition work programme Option 1: Improving existing modalities Option 2: New institutional arrangements [toolbox, guidance framework, global platform, technical assistance network, mechanism] Option 3: Defer decision to 2026"](https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/para28-1024x334.png)
This inclusion was broadly welcomed as a “big win” for civil society groups, although parties acknowledged that more needed to be done to flesh out the idea.
Going into COP30, civil society groups continued to push the idea of creating a BAM, with protests, banners and badges visible around the venue.
Early in negotiations, the G77 and China – a large coalition of developing countries at UN climate talks – put forward their own proposal for a just transition “mechanism”. This, they suggested, could provide technical assistance, support international cooperation and help to foster partnerships in an effort to address implementation gaps.
Their proposal faced initial pushback from developed-country parties including Norway, the UK and others, who opposed it due to concerns that it would duplicate existing systems and require additional funding.
Developed countries also opposed the use of the term “mechanism”, with the EU suggesting an “action plan” as a potential alternative. Nevertheless, the creation of a “mechanism” was included in the final draft text on the JTWP.
This text was formally approved during the COP30 closing plenary to extended applause from many in the hall.
In a statement at the time, Chiara Martinelli, director at CAN Europe, welcomed the decision:
“Delivering BAM was a major civil society win. It creates a coordinated institutional home to drive forward progress on the just transition.”
The decision to develop the mechanism included a request for parties to work over the subsequent year – through to COP31 – on a plan to get things started.
What role could the mechanism play in facilitating ‘just transitions’?
According to civil society, the BAM could help tackle the fractured just-transition landscape by centralising resources and helping to overcome a number of barriers.
Speaking to Carbon Brief, Rosemberg says the just-transition space “lacks coordination and the right kind of support and is quite disconnected from climate action imperatives”. She adds:
“The BAM can play a role in bringing those [people] trying to make just transition happen together, identify gaps and barriers, foster cooperation and accelerate support.”
Civil society has put forward a number of proposals likely to inform the structure of the BAM. Most consist of a mechanism with three parts, which would encompass and expand upon the work that is currently being carried out under the JTWP.
One proposal by a coalition of five NGOs suggests the mechanism is formed of a steering body, a “knowledge arm” and an “implementation arm”.
The steering body would coordinate the work of the two arms of the BAM, including deciding the topics that should be discussed under the ongoing JTWP, which will continue to feature in climate negotiations. They suggest the body would recommend topics that require negotiation when “gaps that require political guidance are identified”.
Their proposal is illustrated in the infographic below, showing the steering body acting as a central hub for work within the BAM.
The final part of the BAM, the “implementation arm”, would act as a hub to enable and coordinate technical, financial and knowledge-based assistance for those pursuing a just transition.
Rosemberg says the vision of civil society is for work to go “beyond negotiators’ dialogues”. She says the BAM could enable the organisation of a “matchmaking platform” to provide support faster, as well as dedicated groups to identify and mobilise financial resources. She adds:
“Finally, through bottom-up identification of barriers, the BAM can also allow a discussion on enabling just transition that is informed by practitioners. The BAM can show that implementation does not necessarily mean taking issues outside of the UNFCCC.”
A separate proposal for the structure of the BAM from the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice (DCJ) – a separate coalition of NGOs – similarly proposes three elements. These would be: coordination and coherence; knowledge generation; and international cooperation and support.
Sealey-Huggins, who is affiliated with DCJ, notes:
“If it works in practice, what we’ll see is a cascade of just-transition policies implemented across countries, across sectors in a unifying, transformational moment for justice-centered climate action, and that will be the key to unlocking the transition that’s been missing so far.”
Another proposal for the BAM comes from the Grantham Institute at the London School of Economics. It suggests the three functions of the mechanism should be capacity-building, technical assistance and knowledge-sharing, but it recommends a dual-arm structure comprising a policy arm and an operational arm.
De Wel tells Carbon Brief that while there is “rather broad consensus on the functions”, parties are pushing in “very different directions” on how the BAM will be set up.
What are the financial implications of the mechanism?
Within UN climate negotiations, some parties have raised concerns about the potential cost of the mechanism.
The push to launch the BAM comes at a time when the UNFCCC itself is facing a funding gap, following the US withdrawal. Several other parties have also delayed or reduced their contributions, in response to changes in domestic priorities.
This has led to the UNFCCC cancelling events and not filling vacated positions, as the organisation struggles to carry out its existing functions.
Membership
Support award-winning climate journalism
As such, some parties have expressed hesitancy about creating another mechanism under the remit of the UNFCCC, which also requires funding. However, proponents of the BAM argue that the costs of running it would be