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?
Scientists have vowed to keep working on the next flagship set of reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), after a political row over the timeline for their release saw its latest session suspended on Friday evening without agreement.
During the weekend, government officials and scientists alike expressed disappointment over the inability to reach a compromise before some delegates from developing countries and small island states had to leave the week-long meeting in Ethiopia to catch flights home.
The disagreement – which has persisted since early 2024 – turns on whether the three key parts of the AR7 assessment should all be published before the conclusion of the UN’s next Global Stocktake of global climate action, which is due to be completed in late 2028.
The IPCC issued a statement after the close of the session, saying that “key agenda items” – the timelines for the three AR7 reports, as well as the IPCC budget – remain open and under discussion. It said the IPCC’s plenary session and its deliberations on the pending agenda “will resume at the earliest opportunity”, giving no further details of when.
IPCC Chair Jim Skea told delegates in closing remarks that recent months had been some of the most turbulent for the climate science panel and that, if there were stronger words than “profound disappointment” he would use them, according to a summary published by the Earth Negotiators Bulletin (ENB). IPCC discussions happen behind closed doors.
IPCC scientists remained committed
In an open letter, issued on Monday, a group of nearly 120 scientists – from a total of 664 AR7 authors – said they “stand committed to continue working to deliver the AR7 reports in a manner that is rigorous, timely and inclusive, in line with our mandate to be policy-relevant”.
“An assessment that arrives after the decisions it is meant to inform cannot serve its purpose,” they emphasised. “The second Global Stocktake in 2028 is such a decision point, and the world should not have to face it without the IPCCʼs latest assessment.”
Europe, small islands and the least developed countries, plus many Latin American and developed nations, want the IPCC to meet this deadline, arguing that the findings from the UN climate science body are irreplaceable in the UN climate policy-making process.
However, around a dozen developing countries plus Russia have argued that the reports should come later in order to allow for greater research input from the Global South – something that, in their view, would make the findings fairer. They also claim that a shorter timeline would put excessive pressure on experts.
-
Who shapes climate science? The equity question facing the IPCC
Early completion of the next global climate science assessment reports risks excluding research from the Global South, which is key to ensuring the findings are fair -
Governments that support climate science must stand firm against naysayers
The IPCC is meeting to decide the timing of its next major report, as some countries try to delay it and weaken the case for faster emissions cuts
The most vocal of this group at last week’s meeting were India and Saudi Arabia, according to the ENB summary and a developed country diplomat. Critics see this push for a longer timeline as an excuse to deprive government decision-makers of the latest science and ease pressure on emerging economies to raise their ambition, particularly on cutting emissions.
Commenting on last week’s meeting, France’s ambassador for climate negotiations Benoît Faraco said a broad coalition of developed and developing countries from all five continents, “united in their support for science and the timeline proposed by scientists”, had withstood pressure “from a few countries” seeking to slow down the process of adopting the IPCC reports.
He added that France would not back down and would “continue to fight tirelessly for science, protect the integrity of information, and convince our partners that without the best available scientific data, we will be less effective in tackling climate change and protecting our populations”.
Inclusivity proposal stalled
In a bid to unlock a solution for the AR7 timeline, countries discussed ways to improve the inclusivity of the IPCC’s work. One option put on the table was for the IPCC to expand its funding for delegates from developing countries to attend some or all of its sessions from one to two participants, according to the ENB summary and a delegate speaking to Climate Home News.
That would increase the costs for the IPCC to complete AR7 by up to a quarter, according to an assessment shared by the secretariat. The panel’s budget is under severe strain and its officials have warned that, without additional voluntary contributions, it risks running out of money before it can deliver on this assessment cycle.
Climate Home News understands that some of the IPCC’s traditional donors – which mainly include European countries, Japan and Australia – indicated a willingness to support funding for an additional developing country participant. But without an agreement over the budget or the timeline for the reports, that option was ultimately not adopted.
‘Disappointed and worried’
The three reports are managed by working groups that collate and draw overall findings from the latest scientific studies and data on the physical effects of global warming around the world, how to adapt to it, and pathways for cutting planet-heating emissions in order to meet the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement.
Winston Chow, an urban climate professor at Singapore Management University who co-chairs Working Group II on adaptation, wrote in a LinkedIn post that he was “disappointed and worried” for the IPCC authors who have worked “extraordinarily hard” to assess the relevant climate science over the past two years.
He said he shared their concern that “the rigour, time and goodwill they’ve invested are now being put at risk by the Panel’s stalemate”.
As science comes under attack at UN talks, climate movement splits over how to respond
For Working Group II, a meeting for 250 experts writing that report is scheduled for January 2027, followed by the approval of a special report on cities and climate change in Singapore next March.
But because the IPCC’s budget has not been confirmed due to uncertainty about the AR7 schedule, travel support for those researchers is at risk, wrote Chow. “If they cannot participate, our assessments will lose vital expertise, perspectives and scientific breadth, and the collective effort of our authors will be undermined,” he warned.
Scientific work continues
Despite the political holdups, he – together with French climate scientist Robert Vautard, co-chair of Working Group 1 – agreed with IPCC head Skea who told the IPCC’s closing session on Friday: “The engine room of the IPCC is working, and it’s healthy.”
Vautard commented in a separate post on LinkedIn after it ended: “The boat is at full steam.” Working groups I and II are due to start revising the first drafts of their reports, while Working Group III on reducing emissions is finalising its first draft which will be out soon, he wrote.
“The most exciting two years of the cycle are ahead, for the authors. The momentum in the engine room is here and now. Trust the engine room!” he added.
The IPCC and some scientists report that progress has been made towards achieving an equitable balance of authors from the Global North and the Global South.
The group of researchers who signed the open letter on Monday noted that “inclusivity is at the heart of how we work”, with author teams bringing together experts from developed and developing countries with diverse backgrounds and at different stages of their careers.
Plea to overcome political differences
The signatories include several scientists from some of the countries opposed to the alignment of all IPCC reports with the Global Stocktake.
“We are committed to an assessment in which the knowledge, experience and priorities of every region are fully reflected, a commitment we share with the leadership of the IPCC.
Equity is built into how our assessment is being drafted,” they added.
They appealed to governments that make up the IPCC “to overcome their political differences and work together as we do as a global scientific community, so that we can deliver the IPCC reports the world needs to hear”.
In a statement published on Monday, IPCC chair Skea said reaching consensus on the schedule for the reports is “vital”. He added that the assessments provide authoritative scientific evidence to inform national climate policies, strengthen adaptation and resilience and support access to climate finance, as well as helping communicate the scale of the climate crisis and the urgency of efforts to tackle it.
The post IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock appeared first on Climate Home News.
IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock
An Lambrechts is a biodiversity politics expert at Greenpeace International with extensive experience in biodiversity-related multilateral negotiations. She is the head of the Greenpeace delegation at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP17 happening in Yerevan, Armenia.
In 2022, COP15 delivered the landmark Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. With COP17 starting in Yerevan, we are now halfway to the deadline, and according to the first Global Review of progress, countries are not on track to meet the biodiversity targets, and implementation must accelerate fast.
One of the main findings of the Global Review is that funding falls far short of the scale needed to halt and reverse nature loss. But the crisis facing the world’s biodiversity is not an absolute scarcity of capital – it is a profound public policy distortion.
The global economy currently spends roughly $30 destroying nature for every single dollar invested in its protection. According to a report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, a staggering $2.4 trillion is spent in public subsidies for fossil fuels, agriculture and water use, while global investment in biodiversity conservation and restoration stands at a mere $220 billion.
Countries urged to ramp up “insufficient” nature policies at COP17
Yet, discussions about how to close the biodiversity finance gap continue to claim that salvation lies in mobilising private capital, scaling offsets and “derisking” investments in nature. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of both the nature of ecological stewardship and of the global financial architecture.
Biodiversity conservation is not a speculative investment portfolio – it is the foundation of human survival. The health of our planet is a non-monetisable, non-excludable public good. Expecting profit-seeking private capital to protect nature perpetuates the structural drivers of ecosystem destruction in the first place.
But if private market mechanisms cannot save biodiversity, where will the necessary public resources come from?
Money going to the wrong places
The answer lies in recovering the vast public wealth currently drained by cross-border tax abuse, financial secrecy and corporate impunity. Finance and environment ministers meeting in Yerevan must give a strong political signal that, to avert ecological breakdown, countries need to take swift action to reform global tax rules, eliminate harmful public subsidies and cancel unsustainable sovereign debts for the public revenues to end up where they belong.
Extractive sectors such as industrial agriculture, fishing, timber and mining continue business-as-usual, often heavily subsidised by public treasuries, while voluntary carbon and biodiversity offset markets pose a serious risk to nature conservation. Offset schemes have delivered only a negligible fraction of the funding needed to preserve ecosystems, allowing industries to continue with their destructive business-as-usual practices.
-
Global deforestation slowed in 2025 but Brazil’s election could undo “fragile” gains
Countries remain 70% off track to meet a goal to end deforestation by 2030, as progress in Latin America offset by failures in Africa -
Brazil confident new rainforest fund will reach $10bn donor milestone
Brazil’s environment minister said the Tropical Forest Forever Facility has raised billions in record time – which he hopes will convince more investors
In advanced economies, public funding often actively undermines biodiversity. In Europe, over €5.3 billion in public subsidies is funnelled annually into intensive forest biomass harvesting under renewable energy directives, degrading primary forest ecosystems and undermining long-term climate resilience. Pleading with private investors to fill a “finance gap