The Winter Olympics and Paralympics have long been a global celebration of winter sports, but a looming crisis threatens their very existence. As temperatures rise and snowfall becomes increasingly unpredictable, the foundation of these games is crumbling. Environmental experts argue that Olympic organizers are overpromising on sustainability, and the upcoming Games in Italy are putting these claims to the test. But here's where it gets controversial: can the Winter Games ever truly be sustainable, or are they inherently at odds with environmental reality?
For decades, the Winter Olympics have relied on reliable winter conditions, but climate change is reshaping this landscape. With Italy hosting the next Winter Olympics in just weeks, followed by the Paralympics in March, the tension between climate goals and reality is more evident than ever. Planning decisions, infrastructure choices, and climate promises are all under scrutiny, revealing the challenges of keeping these commitments.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) acknowledges the problem, but their solutions may not go far enough. A 2024 study commissioned by the IOC found that only about half of previous Winter Olympics host cities would be cold enough to host the Games by the 2050s. Meanwhile, a 2025 ski-resilience index ranked many resorts, including Cortina d’Ampezzo, the main site of the upcoming Games, as increasingly vulnerable. And this is the part most people miss: even as the IOC insists its climate goals are on track, the reality on the ground tells a different story.
The IOC aims to cut carbon emissions by 50% by 2030 and requires host cities to rely on existing or temporary venues. Snow competition sites must remain “climate reliable” until at least mid-century. However, temperatures in the Italian Alps are already above long-term averages, and natural snowpack has become a gamble. Artificial snow and refrigeration are no longer backups but necessities. This raises a thought-provoking question: are we sacrificing the environment to maintain the spectacle of the Winter Games?
Organizers point to Italy’s history of sustainability in planning big events, citing the 2006 Turin Olympics and the 2015 Milan Expo as examples. Gloria Zavatta, the sustainability director for the upcoming Games, highlights their commitment to the ISO 14064 standard for greenhouse-gas reporting and promises a full CO2 inventory by the end of 2026. But here’s the catch: the accounting has major blindspots, particularly in spectator travel and accommodation, which are often the biggest sources of emissions.
Travel and accommodation are the biggest blindspots, yet they remain largely unaddressed. While organizers encourage sustainable travel options, they admit it’s not under their control. This raises another controversial point: are sustainability claims just a smokescreen if the biggest contributors to emissions are ignored?
Critics like Madeleine Orr, an assistant professor in Sport Ecology, argue that raising awareness among fans is not enough, especially with the massive budgets involved. She points out that the 2010 Vancouver Olympics had similar goals, yet here we are in 2026, still grappling with the same issues. Orr also notes that even the Paris 2024 Summer Games, often held up as a sustainability benchmark, overstated their achievements.
Tiberio Daddi, a sports sustainability expert, emphasizes that the biggest impacts come from travel and accommodation. He argues that Olympic accounting should estimate emissions from spectator travel, athlete mobility, and logistics. However, the ISO 14064 standard, while solid in theory, is unevenly applied in practice, often neglecting waste, noise, visual impacts, and biodiversity.
Reuse and renovations also come under scrutiny. Organizers claim 92% of Milano-Cortina venues already exist, but major renovations are not fully reflected in emissions totals. This creative accounting echoes the approach used by Qatar for the FIFA World Cup, where long-term impacts were downplayed. The timing of sustainability planning, often coming after key construction decisions, further complicates matters.
The controversial sliding centre in Cortina is a prime example. Despite emphasizing reuse, the project became a near-total rebuild, with hundreds of trees felled and costs soaring. Critics question the long-term viability of such venues, especially with a small number of global athletes using them. This raises a broader question: are these massive infrastructure projects worth the environmental cost?
Calls for a rotating Winter Games model are growing, with a small number of climate-stable venues taking turns hosting. This idea, championed by figures like International Ski and Snowboard Federation president Johan Eliasch, could reduce costs and environmental impact. However, it’s not without challenges, as snowmaking, increasingly essential to the Games, requires specific temperature conditions and significant water resources.
As climate pressure builds, the future of the Winter Games hangs in the balance. An event designed to celebrate winter, snow, and mountains is now struggling to reproduce these conditions. This leaves us with a critical question: can the Winter Olympics adapt to a changing climate, or is their current model unsustainable? We invite you to share your thoughts in the comments—do you think the Winter Games can survive, or is it time for a radical rethink?
