sustainable development

Paris 2024 Olympics: Transformative Sustainability or Greenwashing Controversy?

The Paris 2024 Olympic Games aimed to be the greenest ever, hosting a summit to accelerate sport’s contribution to sustainable development goals by reducing emissions and implementing carbon mitigation projects. Critics labeled the event a “greenwashing nightmare,” citing vague methods and limited accountability. Despite challenges, the event’s focus on pre-game carbon mitigation represents a significant paradigm shift for major sporting events globally.

Changing the Paradigm of Major Sports Events

The Paris 2024 Olympic Games promised to be the greenest in history. On the Eve of the games, French President Emmanual Macron and the French Development Agency hosted the first Sport for Sustainable Development Summit, which gathered Heads of State, the International Olympic Committee, and the World Health Organization to accelerate the contribution of sport to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030.

The Olympic Games is one of the largest, most logistically complex global events. Host countries spend billions on new infrastructure, stadiums, athlete accommodation, Olympics venues, and upgrading transport. It is a mammoth undertaking, but it is also carbon intensive. Since Paris started planning for this year’s games in 2017, Paris 2024 aimed to be a game changer in the way that sports approaches its climate impacts.

The aim was to halve the emissions of this year’s games compared to the average of London 2012 and Rio 2016. There were two main goals: to reduce Games-related emissions and support carbon mitigation and capture projects. The former was the most significant. The organising committee pulled out all stops to comprehensively control and assess the entire carbon ecosystem of the event with both direct and indirect scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions from the carbon footprint from athletes and biodiversity impacts, to infrastructure, catering, waste, and even spectator travel.

The organising committee included a world-first Ecological Transformation Committee, setup to control, reduce, and reassess its carbon emissions throughout the run-up to the Games. The Ecological Transformation Committee was chaired by Gilles Boeuf and included nine experts across the areas of carbon impact, biodiversity, circular, economy, energy, catering, digital technology, temporary construction, innovation, and change management. The Committee was joined by representatives from Paris City Council, the French Ministry of Sport, the French Ministerial Delegation for the Olympic and Paralympic Games (DIJOP), the Ile-de-France Region, the Seine-Saint-Denis Department, Métropole du Grand Paris, the National Olympic and Paralympic Committees, and the French Agency for Ecological Transition (ADEME), and a representative from the Paris 2024 Athletes’ Commission. This breadth of expertise gave strength to the objectives they were trying to achieve.

Have we been greenwashed?

The pure scale of any Olympic Games dictates that it will always have a colossal effect on climate and host communities. This has led Paris 2024 to be labelled a ‘greenwashing nightmare’ by many who argue that this event is awash with vague methodology and limited accountability. There seems to be a lack of transparency and third-party monitoring in these Games that only contributes to the image of the Olympic Games being an “Olympic sustainability smokescreen”, as dubbed by Christine O’Bonsawin, an Indigenous sport scholar and member of the Abenaki Nation at Odanak in Quebec. Because of this lack of transparency, climate and sustainability watchdogs argue that we cannot verify claims that Paris 2024 is carbon-neutral or climate positive.

Researchers contend that the International Olympics Committee is one of the biggest greenwashing institutions in the world. Past attempts to assess and compensate the massive environmental and ecological impacts of the Games have been said to perpetuate “carbon colonialism”—offloading emissions through uncertain projects in the Global South that mainly service the Global North.

While I tend to agree with the transformative limitations of unclear climate accounting methodologies and stoic adhesion to market fixes, changing the status quo, especially of a dominant global event and institution such as the Olympics is impossible to achieve overnight. All change has to start somewhere, and the mindset behind such change promises a great deal for future direction.

The difference between the climate approach to the Paris 2024 Olympic Games and other previous major sporting events is that Paris 2024 sought to change the model of carbon assessment from post-games to a pre-game carbon mitigation model. Through this model, Paris 2024 undertook a holistic vision of offsetting emissions in a major carbon impact reduction target and strategy. This paradigm shift, flipping the mitigation hierarchy to avoiding and reducing emissions first rather than a pure offset and compensation strategy is highly significant.

Throughout modern history, the neoliberal approach to climate change has been more focused on offsets and carbon markets. It is a doctrine that believes in the power of commodities over conservation and that there are limits to environmentalism within the sphere of economic growth.

This ‘ARO’ – avoid, reduce, offset (last) – approach makes it difficult to skip over the typically harder and more expensive, bottom-of-the-pyramid mitigation priorities of avoid and reduce, which can happen when relying on a post-diem assessment that leaps straight to compensation as a first tactic.

What does this mean for other major sporting events?

Major sporting events are responsible for a whopping 50 to 60 billion tonnes of tCO2e globally every year. The most logical approach to reducing the climate impact of sport is to reduce the size and scale of these events. As with the Olympics, in their current formats, these events can never be truly sustainable and will always have a large environmental impact. However, avoiding them altogether is not black and white.

Sports – both taking part and being a spectator – has a proven social and economic benefit that goes beyond socio-economic, geographic, and cultural barriers. Sporting events strengthen social networks and build a sense of belonging for participants, fostering identity and building a sense of community character and cohesion for those involved. They can stimulate economic development for disadvantaged communities and inspire social change. Conversely, they can also be the root cause of human rights violations, slavery, unbridled nationalism, and massive-scale pollution.

To help address the entire carbon footprint of the Games, Paris 2024 declared that it developed an online tool, Climate Coach for Events for event organisers to understand and reduce the climate impact of major sporting events. This app is free for organisations to use and estimates the carbon footprint across ten categories including catering, accommodation, travel, infrastructure and energy, sports equipment, logistics, site preparation, promotional items, digital material, and waste; and provides a breakdown of the biggest source of emissions. In the same psychology of sports coaching, the app then provides a customised programme of over a hundred tangible measures that organisers can then implement in their planning to reduce their event’s carbon footprint.

Addressing climate impacts at the scale and complexity of something like the Olympics before the event demonstrates that it’s not too farfetched for other large sporting events to follow suit. Assessing the achievement of pre-emptive change rather than just rely on post-diem assessments to understand event impacts is a positive move.

Reinventing mega sporting events to realign them with international climate goals sounds like an impossible task. Of course, there is plenty more that could have always been done at the 2024 Olympics, by all – organisers, spectators, and athletes. The sheer scale of such events needs to be re-evaluated as a matter of urgency, but this event has opened pathways for thinking differently about the impacts and contributions of major sporting events, and other large events in general. Perhaps one of the greatest legacies of the Paris 2024 Olympics is that the opportunity to pioneer sustainable transformative thinking about major events proved not only possible, but even desirable.

In the ever-wise words of Nelson Mandela, “It always seems impossible until it is done”. No other thoughts resonate better with how we can address the world’s most challenging climate issues. The reinvention of future climate action in sport is on the horizon.

Read the 2024 Games sustainability reports here

Path to and beyond COP26 : why it’s important and what needs to happen Pt II

Time to shift power relations

In my last post, I looked at why COP26 is important for our climate future. Nonetheless, global efforts will mean nothing if not everyone has a seat at the table. In that respect, the fourth goal of COP26 ‘Working Together’, cannot simply be an empty symbolic gesture or conflated lip service to include marginalised groups in negotiations, it will have to be followed by key historical political commitments to shift the balance of power in climate policy and action. If COP26 becomes another cog in the machine of neoliberal climate diplomacy nothing will change. The first responses must be systemic and structural. All paths forward will rely on wholesale systemic change.

More power to historically excluded groups

The reality is that G20 countries are responsible for 80 percent of all climate emissions. The neoliberal approach to climate change and sustainability has not worked so far. Historic development policies have led the world into this rabbit hole of unequal consequences that have inflamed a climatic response to emissions output, linked to the rise and domination of fossil fuels.

Global international development has been somewhat of a sheep in wolf’s clothing. On the one hand promising to bring every society to the same standards of development of the West, and on the other allowing countries in the Global North to pillage the natural resources of those in the Global South, which has resulted in more economic injustices that letting those societies ‘develop’ on their own terms.

This historic and accepted practice of richer nations raping the earth in poorer nations to augment and continue wealth accumulation in the name of ‘economic growth’ has shown to be a major (if not the worst) culprit in the climate disaster. The extraction, exploitation and exportation of natural resources – not only fossil fuels, but also large-scale water, wood, cement, sand and other natural resources – has hands down been the biggest contributor of climate change according to the science. The intention, however, is linear: take from resource rich, economically poor countries and give to economically rich countries who are resource-intense users. This has to change, but it cannot unless those who have been on the receiving end of its consequences have a privileged seat at the table.

The mainstream notion of Sustainable Development recognises that changes must be made, that we must move away from a fossil fuel economy, but the structures and systems that keep power in place are still rampant. In that respect, if real transformative change is to be achieved post-COP26, it is acceptable to ask: is this the end of Sustainable Development (as we know it)?

Genuine, transformative and effective solutions will require more voices at the table. This means that the way we have known and practiced ‘development’ around the world will need to change to become more inclusive, more equitable, and consequently less taxing on the environment.

A balance of power towards the groups that have historically been excluded (especially Indigenous, traditional communities, and women) or had their voices ‘white-washed’ in climate negotiations to include more socially and ecologically just approaches or even alternatives to Sustainable ‘Development’ will be an unequivocal factor in finding effective solutions going forward. Strengthening the trust between people and global diplomatic actions can be achieved by this inclusivity, as can maintaining an element of hope.

By decolonising knowledge and approaches to how we interact with the environment, we have the potential to find sustainable solutions and trans formatively change the way society views its role in nature from one that has a right to dominate and exploit nature for the satisfaction of human desires, to one that sees its own wellbeing as impacted by the health of the environment and as such seeks to act as a caretaker of environmental rights and wellbeing.

This decolonisation includes centring valuable intelligence from Indigenous peoples, women, and people of colour (who are generally on the margins of knowledge in policy, but who have a historical record of being at the centre of environmental impacts, otherwise called intersectional environmentalism) in policy and decision-making for climate change and environmental management. Indigenous peoples in particular have not only innovation solutions that focus on collective outcomes, but have unique knowledge of the land and how to live in harmony with nature.

The use and exploitation of fossil fuels are a primary driver, that is sure and scientifically proven, but other extractive sectors have a gigantic responsibility in pushing us into a climate emergency. These industries prop up the consumerist society and support throw-away cultures that have a growing disconnect between spontaneous, self-indulgent or convenient whims, the natural source of the product and how it ultimately impacts the earth – think of the dire state of water and food (in)security, and the global impacts of deforestation on air quality, biodiversity and climatic events.

Indigenous peoples in particular know that all interactions with the environment have an equal or greater reaction on humans, and so the capitalist level exploitation of (note: not use of) all natural resources must be curbed significantly. In concepts like Buen Vivir, Indigenous knowledge also interacts and cooperates with other knowledge such as Western technical knowledge to co-create solutions that pursue the same goal.

I will say it again, this inclusivity cannot be a mere symbolic gest. The Indigenous groups who have and will be travelling to Glasgow are expecting to be heard, and to have their concerns and solutions included and highlighted in negotiations. At this point in history, we have more to lose than to gain by continuing down the dominant path to climate action.

More power to let people lead change

People in societies everywhere are bound by their own access to power within political systems that may or may not support community-led processes. Where vital progress will be made is where governments, both national and local, create the structures and systems for allowing communities not only to become involved in decision-making, but also in leading the decisions around their local environments and communities.

For many communities this will take not just political will, but educational and advocacy campaigns to get people involved in scenarios where they have traditionally let people in power lead the charge. Still, it starts with political will and systemic change. In frameworks like Buen Vivir this might look like local governments prioritising a cross-section of different community voices to be key decisionmakers, driven by Indigenous knowledge. This can be played out in participatory budgeting models and peoples’ assemblies. The point is people are at the core of climate action and should be prioritised as such.

So, to summarise, while COP26 will be a pivotal moment in climate diplomacy for the future of our planet, it must be accompanied by a decolonisation of knowledge to allow and prioritise other voices and knowledge in solutions going forward. Transformative change will be closer if we do so, but this will also need to be accompanied by a change in the global economic system. Some say it is already underway, other say not anywhere near as radical or as fast as it needs to be. I will discuss this in the final post of this series on COP26.

Further reading:

COP26 Coalition Global Day of Action and People’s Summit
Systems Change Alliance
UNFCC Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples’ Platform
IPCC Report and Indigenous Solutions
COP26 and Indigenous Leadership

The ‘Transformative’ SDG Moment for Rethinking Sustainability

The 76th UN General Assembly has kicked off this week with the ‘SDG Moment’- a call to renew momentum for the SDGs, but the COVID-19 pandemic has had profound impacts on how governments manage global social and environmental policies. It’s clear that an approach that promotes universal growth-oriented Goals is simply outdated.

Several scholars and experts have called for the need to revise the SDGs for a post-COVID world – one which will be profoundly different to the world in which the SDGs were designed.

Transformation often happens through crisis, and right now the entire planet is living a climate crisis, a social crisis, and a health crisis. This tells us that business-as-usual will not suffice to overcome the challenges we are living right now. To achieve environmental and social ‘transformation’ the SDGs will need recalibrating to include a contextual, community-led, and wellbeing-oriented alternatives that embraces holistic visions of wellbeing.

The SDGs call for ‘transformation’, yet as a perpetuation of the idea of mainstream development, they are doomed to fail if we do not abandon the people-above-nature-growth-above-all-else mindset and align 17 Goals with community-based, grassroots, alternative approaches. The way the SDGs have been conceived is simply not feasible, realistic, sustainable nor attainable.
Opening the 76th session, the President of UNGA 76, Abdulla Shahid of the Maldives, said we need a “new narrative” for the SDGs. The UN itself has admitted that “to get the SDGs back on track and prevent the worst impacts of climate change, a profound shift in economies and societies everywhere, is now needed.”

“Our Common Agenda” contains 12 points for action, agreed on by member states.

Member states concluded that our challenges are interconnected and can only be addressed through reinvigorated multilateralism with the United Nations at the centre of our efforts. While collective action is crucial, especially with crises like climate change and COVID-19 that transcend national boundaries, it is equally vital that this high-level multilateralism better incorporates community-led action and capacity for transformative change.

One way to do so is to reprioritise five fundamental dimensions: people, planet, peace, prosperity, and partnership to ensure that ‘people’ refers to shifting power to allow for bottom-up approaches to environmental and social change. It is also imperative in that respect that the five dimensions do not perpetuate the anthropocentric vision that has dominated global sustainable development approaches so far, and that it reintegrates ‘planet’ to include people as part of nature, not a dominant force upon it. By shifting the power from a universal approach to the SDGs to proliferating plural community-led approaches, we incorporate the aspect of ‘partnership’ to achieving change. Here, the keywords are connection, reciprocity, and plurality.

What is needed is a framework that appeals to both the SDGs calls for ‘transformation’, as well as for a more citizen-empowered approach to achieving sustainability by aligning the global Goals with a local, community-led and biocentric approach to social and environmental wellbeing: the Latin American framework for Buen Vivir.

In my book, I discuss how Buen Vivir can allow governments to rethink the way they approach sustainability and align the global goals with contextually-appropriate community-focussed action. You can find a copy of my book here. The chapter titled “Rethinking Sustainability: Making the Global Align with the Local” is available for download on the SDG Online portal.

Howarth (2012) argued, “A sustainable future will emerge if we build institutions that, on a practical level, sustain the natural environment and the social and technological conditions that will empower future generations to define and pursue their own conception of the good life”. Buen Vivir will require rethinking sustainability, in particular the SDGs as a plural albeit community-led approach, requiring cooperation from local, national and global actors for rapid and genuine transformation.

A Reset for Unprecedented Times

Maria Zambrano* lives in the highlands of Ecuador’s Cotacachi Canton, home to two of the world’s 36 internationally recognized biodiversity hots pots. It is also home to a people fiercely committed to their own social and environmental well-being. Zambrano is an Indigenous Ecuadorian of the Kichwa people. Sitting at a café in Cotacachi, the seamstress is dressed in a black wrap-around skirt and a traditional embroidered white shirt, on which she’s done all the embroidery. The colorful stitching, she explains, is symbolic of her land, depictions of the connection between humans and Pachamama, which she uses to refer to Mother Earth. Pachamama, she says, is at the heart of everything she does.

Let’s talk environmentalism: race, decolonisation and climate

The Black Lives Matter movement in the wake of the killing of George Floyd by a police officer in the United States has awakened broader challenges to the current state of race relations – in particular in connection to environmentalism and climate change.

Like COVID19 and climate change, these too are intersecting crises that need to be dealt with concurrently and with urgency.

Within the race debate is a larger one of decolonising environmental and climate action – that is, moving the conversation away from predominantly white Western perspectives of how we should handle climate change and ecological sustainability, and listening to other voices and perspectives. No, not just listening in fact, we need to incorporate them and bringing them greater equality in the process.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, poor, non-white populations have been bearing the heavy brunt of the decisions made predominantly for Western colonial interests. They have benefited little to none from the policies of development that have sent our world into a downward climatic spiral. In fact, they have led to greater inequalities for Indigenous and non-white, primarily economically poorer populations of the Global South.

But the decolonisation of the environmental movement doesn’t end there. Away from the Global South, in the United States and the UK – two countries with tense race relations – race and class determine who suffers the most from the impacts of climate change and environmental destruction because of social and economic inequalities. It is not just about environmental protection, it is also about equity in access to a healthy environment, clean water and air, arable and unpolluted land.

The tensions between environmentalism and racial and ethnic justice are not new. However, the recent global uprisings against racial injustice in line with the Black Lives Matter movement have highlighted how these issues are intertwined with environmental injustices – not just in the United States, but worldwide.

Historically non-white, non-Western countries and peoples have been subjected to exploitation for the sake of Western-led development. They have been locked into inequitable and pretty much unilateral systems of resource flows, which have seen Western colonising countries enter lands foreign to them and pillage them for their precious resources which were (and still very much are) exported to countries in the Global North for their own economic development and wealth accumulation.

While many countries have theoretically been ‘decolonised’, that does not transpire into practice. The reality is that this inequitable system of resource extraction still exists today for the interests of Western development. These large-scale extractive industries have been the major driver of climate change. When the world began to realise this, Sustainable Development was introduced in an attempt to ‘green’ economic growth.

The Western neoliberal movement for Sustainable Development has done nothing substantial to ensure us a sustainable future with a healthy planet and healthy, harmonious and just communities. Development and its derivatives have, time and time again, been called a failure.

Western countries have hailed Sustainable Development for its universality – that is, being applicable to everyone, everywhere, regardless of their geographical, cultural or economic circumstances, or realities. The idea is to bring all societies up to Western standards of living, while addressing the environment.

This ‘single story’ of Sustainable Development is what we have to change if we are to successfully tackle climate change through sustainability.

Everything that is happening globally right now, from coronavirus, social inequalities, failures of health and political systems, systemic racism and the climate emergency, it is time to change the course of our human and ecological trajectory.

There is an impetus for change that we can no longer call radical, but instead it should be viewed as reasonable, logical, and most of all imperative.

Sustainability is about the emergence of multiple stories, within which the histories, situations and realities of Indigenous, Native, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, African, African-American, Asian, Hispanic, Maori, Masai, Bedouin, Arabic, Kurdish, Pacific Islander Peoples and all other non-Western peoples should not only have their stories heard, but also be part of the unfolding of the next generation of multiple stories. They also need to be respected. This means doing sustainability differently.

So what is one vision of what might this look like? My expertise as you are probably aware is in incorporating Buen Vivir into action for social and environmental wellbeing through a practical tool for change. This moves the debate away from the Western perspective to something practical that passes the baton of social and environmental justice to others in a sort of decolonisation of the environmental and social systems.

Although Buen Vivir originates in the Andes, and with Indigenous roots, it is far from being implementable only in Latin America. Its core premises transcend cultural and geographic boundaries, to be something that speaks to the good of all humankind and the planet we reside on. They are present in many different cultures around the world (particularly Indigenous) whose voices have been muted by those of Western development.

Buen Vivir doesn’t return to a pre-modern past, but rather embeds itself in different ways of living, different practices and viewing the world. These variances come together under a set of common core principles – not a prescriptive or rigid way of doing things, but rather as guidance. It incorporates others’ knowledge including technical and scientific in the ways that we can look after the environment and people.

It is about listening to all the multiple stories and letting those people determine their own path to sustainability and wellbeing. It is also about not letting outsiders determine that for them, or devaluing the lives and realities of others who might not conform to a certain economic, race, class or social status determined by Western developmental standards. Lastly, it is about equity in ensuring a healthy environment and healthy communities.

Watch Novelist Chimamanda Adichie speaks of ‘the danger of the single story’ in her iconic TED talk. We can apply these lessons to the way we approach environmentalism and sustainability. As she says, “it makes our definition of equal humanity different”, she says. “It is a story of power”, of whose story is told, of who gets to determine the plot and ending of the story.