Carbon emissions from the Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics could lead to a devastating loss of snowpack and glacial ice in the region, according to recent findings. In fact, without the involvement of three major sponsors – Italian energy company Eni, automaker Stellantis, and ITA Airways – the event's total emissions would be reduced by 22% compared to previous Winter Games.
The New Weather Institute report, commissioned by Scientists for Global Responsibility and Champions for Earth, reveals that these high-emissions sponsors are responsible for more than half of the total emissions brought about by the top three sponsors. Their involvement in the Games is estimated to cause an additional loss of 3.2 square kilometers of snowpack and over 20 million metric tons of glacial ice.
Critics argue that promoting these corporations at the Games not only increases their carbon footprint but also encourages the sale of high-carbon goods and services, further exacerbating climate change. The report's authors suggest that eliminating carbon-intensive sponsorships and replacing them with low-carbon partners could save around 1.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent without impacting funding.
However, some argue that this approach may not be feasible due to the economic pressures involved in securing sponsorship deals. Nevertheless, the study highlights the urgent need for sustainable practices in the Winter Olympics and emphasizes the importance of reevaluating corporate sponsorships.
The impact on winter sports themselves is particularly concerning, as these events are increasingly vulnerable to the effects of global warming. The report notes that Italy has lost 265 ski resorts in the past five years alone, while France's Alps have seen over 180 resorts close due to climate change. With the increasing reliance on artificial snow, the very foundation of winter sports is under threat.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has committed to reducing the Games' emissions by 30% by 2024 and 50% by 2030. However, with these targets being met only partially, further efforts are needed to address the growing environmental concerns associated with Winter Olympics.
The New Weather Institute report, commissioned by Scientists for Global Responsibility and Champions for Earth, reveals that these high-emissions sponsors are responsible for more than half of the total emissions brought about by the top three sponsors. Their involvement in the Games is estimated to cause an additional loss of 3.2 square kilometers of snowpack and over 20 million metric tons of glacial ice.
Critics argue that promoting these corporations at the Games not only increases their carbon footprint but also encourages the sale of high-carbon goods and services, further exacerbating climate change. The report's authors suggest that eliminating carbon-intensive sponsorships and replacing them with low-carbon partners could save around 1.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent without impacting funding.
However, some argue that this approach may not be feasible due to the economic pressures involved in securing sponsorship deals. Nevertheless, the study highlights the urgent need for sustainable practices in the Winter Olympics and emphasizes the importance of reevaluating corporate sponsorships.
The impact on winter sports themselves is particularly concerning, as these events are increasingly vulnerable to the effects of global warming. The report notes that Italy has lost 265 ski resorts in the past five years alone, while France's Alps have seen over 180 resorts close due to climate change. With the increasing reliance on artificial snow, the very foundation of winter sports is under threat.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has committed to reducing the Games' emissions by 30% by 2024 and 50% by 2030. However, with these targets being met only partially, further efforts are needed to address the growing environmental concerns associated with Winter Olympics.
. How can we trust that it's not just a PR stunt for the sponsors? I mean, they're gonna say whatever it takes to make themselves look good, right? 
The idea that eliminating carbon-intensive sponsorships would save 1.4 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent is nice and all, but where's the data? Where are the sources? 
It seems like a pretty convenient solution if you ask me.
. We can't just keep throwing money at problems without addressing the root cause. The IOC's targets are laughable too - 30% reduction by 2024 and 50% by 2030? That's not exactly setting the bar high 
.
. I want to see some actual numbers, not just feel-good rhetoric 
. And what about the ski resorts in Italy and France? Are they even being given a chance to adapt or are they just being left behind 
?
... i mean think about it, 22% less if those three major sponsors dont get involved! and losing 3.2 square kilometers of snowpack is huge. its like, the whole point of the winter olympics is to have snow and ice, but now thats all at risk.
, I mean, can u believe the impact of sponsorships on the environment? It's like they're literally melting away our planet's resources! The stats are crazy – 3.2 square kilometers of snowpack and 20 million metric tons of glacial ice just because of those big sponsors... 
Interesting
. I mean think about it, these sponsors are basically profiting off the climate crisis and then contributing to it even more? It's like they're trying to destroy the planet for profit 
by just eliminating carbon-intensive sponsorships and replacing them with low-carbon partners? Come on, it's not that easy. These deals are worth millions, there's gotta be a better way to make it work 
.
. These sponsors are literally pumping out emissions like they're going out of style 
. And for what? To make some fancy cars and energy companies look good on TV 
? Give me a break 
. We need to be held accountable for our actions, especially when it comes to something as big as climate change 
.
. Maybe it's time for us to rethink what 'sustainable' even means in this context 
. Fingers crossed they step up their game 
️.
but honestly who cares about the sponsors anyway? 
they'll loss snowpack & glacial ice 4eva 
3 out of 5 major sponsorz dont even make sense! 
& that's just exacerbating climate change. we need low-carbon partners ASAP!!! 
. The idea of eliminating carbon-intensive sponsorships and replacing them with low-carbon partners is a good one, but I'm not sure if it's practical given the economic pressures involved 
. Can't we promote eco-friendly brands instead? The thought of losing 3.2 square kilometers of snowpack is literally heartbreaking 
. We need to rethink our priorities and make sustainable choices, like those low-carbon partners or something...
... like, I get it, money talks, but come on! 3.2 sq km of snowpack lost? That's a huge chunk of the Alps right there 
I'm all for sustainability, and it seems to me that some of these sponsors are just profiting off the Games without caring about the impact on the environment. Like, Eni, Stellantis, and ITA Airways? They should be ashamed 
! And the stats on snowpack and glacial ice loss? Forget about it 
.
. I'd love to see more eco-friendly alternatives and sustainable practices woven into the Games themselves. It's like, we can do better than this