Article de Martin Bernard (MS EnvIM 2023-24)


For a few years, big sportive events have been promoting themselves as environmentally friendly, while resulting in diverse ecological aberrations. One shall remember, amongst others, the 2016 Rio edition, with an immense golf located in the middle of a natural zone. Notwithstanding the 2022 Beijing edition claimed “100% carbon-neutral”, while the artificial ski center involved millions of gallons of water, potential hazardous chemicals, and thousands of trees uprooted.

Thus, believing to the French Olympics edition promises can be hard. However, several strong objectives have been implemented with the hope of receiving the “gold ecological medal”. Will the next Olympic Games really be sustainable and are sporting events of this scale compatible with a low-carbon world ?

Situation and main objective

The next Paris edition is anticipated to be the biggest sportive event worldwide, with competitions in the most famous places of the capital. Nevertheless, it also faces significant challenges in terms of environmental impact and sustainability. In this way, the COJO (Organizational Olympic Committee) has adopted a climate strategy with multiple objectives. The principal one is to reduce the event’s greenhouse gas emissions by 55% compared to the 2012 editions, with a view to speeding up the ecological transition in sport, territories, and major events. In other words, the aim is to monitor for the first time and not suffer the emissions, by staying under 1.58Gt eq. CO2 (the equivalent of the annual emissions of more than 150 000 French citizens). But how are distributed these estimated emissions?

As shown in the graph below, three categories have been identified, accounting for the event’s main direct and indirect emissions : transports, construction, and games operations. Thus, spectator travel (25%) and permanent construction (25%) will account for 50% of the 2024 Games’ CO2 emissions, or almost 800,000 tons of CO2.

Figure 1 : breakdown of the 1.58 million tons of CO2 estimated to be emitted (adapted from the website Paris 2024)
Figure 1 : breakdown of the 1.58 million tons of CO2 estimated to be emitted (adapted from the website Paris 2024)


Description of the emitting categories : examples and missing points

In order to monitor such emissions, concrete environmental ambitions have been shared for (almost) each category.


Concerning construction sites, the IOC (International Olympic Committee) is planning to rely at 95% on installations already existing or temporary. While fieldwork investigations in 2022 revealed that this figure is actually 79%, it still represents significant progress over the mega-event status quo (by avoiding infrastructures abandoned after the event, too costly to maintain or re-use).
Indeed, only three structures will be built specifically for the event : the Saint-Denis aquatic center, and the athletes’ and media villages. The challenge is now to ensure that every construction uses at least 15% of recycled materials, and is either short-lived  (with the promise that 75% of what is dismantled will be re-used), or built for long-term use by local residents while meeting a real need. Similarly, the renovation of old infrastructures in other areas of Paris has been considered, notably in terms of insulation improvement (with up to 78% gain). [1]

In the same context, new constructions promise to be adapted to climate change impacts , with many new standards such as : the use of wood* (100% from eco-managed forests and a minimum of 30% French wood), diverse bio-sourced materials and low carbon concrete, subjection to air quality, better insulation, as well as green roofing for carbon sequestration and vegetation to create islands of coolness.

For instance, in Saint Denis (north of the capital), where both villages will take place, interesting concepts and ideas have been shared. In the Olympic Village, they highlight amongst others the use of reversal geothermal heating, innovative wastewater treatments, in shell paving stones to limit mineral surfaces, and dismantlable partitions. It will also include a bioclimatic design of buildings, with double orientation, play of heights between buildings to maximize sunlight, balconies acting as sunshades, concave shapes reducing surfaces to be cooled or heated to achieve 30% energy savings, prevailing winds for natural ventilation, … the list is long !

According to SOLIDEO, the Olympic Village carbon assessment reached a decrease of 47% on its life cycle (while using 60% less drinking water than usual) : the aim was not to exceed 700 kg eq CO2 per m², compared with an average of one ton without additional measures.

Afterwards, the aim is to reach a consumption of 70% renewable heat, and 20% of needs covered by solar energy for the athletes’ village. Indeed, “recovered energy” will allow to produce cold and heat with solar panels, and in situ production will take place through a partnership with an Agrivoltaism site.

In total, 35 buildings will welcome 14 000 athletes and their teams, before being used again as an eco-district for future inhabitants. These 330 000m² of constructible area will afterwards be dedicated to 7 hectares of green spaces, offices, but also 2800 much-needed housings : all through-roofed, with false floors, raw earth brick walls and, in anticipation of extreme heat, a connection to the city’s cooling network (to avoid any individual air-conditioning[2]

Games operations

Concerning food consumption, objectives such as decreasing by 50% the carbon footprint of the 13 million meals given on-site (by respecting the principles of responsible approvisioning and zero food waste commitment) are shared. With 80% of french products, a quarter of which will be sourced within a 250-kilometer radius, the COJO is aiming for an average of 1kg of CO2 per meal (equivalent to 4.6km with a thermal vehicle).

In order to achieve this, there will be 100% of “certified” food (although the type of label is not specified) and recovery of non-consumed food resources. Moreover, the proportion of plant-based proteins should be more than doubled. Indeed, meat production has a major impact on global warming : according to the UN, livestock production is responsible for 12% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions. Thus, for every five sandwiches on sale, three will be plant based for the general public (and not one as usual).

However, it is not as easy with athletes, often coming with their own diets and demands to be adapted. For instance, millions of bananas provided for them will still come from overseas, but by boat : air transport being banned for products coming from abroad.

Logically, all of this remains symbolic, given that catering accounts for just 1% of the Games’ carbon budget, but it is still an important way to convey good practices.

Likewise, the COJO highlights its efforts to promote reuse and circular economy : for the very first time in the athletes’ village there will be no disposable tableware. Moreover, beverages distributed everywhere will be in returnable glass bottles (equivalent to 25 life cycles) and reusable plastic cups made by a French company from recycled materials (equivalent to a 60% reduction in the bottle’s carbon footprint). To enable the use of these million cups, over 700 Coca-Cola[3] fountains dispensing soft drinks and water will therefore be installed. Thus, all of this is part of Paris 2024 hope to reduce the use of single-use plastic by 50%.[4]

While it remains hard to say what percentage will contribute to the overall objective, the environmental benefit becomes greater with a reused cup than with a disposable one after 3 to 4 uses, according to studies.

In the same context, equipments like chairs, office tables, shelves, caissons or workstations used for the Olympics will be recovered after the event : three quarters will be resold second-hand or donated (like the mattresses designed notably from recycled fishing lines), while others will be recycled or reused to manufacture other products. In addition, at least 60% of the sports, technological and safety equipments have been rented, and 90% of the look and signage will be reused or recycled. Notwithstanding some innovative ideas, like cardboard beds recycled afterwards, or coffee tables and beanbags respectively made of badminton shuttlecocks and parachute fabric.

Finally, progresses have been made at Pulse, the Paris 2024 headquarters, with no single-use plastic in the restaurant, second-hand carpets, rainwater collected in tanks to feed a vegetable garden on the terrace, and 300m² of photovoltaic panels providing electricity.

Moreover, energy related subjects were not forgotten : the ambition is to supply 100% of of the infrastructures with renewable energy like wind and solar (notably with the installation of a removable solar power plant on the Seine during the competition), while connecting competition and non-competition venues to the public electricity network.

Nevertheless, on the wholesale market, it is impossible to determine the origin of such energy. The only certainty is that nuclear power still dominates French electricity production (almost 63% in 2022), far ahead of hydro (11%), fossil gas (almost 10%), then wind (8.5%) and solar (4%). Thus, the COJO will use the EU-wide system of “guarantees of origin”. This standard offsets each megawatt-hour consumed with purchases of renewable electricity fed into the grid elsewhere.

The second paradox is that, in order to keep to the organizers’ initial promise of wind and solar power, EDF (the “premium partner” of Paris 2024), will have to turn away from its entire nuclear fleet, even though it is the country’s main low-carbon source of energy. In principle, this will be biogas for “residual uses”, such as domestic hot water ; still, a call for projects has been made for off-grid energy production for its back-up power.

Thus, to operate this connection, a new kind of system using event power points has been developed, “a sort of giant, retractable power strip that you pull out when you need it”, according to ENEDIS (the French electricity grid operator). Some of these terminals will remain in place after the Games for futur events.

In this context, biofuel will be used and diesel generators should be for “emergency only” (London burnt 4 million liters of it) : knowing that a game powered by oil-fired generators in a large stadium emits more than 10 tonnes of CO2, it would allow a total saving of 13,000 tonnes of CO2 (or 10,000 litres of diesel, equivalent of around 160 tanks of petrol) per operation day, and a decrease of more than 80% in energy-related emissions, thank’s to the French low-carbon energy mix.


Finally, the COJO has announced an access to every infrastructure by common transportation[5], with a fleet of electrical buses and “clean vehicles” for transporting the Olympic Family : the sponsor Toyota speaks of a “multi-technology approach”, without specifying the share of “electric vehicles” and “hybrids” with recharging.

In the same context, “Traffic limited zones”, into which only permit-holders can drive, will be installed in specific areas and kept after the competition. Notwithstanding the ambition to decrease urban divides with the installation of bridges (including one fully made of wood), as well as the motorway interchange development to avoid through-traffic at Porte de Paris (entrance to downtown Saint-Denis).

Finally, 85% of sites will be at less than 10 km from the Olympic village to avoid additional transports, while additional cycling and pedestrian lanes are being constructed. However, the main emitting category remaining currently untreated, concerns long distance transport of the expected ten million spectators, for which the COJO has little power over, and laking any precise objective. Still, it represents a large part of the estimated emissions ; and could erase the efforts being made until now. Indeed, how to prevent international visitors from flying to Paris ? In the meantime, the organizers say they want to encourage rail travel, but are not announcing any concrete measures for the time being.


Initiatives and partnerships to support a more sustainable legacy

Simultaneously, the COJO has carried out several actions to reach more specifically ten of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) created by the United Nations in 2016, with the aim of “peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future.”


Figure 2 : SDGs carried out by the COJO.
Figure 2 : SDGs carried out by the COJO.

Among these actions, they have for instance developed diverse open source documents such as a guide for responsible events, for sustainable signage and communication, or for a sustainable food vision.

Moreover, they currently work in close collaboration with the World Wide Fund (WWF), an organization taking actions to safeguard biodiversity, promote sustainable lifestyles and an environmentally-friendly energy transition, and support businesses in reducing their ecological footprint. Thus, to ensure a total mobilisation of the Games’ ecosystem and the world of sport, the WWF suggested 80 concrete actions, for which 80% was used afterwards by the COJO.

Similarly, Paris 2024 is a signatory of many different initiatives, including the european “Sports for Nature”, aiming to deliver transformative action for nature across all sports by 2030 and beyond. Other similar initiatives consist in strengthening the links between sports stakeholders and eco-businesses, by providing an easier access to sustainable solutions and commitments. It includes the “Fabrique des jeux“, launched in Seine-Saint-Denis, that mobilized over 10 000 local businesses through workshops[6], to advise on tenders and present the environmental opportunities of Games infrastructure.

In this way, they also created assessment tools like the “Coach Climat Evénements“, available to all sports event organisers and employees, to help them recognise and reduce their carbon footprint (such initiative was made possible with the help of a specific ecological innovation fund). The current results are the following :


Figure 3 : Main results of the "Coach Climat Evénements"
Figure 3 : Main results of the “Coach Climat Evénements”

Similarly, Paris 2024 created an innovative tool with the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), for assessing the global impact of temporary infrastructures. The principle is to score each venue on specific points, including biodiversity, heritage, environmental health, or also circular economy. Until now, it has for instance enabled to take actions aimed at recognising, protecting and regenerating biodiversity (like avoiding disrupting water birds amongst others).

Such tools will contribute to establishing sustainability standards in French and international procurement, that have a positive and lasting effect beyond the Games.

Finally, Paris 2024 contributes to raising awareness on the environment by putting it at the heart of the event and its media coverage, but also by sensibilizing its employees :

Figure 4 : Statistical data of Paris 2024 employees' commitment
Figure 4 : Statistical data of Paris 2024 employees’ commitment

Remaining environmental controversies

Some projects have attracted a great deal of criticism from environmentalists, seen as a pretext to accelerate anti-ecological and anti-social projects, through constructions that do not always answer the needs of a population.

The first example concerns the construction of the Aquatic Center. The latter is framed by authorities as ecologically responsible, with materials respecting the highest environmental standards, a full solar energy supply, and plastic seats made by a local company, from bottle caps from a school nearby.[7]Furthermore, a modular configuration will enable to switch from a 5,000-seat venue to a 2,500-seat facility to be used for both international and local competitions.

Nevertheless, it is also associated to an environmental controversy : the project was planned in the public gardens of Aubervilliers (a fixture of the commune since 1935), and a place that gardeners regard as a green refuge of biodiversity from the city. Thus, slated to destroy more than 10,000 m² of gardens and abandon 37 000 m² of wood under the concrete, it led to many protests and arguments, in vain.

Similar situations happened with other projects, like the media village construction, with the concreting of seven hectares of parkland including 40-year old trees ; or the use of 2 000 tons of cement for the construction of a temporary skatepark. The latter is clearly contradictory with the legacy promises.

In the same context, another recent scandal deals with the construction of a permanent tower for judges at Teahupo’o in Tahiti, hosting the 4-day surfing competition (for which new permanent roads will be built specifically). Despite the existence of a smaller, wooden tower that has served international competitions for 15 years, organizers erected a larger aluminum tower for perceived safety reasons, including a channel digged through the coral reef. It includes more than 130 drill holes into the reef to lay a concrete foundation. Thus, studies featuring Hawaii researchers found it could directly and permanently affect 2,500 m² of reef and the activity of local spearfishers, while attracting a harmful algae.

Such project’s disregard for ecological concerns underscores a broader issue of insufficient site knowledge and urgency among decision-makers (despite a petition of over 80,000 local signature). In the end, after the competition, it is the people living around the lagoon that will feel the consequences.[8]

Last but not least, making the Seine and Marne rivers swimmable could represent one of the “most beautiful legacies of these Games” for Emmanuel Macron.
Nevertheless, the removal of bacteria present in untreated or poorly treated wastewater, usually found in the Seine, implies three criticized notions :

  • Firstly, two disinfection units created to improve wastewater treatment are using chemical cleaning based on performic acid. The latter is highly bactericidal, but dangerous to handle. Moreover, its effectiveness relies on the release of active oxygen, that could destroy all the organic substances it touches including the river’s flora and fauna.
  • Secondly, heavy reservoirs are being built to store rainwater mixed with wastewater, to prevent it from being discharged into the Seine in the event of heavy downpours.
    While the efficiency of such structures is questioned by authorities, more ecological solutions could have been studied (a policy of infiltrating rainwater into the ground, removing waterproofing, or increasing the number of green roofs).

Finally, the last notion concerns the rehabilitation of faulty water connections to the network in some 35,000 homes and buildings, as well as hundreds of barges parked in Paris. In the same context, more ecological solutions, such as dry toilets or phytodepuration could have been pursued, according to “France Nature Environnement” (a federation representing the associations of nature and environment protection).

According to the prefect, 66% of the Seine has been cleaned up in January, but viruses are still dosed in river water ; not to mention chemical pollution from agricultural treatments, factories and Roissy airport, whose effluent flows into the Marne.

A doubtful sustainable strategy : the case of carbon credits

Paris 2024 is participating in the United Nations “Race to Zero” campaign, a global initiative committing to carbon neutrality. In this context, they must guarantee that they do not emit more GHGs than they offset, by, amongst others, buying as many or more carbon credits than what the event might emit. But what does this idea of carbon credits mean and why can it be an issue ?

Concretely, buying a carbon credit means financing an organisation to support a “climate-positive project” : a project consisting in carbon sequestration, or decreasing and avoiding emissions. Some examples from the IOC deal with restoring forests and supplying improved stoves to populations dependent on rudimentary cooking tools.

The first problem is that such “private fundings” do not always have a real and assessed impact, as highlighted by an article of The Guardian [16]. Added to this uncertainty, is the fact that each player, remunerated according to the quantity of credits issued, has a financial interest in “exaggerating” the real impact of projects.

In this context, the COJO assured that all projects selected internationally would be certified, and that bids received in France would be stamped with the new “low-carbon label” created by the government. Nowadays, no further details have been provided on the nature of these labels.

Secondly, the COJO used carbon credits to justify an “absence of impacts” and even a “positive climate contribution” of the Olympics, implying that a worldwide positive impact could exist after the event. Recently, they let down this allegation highly criticized by many instances, to align with climate expert statements (but it still appears in every official document). It includes the French Agency for Ecological Transition (ADEME) in 2021 [17], saying that the only potential neutral carbon objects could be the planet itself or states, but in any way companies, services or events.

On the opposite, it would be more appropriate to consider a carbon price considering the Paris Agreements (between 100-400€/T, according to the GIEC objective of reaching maximum 1.5 additional degrees until 2030). In this way, it could allow to deduce a financial budget to be allocated for positive climate projects, through carbon credits seen as a complementary tool.

However, the financial budget of 15m€ allocated to compensation (representing 0.34% of the total budget) is very low : it corresponds to a price of 10€/T given the objective of 1.58 Gt of CO2 emissions, which is far from the initial price announced by the GIEC.

Anyway, carbon credits should never be a way to erase the Olympics’ emissions or a way of comparison with a carbon footprint monitoring. Indeed, Paris Agreements are so ambitious that the only choice is to avoid harming the environment and reduce emissions as much as possible.

But why is decreasing our emissions so important ? Nowadays, if we wanted to compensate all our emissions, 4.5 planets would be required (in terms of forest surface). However, trees are a finite resource, in a finite world, and such finitude also applies to “climate solutions” (including tree growing or regenerative agriculture). Thus, promoting them is crucial but not sufficient, considering the limited amount of sequestrated CO2 per year, being around 6 billion tons of CO2 ; significantly lower than the 35 billion now emitted.

Ways of improvement

Judging the climate ambitions of the Games only through the 1.58 MtCO2 target isn’t enough for an in-depth change of the competition to be truly compatible with planet boundaries.

Firstly, because we don’t know if this is the right target : what if utopic Games truly compatible with the Paris Agreements were to aim for a much smaller footprint ? How could this kind of event still exist in a low carbon world ? We would need to think collectively about the volume of GHGs we’re willing to “spend” for it, given the small carbon budget humanity has left to stay below 1.5°C of global warming.

In this context, a study published in Nature (2021) [18] suggests a desirable horizon with three ways of improvement, to respond to the long-term climate emergency :

decreasing size event in terms of number of visitors, and promoting remote ways of participation through “hubs of conviviality”. Getting back to a reasonable scale would entail to think differently every notions seen previously ; but above all to avoid long distance displacements like planes (which are hardly substitutable). Thus, the few people physically attending would be coming from local places or decarbonized transports. On top of this, we could imagine greater collaboration between delegations, or even between countries to agree on a limited and reasonable number of airplane journeys, charter intra-continental trains with discounts, and so on.

hosting the event by turns in only two or three cities, to mutualize infrastructures, benefit from an experienced capitalization, and avoid to permanently reconstruct. Moreover, taking into account the outdoor temperature at the time of the Olympics to position the event within the year would be a way to reduce air-conditioning requirements. Indeed, summer was chosen at a time when heat waves were very rare, and probably for economic reasons, as it is the time of summer vacations.

fully allocating the organization of the climate and environmental strategy to an independent and constraining instance, implementing strict rules and standards, and monitoring environmental indicators. This could allow to increase the level of details shared on the actions carried out, the objectives and results obtained, and the methodologies for measuring the environmental impact.

Regarding Paris 2024, we could deplore an “opaque” communication on diverse topics. For instance, partners and suppliers were asked to respect an ecological charter (including amongst others pollution or consumption incentives, circular economy principles, waste reduction, use of renewable resources, local value creation), but we don’t know how binding this charter is and how advertisers were chosen.

Today’s carbon footprint calculation methods do not take this type of indirect effect into account. Yet, it would be essential for the overall coherence of the event’s ecological commitment, but also to limit the rebound effect (increased consumption linked to advertising).

Likewise, the methodology used to set the 1.58 Gt CO2eq target, and the assumptions made have not been made public. The current situation as well as what has already been consumed remains also a mystery.

Secondly, because in order to bring about the necessary transformations, we would need to think not just quantitatively, but also qualitatively : which objects and activities will or will not be able to survive in a much more energy efficient world with limited resources ?

Indeed, we know that climate is a key part of the Games’ environmental strategy, at least in terms of communication. Still, other environmental aspects, such as material footprint, circular economy, biodiversity (through water and air quality) or soil artificialization are addressed here, but with less precise objectives of reduction.

In this context, the same article addresses additional impacts, notably social (like displacement of populations, approval of the event by local populations, changes in legislation) and economic (share of public subsidies, event deficit, long-term viability of new infrastructures, etc.). All in all, the sustainability of the Games must be judged against a variety of indicators, of which climate, the main topic of this article, is only one


As a resume, as in any project, in order to reconcile environmental issues with an activity, compromises are made. If some actors deem Paris 2024’s environmental requirements as very high or even very difficult to achieve, others express the wish that Paris 2024 and the international sports authorities go even further and encourage spaces for open discussions on the core model of the Games.

For now, most of the environmental indicators (depicted in Figure 5. below) are output indicators and provide little or no information on the effects (in terms of outcomes and impacts) of the activities on their beneficiaries. Similarly, most of the objectives and measures highlighted in this article remain predictions and will have to be verified afterwards.

Figure 5 : Main environmental indicators assessed
Figure 5 : Main environmental indicators assessed

This is mainly because a large number of the programs are still being rolled out, and there would be little point in communicating results still incomplete. Moreover, the legacy of an event such as the Games can only be assessed over the long term, and the structural changes brought about, specifically in the fields of environment, can only be observed several years after the launch of the activities and programs.

In this way, the evaluation process of the Paris 2024 Games Organizing Committee will include two other reports produced one year (2025) and then five years (2029) after the Paris 2024 Games. This will simultaneously be an opportunity to measure to what extent sustaining programs and actions beyond the Games have been achieved overall.

To finish on a positive aspect, if Paris meets its objectives and fine-tunes some of them through concerted efforts, it seems to have interesting tools to be the greenest model possible in the current Olympic format. While everything isn’t perfect, it could contribute to a successful transition to the future Olympic city, and serve as a blueprint for future mega-events. It could also demonstrate how sport, sustainability, environmental consciousness and legacy can harmoniously coexist : a material legacy in terms of urbanization, mobility and ecology, and an intangible legacy that should raise awareness on environmental issues and help to change mentalities.

[1] Two dedicated videos from SOLIDEO [1], [2] (the society delivering Olympic constructions) provide additional clues about how circular economy can contribute to reach the 90% of deconstruction waste valorization rate they imposed, as well as new innovations

[2] SOLIDEO’s global water management and short circuits with innovations are shown in the following video [3].

Similarly, more technical innovations are shared [4], such as giant shades called “Aerophiltres” [5] to depollute the air on a large scale (and decrease ozone concentration), as well as an e-filtration to treat the air inside homes.

SOLIDEO also provided a full article detailing its environmental excellence strategy [6] including a program for citizen participation, waterway logistics, biodiversity (with a precise example taking place at the Media Cluster) ; as well as the use of digital mock up to simulate and measure the impact of constructions on the surrounding environment [7].

Finally, how to include biodiversity in every step of the construction projects while working on innovations is shown in the following video [8]. The “Colline d’Élancourt” for instance, will host a mountain bike competition, with a 4km Olympic Track. Specific actions to promote biodiversity are presented, considering the site’s environmental challenges [9], [10].

[3] Coca-Cola, official sponsor, is the world’s leading “plastic polluter”, according to the 2023 ranking of a famous NGO, but has pledged to reduce its carbon emissions by 30% by 2030.

[4] Efforts have been identified regarding plastic uses, but not exactly as it was planned, as depicted in the following article [11]. To access the last informations, check the Paris 2024 report (March 18th) dealing with ecodesign, circular economy and main partners of the event [12].

[5] assuming no saturation during the event, and knowing the delayed construction of the Grand Paris express project (only one metro line has been terminated to expand the all transport network).

[6] In the same context in January, a Hackathon was organised with HEC Paris and the CMACGM group (official partner of Paris 2024 for logistics solutions) to work on innovative ideas. All the informations on the different projects are available in a dedicated article [13].

[7] This concrete example is detailed in the following video [14]

[8] For more current informations on the damages and consequences, a local article from “Hawaiʻi Public Radio” provides a very complete assessment [15]


  • I. Situation and main objective :

    D – Wolfe, S. D. (2023). Building a better host city? Reforming and contesting the Olympics in Paris 2024. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space41(2), 257-273.

    F – Paris 2024, Notre engagement pour 2024

    Media articles :

  • II. Description of the emitting categories : examples and missing points :

    Construction :

    A – Koenig, F., Richard, G., Morel, L., & Denis, A. Les événements sportifs de grande envergure comme catalyseurs pour l’innovation? Le cas des Jeux olympiques de Paris 2024.

C – Jastrząbek, J. (2022). Third time lucky: An analysis of Paris’ bids for the Olympic Games in 2008, 2012 and 2024. Research Papers in Economics and Finance6(2), 86-106.

Web articles :

Cécile Gintrac, « La transition à Saint-Denis.Discours et réalités dans une banlieue du Grand Paris en mutation », Bulletin de l’association de géographes français.

[1] Circular economy through deconstruction and innovations :

[2] Enhancing the value of deconstruction materials by creating substrates :

[3] Water management with technical examples :

[4] Environmental innovations : https://youtu.beuBBQjTqm1Wwsi=5rioXQZuQVSXihlH

[5] Aerophiltre :

[6] Environmental Excellence Strategy :

[7] BIM Solideo :

[8] Including biodiversity in every step of the projects while working on innovations :

[9], [10]  Elancourt-hill :

[11] Remaining issues concerning plastic uses :

[12] Last report on ecodesign, circular economy main partners of the event (March 18th) :

Operation :

Web Articles :

  • III. Initiatives and partnerships to support a more sustainable legacy

    B – International Olympic Committee. (2023). Sustainability and legacy.

Web articles :

[13] HEC competition :

  • IV. Remaining environmental controversies
    Web articles :

Aquatic Center :

[14] Circular economy with a small size company recycling plastics (examples) :

Surf competition :


Seine River

Skate :

  • V. A doubtful sustainable strategy : the case of carbon credits

Web articles :


Combien de planètes faudrait-il pour compenser l’ensemble de nos émissions de CO2 en plantant des arbres ?

[17] G – ADEME, 2021, La neutralité carbone

  • VI. Ways of improvement :

    [18] H – Müller & Al, 2021, An evaluation of the sustainability of the Olympic Games

    Interview Éclaircies (César Dugast) :

  • Conclusion

    E – Ricordel, P. (2023). The circular heritage model of Paris 2024 and its possible local legacy perspective. Local Economy, 02690942231213828.

    Léonard, P., & Zintz, T., 2021, Évaluation de l’héritage des Jeux Olympiques en termes d’environnement pour la ville organisatrice. Etude de cas.

Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse e-mail ne sera pas publiée.