Olympic Irony: How Misguided Climate Policies Increased Emissions

Written by Dr. Matthew Wielicki on August 9, 2024. Posted in Current News

The Olympics is a glaring example of misguided climate policy.

Instead of encouraging athletes to make their own choices, like reducing meat consumption or limiting air conditioner use to save a minuscule amount of CO2—what I like to call the “devil’s molecule”—they imposed these decisions on them.

Now, we see teams bringing in their own protein sources and air conditioners. Imagine the carbon footprint of shipping air conditioners from India to Paris… all in the name of saving the planet.

Before the Olympics, the French government implemented stringent measures to reduce the event’s carbon footprint.

These measures included mandating a reduction in meat consumption among athletes and staff, and significantly limiting the use of air conditioning in the Olympic venues and accommodations.

The aim was to cut down on GHG emissions, aligning with the broader goals of the Paris Agreement to combat climate change and promote sustainable practices.

These policies, however, led to unforeseen consequences, such as teams importing their own air conditioning units and protein sources to meet their needs, which ironically likely increased emissions due to transportation and logistics.

Several teams, concerned about the sweltering heat in Paris and the restrictions on air conditioning, have opted to ship their own units from abroad.

The carbon footprint of transporting these units is substantial, undermining the very goal of the policies intended to reduce emissions.

This absurdity isn’t limited to the Olympics. Consider the push for electric vehicles (EVs). While they are marketed as green alternatives, the environmental cost of mining lithium, cobalt, and other materials necessary for their batteries is enormous.

These materials are often extracted in poor nations under harsh conditions, leading to significant human and environmental exploitation. According to Amnesty International, the mining of cobalt in the Democratic Republic of Congo involves child labor and exposes workers to hazardous conditions.

The environmental impact is stark. According to a report by the International Energy Agency (IEA), the production of an electric vehicle (EV) battery requires substantial amounts of raw materials, including approximately 63 kilograms (140 pounds) of lithium, 27 kilograms (60 pounds) of cobalt, 40 kilograms (88 pounds) of nickel, and 85 kilograms (187 pounds) of copper.

The extraction of lithium, particularly from brine sources in areas such as the Atacama Desert, is highly water-intensive. Producing one ton of lithium can require up to 500,000 liters (132,000 gallons) of water.

The extraction and processing of these materials are not only energy-intensive but also environmentally damaging. Mining activities can lead to habitat destruction, water pollution, and high carbon emissions.

According to a report by the Institute for Energy Research (IER), the environmental footprint of mining these minerals often negates the emissions savings achieved by EVs during their operational lifetime.

This includes the release of toxic substances and significant energy consumption required for extraction and refining processes.

The push for biofuels is another example of policy backfiring. Initially promoted as a green alternative to fossil fuels, biofuels have driven deforestation in tropical regions to make way for palm oil and sugarcane plantations.

The World Resources Institute estimates that clearing land for biofuel production emits 30-40 times more GHGs than the annual savings from using biofuels instead of fossil fuels.

A study published by the University of Michigan found that biofuels have a higher carbon footprint than fossil fuels when land-use changes are taken into account.

The study titled “Carbon balance effects of U.S. biofuel production and use” published in Climatic Change found that biofuels, particularly corn ethanol, may actually increase GHG emissions rather than decrease them.

The researchers analyzed real-world data on crop production, biofuel production, fossil fuel production, and vehicle emissions, challenging the assumption that biofuels are carbon neutral.

They found that not enough carbon is being removed from the atmosphere during crop growth to offset the emissions produced during biofuel combustion. This means that contrary to popular belief, the use of biofuels may result in higher net emissions compared to gasoline.

These policies are enacted under the guise of environmentalism, yet they often result in greater harm.

Governments, organizations, and the MSM use the narrative of impending climate catastrophe to justify these measures, often without a sound scientific basis.

In reality, many climate policies do little to benefit the environment and primarily serve to raise costs, reduce individual freedoms, and burden developing nations.

The conclusion is clear: many climate policies achieve nothing more than raising costs and, in many cases, are worse than doing nothing.

The best way to get people to care about their environment is to increase their wealth, which naturally leads to better environmental stewardship.

As people become wealthier, they can afford cleaner technologies and invest in conservation efforts. This wealth creation inevitably comes with some increase in emissions, but it also provides the resources needed to manage and mitigate environmental impacts effectively.

It’s time to reevaluate our approach and focus on solutions that genuinely benefit both people and the planet, rather than blindly following policies that do more harm than good.

See more here Substack

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.