We covered to original decision to forego air conditioning here.

The 2024 Paris Olympics are shaping up to be an event filled with athletic prowess and, unsurprisingly, a hefty dose of virtue signaling. The recent announcement that air conditioning will not be provided at the Olympic venues is a prime example. In a bid to flaunt their environmental consciousness, the organizers have decided to rely on “sustainable” cooling methods, leaving teams to fend for themselves in the sweltering Parisian summer. And fend they did! Teams are now bringing their own portable air conditioners, making a mockery of the original intent and highlighting the absurdity of the decision.

Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo has been quite vocal about her commitment to making the 2024 Olympics an exemplar of environmental responsibility. The decision to forgo traditional air conditioning in favor of passive cooling techniques is touted as a major step toward reducing the event’s carbon footprint. According to Hidalgo, “These Games will be the first ones with a positive contribution to the climate” and are committed to “innovative solutions that are carbon neutral”​​.

But let’s be clear: sustainability, as currently promoted, is a nebulous concept that often amounts to nothing more than vapid virtue signaling. It’s an easy catchphrase, with no real objective definition for politicians and organizers who want to appear forward-thinking. The idea that passive cooling could sufficiently counteract the summer heat in Paris is more of a fanciful notion than a feasible plan.

Instead of applauding this so-called innovation, teams are responding with pragmatism. The U.S. teams, for instance, have decided to bring their own portable air conditioning units to ensure their athletes perform at their best. This reaction not only makes sense but also underscores the glaring disconnect between the idealistic aspirations of the organizers and the on-ground realities of hosting a global sporting event.

“As you can imagine, this is a period of time in which consistency and predictability is critical for Team USA’s performance,” Hirshland said. “In our conversations with athletes, this was a very high priority and something that the athletes felt was a critical component in their performance capability.”

The Washington Post reported earlier this month that Germany, Australia, Italy, Canada and Britain were among the other countries with plans to bring air conditioners to France.

https://apnews.com/article/olympics-air-conditioning-paris-0f753df91956f3fe61ad4febaff0ebb9#

One can almost hear the collective sigh of relief from the athletes who won’t have to pretend that sweating profusely in high temperatures is a symbol of their commitment to the planet. “The Games’ organizers have said air-conditioned rooms are not environmentally sustainable and can emit up to 100 grams of CO2 per hour, per square meter, into the atmosphere”​​. Yet, it’s the athletes who are left to deal with the consequences of this flawed policy.

The irony here is palpable. While the organizers pat themselves on the back for their green policies, the reality is that the burden of maintaining comfort has simply been shifted to the teams themselves. Portable air conditioning units are not exactly emissions-free, and their widespread use by multiple teams will likely offset any environmental gains touted by the organizers. The supposed environmental benefits of these “sustainable” measures evaporate in the face of practical needs.

The decision to forego air conditioning highlights the hypocrisy underlying many green policies. The optics of virtue signaling often overshadow practical solutions. By focusing on symbolic gestures rather than substantive changes, the Paris Olympics organizers have inadvertently highlighted the limitations and impracticalities of their approach. The statement from the organizers that they are “pioneering new cooling systems” using “natural ventilation, shades, and water spray systems” sounds impressive, but falls short when considering the actual comfort of the athletes and spectators​​.

The decision to forgo air conditioning at the Paris Olympics was meant to signal a commitment to sustainability. Instead, it has become a case study in the absurdity of virtue signaling when divorced from practical considerations. The teams’ choice to bring their own air conditioning units is a pragmatic response to an ill-conceived policy, demonstrating that when it comes to high-stakes events like the Olympics, realism and practicality prevail over performative environmentalism.

H/T moriarty

From ClimateREALISM

By Anthony Watts

An article in Bloomberg, titled “Climate Change Is Putting Swelling Cities at Risk,” with the subtitle, “A warming world is putting Bangladesh, Niger, Pakistan, and other countries more at risk for extreme weather,” makes some false claims that are refuted by real-world data and by scientific research which examines the impacts of growth and the densification of cities.

The authors, Dorothy Gambrell and Brian Kahn say this:

Weather events exacerbated by climate change will threaten many places in the coming years, and many of these locations are also projected to gain a lot of new inhabitants. In the world’s largest cities, governments will have to do more to protect the millions of people in danger from a hot planet.

The article provides a graphic, seen below, which purports to show where the urban populations are “most vulnerable to climate change.”

What is most telling is that the Bloomberg map shows clearly the at-risk urban cities that have the lowest per-capita income and lower access to inexpensive energy. It is no surprise that most of economically depressed Africa and much of Asia and India are shown to be the most “at risk.”

They go on to cite specific examples:

None of these are points are climate change related or even “extreme weather” related as Bloomberg’s headline claims, rather they are indications that these cities are experiencing resource overuse related to population growth, a form of the  “Tragedy of the commons, described below:

According to the concept, should a number of people enjoy unfettered access to a finite, valuable resource such as a pasture [or water], they will tend to over-use it, and may end up destroying its value altogether. Even if some users exercised voluntary restraint, the other users would merely supplant them, the predictable result being a tragedy for all.

This is purely an issue of increased populations in a small area, not climate change. A second problem related to the increase in population and expansion of cities is called the expanded bullseye effect, which occurs when population and development increase in areas or regions prone to natural disasters, as discussed in numerous Climate Realism posts, here and here, for example.

Some of the claims, such as claims of the Mexico City drinking water issues and Jakarta sinking due to ground water withdrawal are simply laughable to blame on climate change.

The Bloomberg article references no proof that the problems are being caused by climate change – because there simply isn’t any.

The article suggests that rising temperatures in cities in Asia/India are at greatest risk. However, recent data on the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI) by climatologist Roy Spencer, Ph.D., shows that the heat in cities and suburbs, in Asia and elsewhere, like Phoenix, is a direct result of increasing populations and infrastructure boosting the UHI. In the side-by-side map below listed as Figure 1, compare the amount of UHI effect difference between April 1850 and April 2023 in India’s most populous region:

Figure 1. UHI comparison image from Roy Spencer Ph.D from his website.

Data strongly indicates that the UHI has a far greater effect than climate change itself over time.

Bloomberg’s article presents a bevy of claims about cities, heat, and extreme weather which aren’t supported by citations in the article itself. Bloomberg’s claims appear to be little more than a mishmash of talking points that the authors are trying to connect to climate change, despite data showing no increase in, for example, extreme weather events, or worsening conditions with regards to hunger or weather or temperature related illness or deaths in the areas discussed.

This sort of “junk journalism” is little more than click-bait for those who believe that climate change is a bigger and more serious issue than growing cities that are overutilizing their own resources and sweltering under their own UHI heat dome. Shame of the authors and editors at Bloomberg to allow this sort of rubbish to be published.