The Olympics can’t outrun climate change—so stop pretending a calendar tweak is a solution.
The IOC’s push to move the Winter Games earlier is a rational short-term hedge—and a revealing admission that winter is becoming something we manufacture, not host.
By TheMurrow Editorial
February 4, 2026
Key Points
- 1Track the IOC’s push to move the Winter Games earlier—but recognize scheduling can’t change warming physics or halt shrinking host maps.
- 2Understand why the Paralympics get squeezed first: March is increasingly unreliable, leaving as few as 22 climate-reliable locations mid-century.
- 3Follow Milano–Cortina’s “engineered winter” trajectory: near-total snowmaking, huge water demands, and growing legitimacy questions around sponsors and emissions.
The International Olympic Committee is flirting with a fix that sounds deceptively simple: move the Winter Games earlier on the calendar, chase colder weeks, and buy a little breathing room from a warming world.
The idea surfaced in an IOC meeting in Milan as part of a broader Olympic program review dubbed “Fit For The Future,” under IOC President Kirsty Coventry, with final decisions signaled for a June meeting. The immediate motivation is bluntly practical. March—often when the Paralympics are staged—has become the danger zone: more rain, fewer freezing nights, more soft snow, and a shrinking margin for error.
Yet calendar tweaks don’t change the physics. They merely reshuffle risk. If the temperatures keep rising, the Winter Olympics won’t be saved by moving a few boxes in a spreadsheet. They’ll be saved—or not—by whether the world slows warming fast enough, and by whether the IOC is willing to admit that the era of “anywhere in the Alps” is ending.
“A calendar tweak can buy time. It can’t buy winter.”
— — TheMurrow Editorial
The IOC’s “earlier Games” proposal—and the problems it creates
The IOC is openly considering pushing future Winter Games earlier, leaning into January dates and shifting the Paralympics earlier in February. Reporting on the Milan discussions makes clear why: warmer temperatures are eroding reliable snow and ice conditions, especially later in the season. The Paralympics, held after the Olympics, take the calendar hit first.
What the IOC is trying to solve
The IOC’s logic is straightforward risk management. If late February and March are increasingly unreliable, find colder weeks earlier in the winter, when nights are longer and snowmaking windows are more likely to cooperate.
Washington Post reporting on an IOC-commissioned climate reliability study adds a crucial detail: moving both the Olympics and Paralympics roughly three weeks earlier could “almost double” climate-reliable locations for the Paralympics by mid-century—at least under a model that assumes advanced snowmaking. That “almost double” headline is the kind of statistic decision-makers love: big payoff, seemingly minimal disruption.
Washington Post reporting on an IOC-commissioned climate reliability study adds a crucial detail: moving both the Olympics and Paralympics roughly three weeks earlier could “almost double” climate-reliable locations for the Paralympics by mid-century—at least under a model that assumes advanced snowmaking. That “almost double” headline is the kind of statistic decision-makers love: big payoff, seemingly minimal disruption.
≈ 3 weeks earlier
Washington Post reporting: shifting Olympics and Paralympics roughly three weeks earlier could “almost double” climate-reliable Paralympic locations by mid-century (with advanced snowmaking).
Why the disruption isn’t minimal
Even before you reach the climate argument, the proposal runs into immediate conflicts:
- World Cup calendars across winter sports, including those governed by the International Ski and Snowboard Federation (FIS), are already tightly scheduled.
- Broadcast and commercial windows collide with major sports programming—U.S. NFL and NBA timing was explicitly flagged as a concern in reporting on the Milan meeting.
A Winter Olympics shifted earlier doesn’t merely affect athletes and organizers. It ripples across a global competition ecosystem—qualification cycles, national championships, tourism seasons, and broadcaster commitments. The IOC can move its own dates. It cannot casually move winter sports itself.
- World Cup calendars across winter sports, including those governed by the International Ski and Snowboard Federation (FIS), are already tightly scheduled.
- Broadcast and commercial windows collide with major sports programming—U.S. NFL and NBA timing was explicitly flagged as a concern in reporting on the Milan meeting.
A Winter Olympics shifted earlier doesn’t merely affect athletes and organizers. It ripples across a global competition ecosystem—qualification cycles, national championships, tourism seasons, and broadcaster commitments. The IOC can move its own dates. It cannot casually move winter sports itself.
Immediate conflicts an earlier Winter Games creates
- ✓World Cup calendars across winter sports are already tightly scheduled
- ✓Broadcast and commercial windows collide with NFL and NBA programming
- ✓Qualification cycles, national championships, and tourism seasons get disrupted
- ✓Broadcaster commitments and event logistics ripple globally
“Earlier doesn’t mean easier. It means the same problem in a tighter space.”
— — TheMurrow Editorial
Climate reliability isn’t a scheduling issue. It’s a shrinking map.
The most sobering part of the Winter Olympics climate story is not the debate over January versus February. It’s the steady contraction of places where the Games can be staged without pushing nature beyond its limits.
The IOC-commissioned numbers behind the anxiety
An IOC-commissioned study, reported widely, modeled the “climate reliability” of potential host sites. Under current emissions trends, the study found:
- 93 potential host sites today
- falling to 52 viable by the 2050s
- and 46 by the 2080s.
Those numbers aren’t about aesthetic snow or postcard mountains. They’re about whether the basic conditions for outdoor winter sport can be delivered with enough confidence to sell tickets, secure broadcast contracts, and protect athletes.
- 93 potential host sites today
- falling to 52 viable by the 2050s
- and 46 by the 2080s.
Those numbers aren’t about aesthetic snow or postcard mountains. They’re about whether the basic conditions for outdoor winter sport can be delivered with enough confidence to sell tickets, secure broadcast contracts, and protect athletes.
93 → 52 → 46
IOC-commissioned “climate reliability” modeling: 93 potential host sites today, 52 by the 2050s, and 46 by the 2080s under current emissions trends.
The Paralympic squeeze is sharper
Washington Post reporting adds another, starker metric: for March conditions—when Paralympic schedules often land—only 22 locations remain climate-reliable under mid-century conditions.
That figure explains why the calendar discussion is happening at all. The Paralympics are not a side note; they are the pressure point. When the IOC considers earlier dates, it is responding to a mathematical and meteorological constraint that hits disabled athletes first.
The uncomfortable implication is hard to escape: moving earlier is not about preserving tradition. It is about maintaining the minimum viable product.
That figure explains why the calendar discussion is happening at all. The Paralympics are not a side note; they are the pressure point. When the IOC considers earlier dates, it is responding to a mathematical and meteorological constraint that hits disabled athletes first.
The uncomfortable implication is hard to escape: moving earlier is not about preserving tradition. It is about maintaining the minimum viable product.
22 locations
Washington Post reporting: only 22 locations remain climate-reliable for March conditions under mid-century modeling—tightening the Paralympic hosting map first.
Key Insight
The calendar debate isn’t about preference. It’s a symptom: climate reliability is shrinking, and the Paralympics get squeezed first.
Milano–Cortina 2026: a preview of the “engineered Winter Olympics”
If you want to understand where the Winter Games are heading, you could do worse than watch Milan and Cortina in 2026. Not because the organizers are uniquely negligent, but because they are the next in line—and the line is moving toward artificial winter.
A region warming in plain numbers
Climate Central’s analysis offers a striking local signal:
- Cortina’s February temperatures have warmed about 6.4°F (3.6°C) since 1956.
- The number of freezing days declined from 214 per year (1956–65) to 173 per year (2016–25): 41 fewer days, roughly a 19% drop.
- Milan’s February has warmed 5.8°F (3.2°C) over the same period.
Those are not marginal shifts. They change the reliability of snowpack, the frequency of rain-on-snow events, and the number of nights cold enough to make snow.
- Cortina’s February temperatures have warmed about 6.4°F (3.6°C) since 1956.
- The number of freezing days declined from 214 per year (1956–65) to 173 per year (2016–25): 41 fewer days, roughly a 19% drop.
- Milan’s February has warmed 5.8°F (3.2°C) over the same period.
Those are not marginal shifts. They change the reliability of snowpack, the frequency of rain-on-snow events, and the number of nights cold enough to make snow.
6.4°F (3.6°C)
Climate Central: Cortina’s February temperatures have warmed about 6.4°F (3.6°C) since 1956—shifting snowpack reliability and snowmaking windows.
Nearly 100% man-made snow—and a lot of water
Milano–Cortina is expected to rely on machine-made snow at an extraordinary scale. Washington Post reporting projects nearly 100% man-made snow, drawing on about 76 million gallons of water. Other reporting cites organizer estimates closer to 250 million gallons (946 million liters), with references to new high-elevation reservoirs.
The discrepancy matters, and it’s worth stating plainly: water estimates vary by source, likely reflecting different definitions—venue-specific production versus total operational plans, or earlier planning versus revised figures. The direction, however, is consistent. The Games are shifting from “finding snow” to manufacturing it.
Climate Central projects more than 3 million cubic yards of machine-made snow for 2026. That is winter as infrastructure—built, pumped, and powered.
The discrepancy matters, and it’s worth stating plainly: water estimates vary by source, likely reflecting different definitions—venue-specific production versus total operational plans, or earlier planning versus revised figures. The direction, however, is consistent. The Games are shifting from “finding snow” to manufacturing it.
Climate Central projects more than 3 million cubic yards of machine-made snow for 2026. That is winter as infrastructure—built, pumped, and powered.
“Milano–Cortina won’t just host winter. It will manufacture it.”
— — TheMurrow Editorial
Snowmaking is not a magic wand: cold windows, water, energy, and ecosystems
Snowmaking is often pitched as the quiet technological savior of winter sport. The reality is more conditional. Snowmaking works—until it doesn’t.
The hard limit: you still need cold
Warm spells don’t just make snow melt. They prevent snow from being made in the first place. ABC reporting quotes FIS President Johan Eliasch describing the constraint: when temperatures are too warm, snow can only be produced at night, shrinking the production window and limiting what even a well-funded operation can achieve.
That matters for Olympic planning, because the Olympics compress demands into a fixed deadline. If the cold window closes for a week at the wrong time, you can’t “catch up” easily, no matter how many machines you own.
That matters for Olympic planning, because the Olympics compress demands into a fixed deadline. If the cold window closes for a week at the wrong time, you can’t “catch up” easily, no matter how many machines you own.
The resource cost: water and power
Snowmaking requires:
- Large volumes of water
- Significant energy
- and the right mix of temperature and humidity.
NBC San Diego reporting underscores the climate irony: if the electricity powering snowmaking is fossil-heavy, the process can increase emissions and undercut “green Games” narratives. The less winter behaves like winter, the more organizers lean on systems that can worsen the underlying problem—unless the energy supply is genuinely low-carbon.
- Large volumes of water
- Significant energy
- and the right mix of temperature and humidity.
NBC San Diego reporting underscores the climate irony: if the electricity powering snowmaking is fossil-heavy, the process can increase emissions and undercut “green Games” narratives. The less winter behaves like winter, the more organizers lean on systems that can worsen the underlying problem—unless the energy supply is genuinely low-carbon.
The ecological tradeoffs aren’t hypothetical
Expanding snowmaking often means building or enlarging reservoirs, reshaping alpine hydrology, and stressing local ecosystems. Hydrologist Carmen de Jong (University of Strasbourg) has criticized ecosystem impacts while acknowledging the direction of travel: demand for artificial snow is going to rise.
A Winter Olympics that depends on reservoirs and round-the-clock compressors is not simply a sports festival. It becomes an environmental engineering project—one that local communities are asked to host, often long after the cameras leave.
A Winter Olympics that depends on reservoirs and round-the-clock compressors is not simply a sports festival. It becomes an environmental engineering project—one that local communities are asked to host, often long after the cameras leave.
Editor’s Note
Snowmaking is an adaptation tool with conditions: it depends on cold windows, water availability, energy supply, and ecosystem tolerance.
The “earlier date” fix: what it buys, and what it can’t
Calendar changes can be rational. They can also be self-deception. The best case for moving the Games earlier is that it expands the pool of viable sites—particularly for the Paralympics. The best argument against it is that the expansion is temporary and conditional.
The genuine benefit: more reliable weeks, especially for Paralympics
Washington Post reporting suggests that shifting both Olympics and Paralympics about three weeks earlier could dramatically improve the Paralympic outlook, potentially almost doubling climate-reliable locations under mid-century modeling assumptions.
For Paralympic athletes and organizers, that matters. A Paralympics plagued by rain, slush, and emergency snow imports is not merely inconvenient. It can become unsafe and unfair, with course conditions deteriorating rapidly and performance outcomes hinging on weather volatility rather than preparation.
For Paralympic athletes and organizers, that matters. A Paralympics plagued by rain, slush, and emergency snow imports is not merely inconvenient. It can become unsafe and unfair, with course conditions deteriorating rapidly and performance outcomes hinging on weather volatility rather than preparation.
The catch: the model assumes advanced snowmaking
The same reporting also points out that by mid-century, few sites remain reliable without snowmaking. That is the trapdoor under the calendar conversation.
Moving earlier doesn’t eliminate dependence on artificial snow; it often entrenches it. Earlier dates might reduce the worst March risk, but they don’t reverse the trendline. They shift the system toward a future where the Winter Olympics are viable only where water, energy, altitude, and political will align.
The question becomes less “January or February?” and more “How many places can afford to manufacture winter, and at what cost?”
Moving earlier doesn’t eliminate dependence on artificial snow; it often entrenches it. Earlier dates might reduce the worst March risk, but they don’t reverse the trendline. They shift the system toward a future where the Winter Olympics are viable only where water, energy, altitude, and political will align.
The question becomes less “January or February?” and more “How many places can afford to manufacture winter, and at what cost?”
Moving the Winter Games earlier
Pros
- +Chases colder weeks and longer nights for snowmaking
- +reduces late-season rain risk
- +could expand Paralympic site reliability in mid-century modeling
Cons
- -Collides with World Cup calendars and broadcast windows
- -doesn’t change warming physics
- -often deepens dependence on snowmaking and its resource costs
Legitimacy on thin ice: “Save winter” rhetoric meets fossil-fuel money
Climate vulnerability has turned winter sport into a credibility test. Audiences are not only watching the snow. They are watching the sponsors.
Athlete activism is sharpening
AP reporting in February 2026 describes Norwegian skier and filmmaker Nikolai Schirmer delivering a “Ski Fossil Free” petition with more than 21,000 signatures, urging the IOC and FIS to divest from fossil-fuel sponsorship.
That activism is not fringe. It speaks to a widening gap between climate messaging—“saving winter”—and the commercial ecosystem surrounding elite sport. When a governing body warns that winter is disappearing, and then cashes checks from industries accelerating that disappearance, the public sees the contradiction.
That activism is not fringe. It speaks to a widening gap between climate messaging—“saving winter”—and the commercial ecosystem surrounding elite sport. When a governing body warns that winter is disappearing, and then cashes checks from industries accelerating that disappearance, the public sees the contradiction.
Why this matters for the IOC’s future options
If the Winter Olympics become a smaller, more exclusive club of high-altitude, high-infrastructure hosts, the IOC will need public consent more than ever. Mega-events depend on legitimacy: local voters, national governments, environmental permits, and corporate partners.
The risk is that climate adaptation becomes a branding exercise rather than a transformation. A calendar shift can look like action while leaving the underlying incentives untouched. And once public trust erodes, the hosting map shrinks even faster—because communities stop volunteering.
The risk is that climate adaptation becomes a branding exercise rather than a transformation. A calendar shift can look like action while leaving the underlying incentives untouched. And once public trust erodes, the hosting map shrinks even faster—because communities stop volunteering.
What readers should take from the calendar debate: practical implications
It’s tempting to treat Olympic scheduling as inside baseball. The calendar debate is actually a readable signal of where winter sport is heading.
For fans: expect more “engineered” conditions—and more controversy
Milano–Cortina’s near-total dependence on man-made snow points toward a new norm: courses built as much by pumps and compressors as by storms. That may preserve the spectacle, but it changes the story fans are being sold.
If the Olympics market themselves as a celebration of nature and place, then delivering the product through industrial snowmaking invites scrutiny—especially when water use estimates range from 76 million to 250 million gallons, depending on how totals are defined.
If the Olympics market themselves as a celebration of nature and place, then delivering the product through industrial snowmaking invites scrutiny—especially when water use estimates range from 76 million to 250 million gallons, depending on how totals are defined.
For athletes: fairness and safety will hinge on infrastructure
When conditions are marginal, the quality of snowmaking, course preparation, and weather luck can matter as much as training. Athletes will push federations for clearer standards: minimum conditions, contingency planning, and course safety protocols when freeze-thaw cycles intensify.
For host cities: the costs won’t just be financial
Communities weighing bids should ask sharper questions:
- Where does the water come from, and what ecosystems absorb the impact?
- What powers the snowmaking—renewables or fossil-heavy grids?
- How many years will the investments remain useful as temperatures rise?
A Games-time calendar shift may reduce risk in the short term. It also signals that future hosts are being asked to solve a problem that cannot be solved locally.
- Where does the water come from, and what ecosystems absorb the impact?
- What powers the snowmaking—renewables or fossil-heavy grids?
- How many years will the investments remain useful as temperatures rise?
A Games-time calendar shift may reduce risk in the short term. It also signals that future hosts are being asked to solve a problem that cannot be solved locally.
Questions host cities should ask before bidding
- ✓Where does the water come from, and which ecosystems absorb the impact?
- ✓What powers snowmaking—renewables or fossil-heavy grids?
- ✓How long will snowmaking and venue investments stay usable as temperatures rise?
- ✓What contingency plans exist for warm spells and freeze-thaw safety risks?
The Winter Olympics are becoming a climate referendum
The IOC’s flirtation with earlier dates is understandable. It is also revealing. When an organization built on tradition starts reconsidering its calendar to chase colder nights, it’s acknowledging a new reality: winter is no longer a stable platform.
Climate Central’s numbers from Cortina—6.4°F of February warming and a 19% drop in freezing days over recent decades—capture what people sense intuitively. The season is changing. The Olympics are responding the way large institutions often respond: with incremental adjustments first.
But the reliability study’s shrinking host map—93 sites to 52 to 46—makes clear that incrementalism has limits. The calendar can be moved. The physics can’t.
If the Winter Olympics are to remain more than a televised simulation of snow, the conversation must widen beyond scheduling and snowmaking. It has to include energy choices, sponsorship choices, and an honest accounting of what it means to “host winter” in a world that is steadily losing it.
Climate Central’s numbers from Cortina—6.4°F of February warming and a 19% drop in freezing days over recent decades—capture what people sense intuitively. The season is changing. The Olympics are responding the way large institutions often respond: with incremental adjustments first.
But the reliability study’s shrinking host map—93 sites to 52 to 46—makes clear that incrementalism has limits. The calendar can be moved. The physics can’t.
If the Winter Olympics are to remain more than a televised simulation of snow, the conversation must widen beyond scheduling and snowmaking. It has to include energy choices, sponsorship choices, and an honest accounting of what it means to “host winter” in a world that is steadily losing it.
1) Is the IOC really moving the Winter Olympics to January?
The IOC has discussed moving future Winter Games earlier—potentially more January dates and earlier February timing for the Paralympics—during a meeting in Milan as part of its “Fit For The Future” review under President Kirsty Coventry. Reporting indicated final decisions were expected at a June meeting. The talks reflect rising concern about unreliable late-season conditions.
2) Why are the Paralympics more affected by warming than the Olympics?
The Paralympics often occur later, sometimes pushing into March, when temperatures trend higher and precipitation is more likely to fall as rain. Washington Post reporting on climate reliability modeling noted only 22 locations remain climate-reliable for March under mid-century conditions. That makes the Paralympics the first event squeezed by late-winter warming.
3) Would moving the Games earlier actually help?
It can help in a limited, practical way. Washington Post reporting found that shifting both Olympics and Paralympics about three weeks earlier could “almost double” climate-reliable locations for the Paralympics under mid-century modeling assumptions. The same reporting also emphasized that many sites remain viable only with advanced snowmaking, which brings its own constraints.
4) How much artificial snow will Milano–Cortina 2026 use?
Multiple reports suggest an exceptionally high reliance on artificial snow. Washington Post reporting projected nearly 100% man-made snow and about 76 million gallons of water for snowmaking. Other reporting cited organizer estimates around 250 million gallons and referenced new reservoirs. The exact number varies by source and scope, but the scale points to an “engineered winter” model.
5) Can snowmaking solve the Winter Olympics’ climate problem?
Snowmaking can reduce risk, but it cannot eliminate it. ABC reported FIS President Johan Eliasch highlighting that warm conditions can limit snow production to nighttime hours. Snowmaking also requires substantial water and energy, and NBC San Diego noted that fossil-powered snowmaking can increase emissions. It’s an adaptation tool with hard physical and environmental limits.
6) How fast is the pool of viable Winter Olympic hosts shrinking?
An IOC-commissioned study reported in major outlets modeled “climate reliability” and found that under current emissions trends, 93 potential host sites fall to 52 by the 2050s and 46 by the 2080s. The implication is structural: fewer places can reliably host outdoor winter sport as warming continues.
7) Why are athletes protesting fossil-fuel sponsorship in winter sports?
Athletes argue that governing bodies can’t credibly warn about disappearing winters while taking fossil-fuel money. AP reported that Norwegian skier and filmmaker Nikolai Schirmer delivered a “Ski Fossil Free” petition with more than 21,000 signatures urging the IOC and FIS to divest from fossil-fuel sponsorship. The dispute is about legitimacy as much as funding.
T
About the Author
TheMurrow Editorial is a writer for TheMurrow covering opinion.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the IOC really moving the Winter Olympics to January?
The IOC has discussed moving future Winter Games earlier—potentially more January dates and earlier February timing for the Paralympics—during a meeting in Milan as part of its “Fit For The Future” review under President Kirsty Coventry. Reporting indicated final decisions were expected at a June meeting. The talks reflect rising concern about unreliable late-season conditions.
Why are the Paralympics more affected by warming than the Olympics?
The Paralympics often occur later, sometimes pushing into March, when temperatures trend higher and precipitation is more likely to fall as rain. Washington Post reporting on climate reliability modeling noted only 22 locations remain climate-reliable for March under mid-century conditions. That makes the Paralympics the first event squeezed by late-winter warming.
Would moving the Games earlier actually help?
It can help in a limited, practical way. Washington Post reporting found that shifting both Olympics and Paralympics about three weeks earlier could “almost double” climate-reliable locations for the Paralympics under mid-century modeling assumptions. The same reporting also emphasized that many sites remain viable only with advanced snowmaking, which brings its own constraints.
How much artificial snow will Milano–Cortina 2026 use?
Multiple reports suggest an exceptionally high reliance on artificial snow. Washington Post reporting projected nearly 100% man-made snow and about 76 million gallons of water for snowmaking. Other reporting cited organizer estimates around 250 million gallons and referenced new reservoirs. The exact number varies by source and scope, but the scale points to an “engineered winter” model.
Can snowmaking solve the Winter Olympics’ climate problem?
Snowmaking can reduce risk, but it cannot eliminate it. ABC reported FIS President Johan Eliasch highlighting that warm conditions can limit snow production to nighttime hours. Snowmaking also requires substantial water and energy, and NBC San Diego noted that fossil-powered snowmaking can increase emissions. It’s an adaptation tool with hard physical and environmental limits.
How fast is the pool of viable Winter Olympic hosts shrinking?
An IOC-commissioned study reported in major outlets modeled “climate reliability” and found that under current emissions trends, 93 potential host sites fall to 52 by the 2050s and 46 by the 2080s. The implication is structural: fewer places can reliably host outdoor winter sport as warming continues.
