Organizers of the Paris Olympics had an ideological agenda. They wanted to use the Games to make a statement about the need to stave off rising average global temperatures. The event, they vowed, would be “historic for the climate.”

The actions the organizers pursued, however, inadvertently demonstrated the futility of many efforts aimed at stopping climate change — as well as how such actions merely get in the way of efficiency and success. (READ MORE: Vatican Denounces Olympic Opening Ceremony)

For example, organizers debuted a system at concession stands where spectators would pay a 2 euro deposit to receive a reusable plastic cup that they could use for pop and other drinks. However, Coca-Cola was unable to install pop machines in many stadiums and event locations, so concession stands followed a policy of pouring Coke from individual bottles into plastic cups. The system was inefficient, and the amount of plastic used multiplied as a result.

A Climate-Friendly Olympic Games? Not So Fast.

Organizers also sought to build the Olympic Village without air conditioning. They invested heavily in a geothermal system that would use pipes to cool athletes’ rooms and bragged far and wide about their plan to not provide air conditioning to athletes in the name of saving the planet. When other nations expressed concerns about how a lack of air conditioning could affect their athletes’ ability to perform, the mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, would not back down, saying, “I can guarantee you that we will not change course and that there will be no changes to the programme.” She said that adding air conditioning units would be “inconsistent” with the effort to make the Games sustainable.

Many nations refused to go along with the lack of air conditioning, understanding that their athletes would not reach peak performance if they were unable to get a full night’s sleep. Many countries, including Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Italy, and the United States, shipped in air conditioning units or purchased units in France. The result was that thousands of air conditioning units were purchased and shipped just for the Games.

The Olympic Village was also built with a high amount of wood in the name of sustainability. Usually, there are concerns about using so much wood in tall buildings because of the potential for fires. “The consequences of a failure in a timber building are potentially much more serious than in a concrete or steel building,” explained José Torero, a professor at University College, last year. But Olympic organizers say that the use of wood in the Olympic Village will “change the viability of tall wood-frame buildings in France with insurance companies,” according to Slate. They believed that the elevated fire risk was worth the chance to lower global temperatures. (READ MORE: France Shows the World How to Ruin the Olympics)

Famously, French Olympic organizers also attempted to force Olympians into a plant-based diet, with one slogan for the Games being “Veni, vidi, veggie” — “Come, see, veggie.” The organizers’ goal was to serve twice as many “plant-based foods” as the average French person eats. The chief executive of a pro-vegetable activist organization, Jasmijn De Boo, told BBC that this goal was “very appropriate for an event in the global spotlight.” In Europe, environmental activists have honed in on promoting vegetable-based diets as a means to combat global warming. For example, the group Food Retaliation recently threw pumpkin soup at the Mona Lisa to demand the “right to healthy and sustainable food.”

Athletes were not happy with the emphasis on plant-based foods given the necessity of animal-derived protein for athletic prowess. Complaints abounded that insufficient meat and eggs were being provided to athletes, particularly for breakfast. Much to their chagrin, organizers were forced to rush in more meat to the athletes.

Several other environmental efforts demonstrated the futility of making only minor reductions in the Olympics’ carbon emissions. Some European athletes were encouraged to travel by train rather than plane to the Games, even as millions descended on Paris by air travel. Paris officials also outfitted a brand new aquatics center, which was built specifically for the Games, with seats made of recycled plastic. Officials also purchased carbon offset credits, which studies have shown do nothing to decrease the carbon emitted into the atmosphere.

Considering that the Olympics involves the travel of millions and the construction of numerous large-scale facilities, its carbon footprint is inevitably large. The resources consumed and emissions produced by such extensive human activities are going to be substantial, no matter what tricks organizers implement to chip away at them. The only way to really mitigate the resource usage of the Olympics would be to forbid spectators or cancel the Games entirely.

Yet despite the stupidity of expensive actions that make meaningless — and sometimes harmful — reductions in carbon emissions, it appears that the Paris Olympics has started a trend of making the Games an occasion for host countries to virtue-signal their commitment to lowering the global temperature. (READ MORE: Ça ira!: Opening Ceremony at the Concierge Was More Than Just Bad Taste)

At a news conference this weekend, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, whose city will host the Summer Olympics in 2028, said that her goal is to host a “no-car Games.” Though many are skeptical of the traffic-choked city’s ability to host such a Games, officials are doubling down and advertising 28 transportation infrastructure projects aimed at achieving that goal. Whether the construction of dozens of new transportation projects will be better for the environment than driving athletes around in buses for two weeks remains unclear. But, to global elites and climate activists, what will matter will be Los Angeles organizers’ ability to expel as little carbon as they can in August 2028.

Host cities would be much better off if they focused on the tangible and impactful goal of reducing the cost of hosting the Olympics. This would ensure that their residents benefit to the greatest extent from hosting the Games. A 20 percent decrease in carbon emissions relative to a previous Olympics, on the other hand, accomplishes very little.