The World Cup In Qatar Is a Climate Catastrophe

When the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA), the world's governing body for soccer, proclaimed that the World Cup in Qatar would be "a fully carbon-neutral event," the collective chortle that came from environmentalists could have powered a wind farm. Carbon Market Watch blasted what it called FIFA's "creative accounting" and issued a report charging that World Cup organizers' stated goal "to reach carbon neutrality before the tournament kicks off" was fanciful. The report said that carbon footprint calculations can only take place after the event, so net-zero status is premature.

During the World Cup, it makes sense to slow down and take a closer look at the claims. The UN Environment Program is imploring nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to limit the impacts of climate change, as the effects of climate disruption continue to intensify across the globe. While the carbon footprint of 64 soccer matches played over a single month's time might appear trifling, compared with the enormous climate challenge we collectively face, it symbolizes the all-too-common misleading practices that many organizations, companies and governments use.

To a lot of people, the World Cup organizers claim of being a fully carbon-neutral tournament is greenwashing, a public display of concern for the environment and an inclination to claim credit for providing solutions while doing the bare minimum. Soccer is one of the mega sporting events that are carbon disasters. Taylor Swift warned us in her song "Anti-Hero" that virtue signaling is wrapped in a sporty green cloak and disguises as altruistic. Greenwashing is based in deception and allows us to press ahead with pollution when we need urgent action.

It's shaping up to be a greenwash. According to a recent report by Carbon Market Watch, when calculating the carbon footprint for seven new stadiums, FIFA underestimated emissions by a factor of eight. Only one stadium predates the World Cup will be used to stage the tournament. One of the new venues will be disassembled after the mega event because it carries its own carbon load. Carbon Market Watch pointed out that many of the legacy plans of the country raise questions about how sustainable they will be in practice, given their quixotic "accounting methodology" which is based on assumptions about local demand for World Cup–quality stadiums in the wake of the tournament.

World Cup hosts often claim that stadiums built for the tournament will remain in use for many years, a claim that allows them to spread their carbon footprint over a long period of time. The Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy is working to ensure there will be no white elephants after the World Cup. It is hard to believe that the stadiums built for the event will be used frequently in the future. The soccer culture in the country is not very developed. Russia, Brazil and South Africa have been left with a bunch of white-elephant stadiums.

During the World Cup, there will be 1,300 flights per day to and from the country. That is only one of the sources of airplane emissions. The grass seeds for the tournament were flown in from North America on climate controlled planes. The fields won't be able to water themselves. Every day in the winter the groundskeepers use 10,000 liters of desalinated water to maintain the eight stadium pitches. Each pitch requires 50,000 liters in the summer. The carbon footprint of the desalination process is only increased by the energy intensive process.

The carbon-offset schemes are very dependent on the claims. Carbon offset programs, which allow people and businesses to purchase carbon credits that pay for environmental projects around the world in exchange for canceling out their own carbon footprint, are not only notorious for being ineffectual but also for jumping-starting carbon colonialism, whereby countries in the Global South are charged with executing carbon An investigation by the Oakland Institute found that Green Resources, a company registered in Norway, set up carbon-offset schemes in Uganda that resulted in the displacement of more than 8,000 people.

The Global Carbon Council, which was established by the organizers of the World Cup, has already approved three projects, including a hydroelectric plant and a wind farm in Turkey. The renewable energy projects that are excluded from the carbon market system are said to be by the Carbon Market Watch policy team.

Soccer's greenwashing is extended to sponsorship as well. One of the world's largest suppliers of liquified natural gas signed on as an official sponsor of soccer's governing body. According to a Natural Resources Defense Council report, liquified natural gas is not the vaunted "bridge fuel" that boosters promise, it can actually prevent the transition to renewables when people choose it rather than going straight to green options. The announcement of the deal stated thatQatarEnergy is responsible for the development of cleaner energy. There is no place for carbon sponsorship in the climate change era.

We are looking at a weather event. Just because you believe something is real doesn't mean it's real.

Sports mega events are popular with elected officials and economic elites because they give them a chance to pose for photos and make deals. Mega events give close proximity to money, power and prestige because of the billions of dollars that go through the global sport system. Environmental concerns are often left out of this money shuffle. There is almost no independent oversight and little accountability for governments, sport bodies and their corporate partners.

Soccer isn't the only sport involved in this. Some of the worst environmental scores were earned by the three Olympics. When it comes to sports mega events, sustainable claims are usually more realistic.

Is it possible for a mega event to be carbon neutral? Net-zero emissions are out of reach due to the expanding size of these events. The number of sports, athletes, journalists, spectators, marketing and costs associated with the Olympics and the soccer World Cup grew by 600% between 1964 and 2018, according to a study. Creating a short list of potential hosts who are historically most responsible for global heating would help limit emissions if the elimination of fresh stadium construction is mandated. Unless the number of fans is reduced, the carbon footprint from travel will be baked into the global tournament and hard to sidestep.

The sports mega events are not sustainable. Since the 1990s, when the International Olympic Committee increased their environmental claims, their events have only become bigger, and their impacts have only gotten worse. Insinuating that individual consumer choices will improve the ecological crisis is greenwashing. Sports mega events are shape-changing vehicles for global capital that leave a mark on cities and the environment.