As the world looks to Qatar as the host of the World Cup, are their claims of championing the climate overshadowing the work of more minor characters in football?

We all know that greenwashing can undermine the climate credentials of the green washer, but a more insidious impact is felt when true net zero heroes are drowned out by false shouts of sustainable stardom

Published

November 29, 2022

Oscar Pusey

Research Analyst

Trending

Qatar 2022: a carbon-neutral world cup?

As admittedly tainted, excitement was building for this year’s football world cup; Qatar had just finished building their seven new stadiums ready for the tournament.[i] As the first ball was kicked, the roar of the fans was accompanied by fans of a different variety as air conditioning systems sought to cool the pitches to a more comfortable temperature.[ii] The air conditioning angle raised many an eyebrow and a series of sighs that likely could have gone some way to powering a wind farm, but with a closer look, the system is rather elegantly designed. Firstly cooling of the air itself uses a novel technique that is suggested to use between 20 and 40% less energy than traditional methods. Secondly, the system itself is powered by solar energy.[iii] So too, the construction of the 974 stadium in Qatar, whilst having a high initial carbon cost, the ability of it to be dismantled and reassembled at future mega-events at a low carbon cost mean that from a whole lifecycle perspective, the stadium is heralded as an environmental win by the hosts and by FIFA.[iv]

Source: Qatar 2022

Despite the success of the air conditioning system, it is doing little to ease the heat being directed upon the tournament’s wider net zero credentials as academics and activists alike begin to emulate plans for the 974 stadium and completely dismantle claims of a carbon-neutral world cup.

Criticism from climate experts and scientific commentators

Carbon Market Watch’s analysis concluded that many questions are raised by the organisers' claim that the 2022 FIFA World Cup will be carbon neutral. The non-profit organisation states that the event's overall predicted environmental impact was probably underestimated, and the carbon credits sought to offset the emissions run the danger of having poor environmental integrity. The report goes on to say that some of the emission reduction measures put in place are unlikely to make a significant difference in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and they may mislead spectators and citizens worldwide into thinking that the organisers are doing more to improve the climate than they actually are. This might cause future and present complacency over a competition with a significant carbon footprint, which would continue to harm the planet.[v]

Academics from Lancaster and Manchester Universities have also voiced their concern over the underestimation of the event's carbon impact. Mike Berners-Lee said of FIFA’s claim of a 3.6 million tonne footprint:

"We did a little digging into FIFA’s carbon footprint estimate and we think it's way over 10 million tonnes - so three times that, at least,"[vi]

Climate scientist professor Kevin Anderson of Manchester University echoed these concerns:

"There will be a direct human cost to this tournament. This is a huge amount of emissions for one sporting event. It's these emissions that will have an impact around the world."[vii]

The Scientific American perhaps provide the most amusingly phrased but powerful accounts of the concerns over this underestimation and greenwashing with their article saying:

‘We are looking at a climate Qatarstrophe. The Qatar World Cup shows that FIFA-style sustainability is a bit like trying to buy Bigfoot with a bucket of cryptocurrency: just because you believe something is real does not make it so.’[viii]

Perhaps the Bigfoot analogy has more merit than one could ever expect because, much like a tunnel vision search for cryptids might blinker you to the wonders of the more provably existent great apes of the world, so too is inflexibly singing the praises of a world cup that has been so resoundingly accused of greenwashing, it may well overshadow the smaller, but more rigidly defensible climate wins achieved by other footballing entities worldwide.

Climate wins from the world of football

ZCA has previously touched on some of the good work undertaken by the footballing community in pursuit of an environmentally friendly beautiful game. Much of this work has continued, and recently Planet League held a cup that allowed football fans from 77 clubs to compete to score goals for their team by participating in climate-conscious actions like switching to a meat-free alternative or airdrying their laundry. By the end of this cup, Northampton, the winning side, had completed over 15,000 green actions over the course of five weeks.[ix]

In the last month, the Football Association Wales have released the ‘Cymru, well-being and the world’ strategy. The report aims to create a path for football clubs at all levels to achieve a wide range of sustainability objectives, including decarbonisation. The guidance includes advice on creating a fund to install EV charging points at clubs as well as a framework for swap shops for kits that will reduce waste. The strategy notes that if carried out by all clubs in the association, then 943 clubs from amateur to professional, 189,000 school-aged players and 18,400 volunteers could all be involved in carrying out this climate-conscious vision.[x]

Both these initiatives may be new to you, but even if they aren’t, they’ve certainly not received the attention that football’s biggest prize has attracted. This isn’t surprising, but when it comes to conversations on climate, shouldn’t the little, provable wins be celebrated with the same vigour as the questionable ‘successes’ of FIFA and their 2022 world cup in Qatar? Should not the value of a climate claim be based on its merits rather than on how loudly it is touted?