Newsletter

After Qatar, is a “greener” World Cup possible?

Making millions of people travel thousands of kilometers by plane to attend a match, build huge stadiums… At a time when the World Cup in Qatar is attracting the wrath of environmental defenders, the question of the relevance of the format of the competition at a time of the fight against global warming. Interview with Antoine Miche, founding president of Football Écologie France.

“An ecological nonsense”, an “aberration”. Despite promises of a “carbon neutral” event, the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, with its air-conditioned stadiums just out of the ground and its 150 daily plane trips to transport supporters, is decried by environmental activists as an ecological scandal. In total, the competition should produce up to 3.6 million tonnes of CO2, according to Fifa.

But beyond the controversies around this 2022 edition, pollution seems inevitable when organizing a global event. During the previous edition, in Russia, in 2018, 2.1 million tonnes of CO2 were released into the atmosphere, i.e. half of France’s emissions in a full year.

Reducing the number of participating teams, favoring countries with existing infrastructures, reducing the frequency of events… While scientists are constantly warning about the need to reduce greenhouse gases to limit climate change, Antoine Miche , founding president of Football Écologie France, an association aiming to make this sport a major player in the ecological transition, talks about several ways to make the next World Cup more “green”.

France 24: Why are the football World Cups so costly for the environment?

Antoine Miche: All football World Cups, in their current format, have a disastrous impact on the environment. For Qatar, Fifa speaks of 3.6 million tonnes of CO2 but the associations agree that this figure is largely underestimated. If this edition promises to be particularly catastrophic on the ecological level, the previous Worlds, in Russia or South Africa, were also very far from having a positive balance sheet.

This is very easily explained: by mixing millions and millions of people in one and the same place – individuals who must be transported, housed and fed – the Worlds are explosive cocktails for the planet.

In detail, the vast majority of CO2 emissions are generated by the transport of teams, their staff and supporters. The other major pollution component comes from the construction or renovation of infrastructure, including stadiums, intended to host the event. It is this point that generates the most criticism on the awarding of the World Cup to Qatar. It was necessary to start from scratch and build eight huge stadiums, importing millions of tons of materials, for infrastructures that may only be used sporadically in this country of barely 3 million inhabitants. Added to this is a whole host of smaller, but no less important sources of pollution, such as food or the waste generated by millions of people in the same place.

Moreover, we point the finger at Qatar but the World Cup-2026, which will be shared between Canada, the United States and Mexico, is also an ecological aberration. Admittedly, this time, the three countries are football nations and have the necessary infrastructure, but the supporters, players and teams will have to travel thousands of kilometers between the different host cities. For example, there are nearly 5,000 kilometers between Vancouver and Mexico City. Not to mention that the number of participating nations will then have increased from 32 to 48. This means even more matches to organize and even more people to feed, house and transport.

What would be the levers of action to organize a more environmentally friendly World Cup? Is a “carbon neutral” competition, as promised by Fifa for this 2022 edition, really possible?

The priority is for the governing bodies of football to commit and address much more demanding specifications on environmental issues to the host countries. The latter should be obliged to respect a grid with precise criteria, a sort of “guide for a green sport”, in phase with the ecological transition. This is the sine qua non for improving the situation and practices.

We must also strive to limit the carbon footprint linked to transport and infrastructure. For this, we must ensure that the buildings built for the event will not remain unused after the competition. Even better, we should favor candidates who already have everything they need, even if, unfortunately, this must rule out certain developing countries, for example.

If we go further, we would have to completely rethink the format of the competition. Why not organize longer regional selection phases and maintain a final phase in a host country, with fewer teams competing? We can also consider changing the frequency of the World Cups, by organizing the competition every six years instead of every four years. In the long term, this would have a real impact.

Objectively, achieving truly “carbon-neutral” competition, as Fifa promises, would be extremely difficult and would be a summary of all these avenues: it would have to be in a single country, without infrastructure works, by favoring soft transport and with fewer teams.

>> Environment: can professional football be ecological?

Do you feel an awareness on the part of the football authorities? Do you think that the controversies surrounding the World Cup in Qatar can encourage them to better take environmental issues into account?

Unfortunately, FIFA, in particular, is changing very little and very slowly on the issue. It is obvious in its governance. When environmentalists talk about reducing the frequency of competitions, Fifa proposes to organize the World Cup every two years. It is absurd.

When we point out its ecological balance sheet, its main answer is to say that it offsets the CO2 emissions of major events thanks to carbon credits, [c’est-à-dire en soutenant des programmes de réduction ou de séquestration de CO2 partout dans le monde, NDLR]. So, she participates in everything goes to tree plantations and finances renewable energy projects. But that’s not a solution at all. Today, we must reduce greenhouse gases to limit climate change. Offsetting one’s emissions should only remain a last resort solution.

In this, the many calls for a boycott that have emerged in recent weeks could have a positive impact and encourage the various authorities to better take environmental issues into account. They realize that this is becoming a major issue in attracting audiences.

Football fans, meanwhile, would they be ready to change their practices?

The calls for a boycott and the counter-events organized in opposition to the 2022 World Cup show that a large part of the supporters no longer want to leave aside the question of climate issues. A year ago, such a mobilization would have seemed impossible to me. There was a real awareness. Even if, in the case of Qatar, it should not be forgotten that these oppositions are also due to other problems, in particular that of human rights.

The other thing that is reassuring is that the commitment of the supporters does not only consist in turning off their TV. They are also increasingly active in the way they support their teams or practice their passion. When France Ecology Football launched a citizen consultation, in 2020, on ecological transition and football, many people or groups of supporters, for example, came to us and showed interest in implementing concrete actions: developing carpooling to go to matches or better sort waste…

Of course, there are still some reluctant. In my opinion, this is where clubs and international players can make a difference. If Kylian Mbappé became a spokesperson for ecological football, there is no doubt that thousands of supporters would follow.

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Trending