One month before the start of the Qatar World Cup and despite the organization's promise that it will be a "carbon-neutral" tournament, non-governmental organizations and prominent sports figures describe it as an "ecological aberration" due to its climate effects.
"We are committed to ensuring a carbon-neutral World Cup. We will achieve this by measuring, reducing, and offsetting all greenhouse gas emissions associated with the tournament," promised Hassan Al-Thawadi, Secretary-General of the World Cup Organizing Committee.
This commitment, however, fails to convince, and several personalities have announced their intention to boycott the World Cup due to its ecological and human cost. Former Manchester United star Eric Cantona denounced an "ecological aberration, with all those air-conditioned stadiums" in addition to "a human horror," while several of the largest cities in France have decided not to install giant screens to broadcast the matches.
The promise of carbon neutrality is "a smokescreen," says Julien Jreissati, director of Greenpeace's program in the Middle East. This "is not a response to the climate emergency and can be considered as greenwashing or sportswashing," he said.
Read also
Discover the eight stadiums of the Qatar 2022 World Cup and the ones Uruguay will play in
"This carbon neutrality advertising is misleading and does not accurately reflect the real climate impact of the event," explains Gilles Dufrasne, author of a report on the matter for the NGO Carbon Market Watch, based in Belgium.
According to a report commissioned by FIFA, the event is expected to generate 3.6 million equivalent tons of CO2, compared to 2.1 million during the last edition in Russia in 2018. The vast majority (95%) comes from indirect emissions, mainly related to transportation, infrastructure construction, and accommodation.
But this estimation of emissions is incomplete, according to Carbon Market Watch, which estimates that the carbon footprint of stadium construction could be eight times higher: there should be 1.6 million tons of CO2 accounted for, not 0.2.
A huge difference that reflects a methodological choice: Qatar believes that the stadiums will be used after the World Cup, and therefore their environmental impact cannot be attributed to the event, while Carbon Market Watch disagrees. The total use of the stadiums after 2022 in a country with 2.4 million inhabitants is questionable, according to the NGO.
For its part, Qatar announces that one stadium will be completely dismantled and the other seven will be partially dedicated to other public uses, such as schools, offices, hotels, etc.
"Huge mistake"
The air conditioning of the stadiums, which symbolizes energy and environmental consumption, does not weigh heavily on the expenses. "It is relatively minimal compared to the total emissions from stadium construction or total emissions from air transport," confirms Gilles Dufrasne.
Considering the climate impact of infrastructure construction, some observers believe that a better-equipped country should have been chosen as the host country.
"A huge mistake was made in December 2010 when awarding the World Cup to a country that had all the infrastructure," evaluates Gilles Paché, logistics specialist and professor at the University of Aix-Marseille, referring to the United States.
Read also
Warning: Climate change is approaching a point of no return
"With Qatar, we started from scratch, 'ex nihilo'. A world-class event supported on sand," while "the United States was truly well-equipped" in terms of stadiums and hotels.
To achieve neutrality, the organization also promises that the tournament's emissions will be fully offset: it will purchase carbon credits, which theoretically correspond to a reduction in emissions equivalent to those of the World Cup, carried out by third parties (for example, with renewable energy projects in Turkey).
"Carbon offsetting creates a distraction because it gives the illusion that a solution that does not require reduction efforts in greenhouse gas emissions involving ambitious political decisions is possible," criticizes Julien Jreissati. "We must reduce emissions at the source as quickly as possible," he emphasizes.
For future World Cups, Gilles Dufrasne proposes a "systematic reflection" instead of trying to make the event 'green': "reflect on the frequency" or, for example, "distribute the matches around the world to play in a stadium that is closest to the two teams facing each other."
(With information from AFP)
- World Cup
- Qatar World Cup
- climate change
- Eric Cantona