I’ll have my World Cup Carbon Footprint with a Pinch of Salt Please

By Mike Holland

An estimate has been made of the carbon footprint of the World Cup, roughly 2.8 million tonnes of CO₂eq.  The Guardian newspaper appears split about the worthiness of such estimates, describing them seriously but also suggesting that they should be taken with a pinch of salt.  It is true that there are many questions that can be raised about footprinting: for example the extent to which the data used reflect the actual systems under investigation rather than a somewhat theoretical average, and whether the boundaries for inclusion of emissions have been drawn broadly enough (would inclusion of the emissions linked to the life cycle of the thousands of national flags now decorating my street or the production of Panini sticker books and vuvuzelas make any difference – probably not, but you get the point).  However, the simplicity of the method has much to commend it as a means of identifying more sustainable ways forward.

With this in mind, and assuming that the World Cup Carbon Footprint data are a reasonable indication of which activities generate the greatest emissions, the challenge is to take the results and design a World Cup that is more sustainable.  Looking at the data for South Africa 2010 it seems that the focus needs to go on transport, rather than the local infrastructure.  Eliminating emissions from stadium construction is possible by holding the tournament in a location where there are already plenty of stadiums and nothing of much significance needs to be built – something that is true of many countries.  However, the footprint results for South Africa suggest it would make very little difference to total emissions.  This may of course be a function of actions taken by the South Africans, for example through the use of recycled building materials.  However, the point remains that the emissions from construction activities can be addressed.

Tournament organisers could have some control over emissions from accommodation, restaurants, etc., which are estimated to account for 10-15% of the impacts of the current World Cup, by two methods.  The first would be to define sustainability criteria that all accredited suppliers would need to meet.  The second would be to provide certification for establishments that meet these criteria whether or not they are to be recognised as suppliers to the organisers.  Both are a useful declaration of intent to perform efficiently and cleanly.  However, given that demand for accommodation and food typically outstrips supply during major events such actions may have very little impact. 

The focus clearly has to go on reducing emissions from transport.  This can be done in three ways:

-   Reducing the carbon emissions from aeroplanes
-   Making more efficient use of aviation (e.g. by travelling economy rather than business or first class)
-   Reducing the demand for travel

There are certainly some things that can be done to reduce emissions from aviation, such as the use of new lightweight materials, improved engine design and so on.  The one that could make the largest difference to reported emissions from aviation would be the use of biofuels, though this has to be seen in a wider context.  For example, assuming that the biofuel is produced ‘sustainably’ does it make sense to use biofuels in planes rather than for other purposes, for example for heating buildings?  I suspect that the impacts of refining biofuels to aviation standards may impose an unnecessary penalty on biofuel use more generally.  If we exclude the use of biofuels a very major reduction in emissions from aeroplanes may be hard to achieve on a reasonable timescale.

When it comes to making more efficient use of aviation we need to ask whether multimillionaire players would be willing to travel with the rest of us in the back of the plane?  For some there would be no problem.  For others it may simply not be possible – take the example of Peter Crouch, a man so tall that his head and feet are in different time zones when he goes to bed.  Shifting between classes may appear to be tinkering at the edges, but the difference in emissions per traveller for someone in economy compared to first class on long haul flights is big – roughly a factor of 4.  This could explain why the South African footprint results suggest roughly similar emissions for players (presumably together with their entourages) as for spectators, when the latter are presumably much more numerous.  Unfortunately, this option is likely to be a non-starter because the airlines would not want to dispense with the travellers who generate so much of their revenue.

The third option is to reduce demand for travel.  In theory this could be done by teams playing as badly as England did in the 2006 tournament.  However despite their astonishingly dull displays the public still turned up to fill stadiums, commentators being amazed at the ability of England fans to obtain just about every ticket sold for any match featuring their team.

Another way to reduce travel would be to play the World Cup in an area where there are the most people who are likely to travel to the tournament.  In terms of the likelihood of travelling (dictated by wealth, interest in football, etc.), this probably means holding every tournament in Europe to minimise the total transport distance travelled by spectators, at least for the next 10 years.  By that time the Asian nations should be sufficiently wealthy that the World Cup would move there ever after.  Whilst Brazil is becoming a major economic power as well, the much larger Asian population would mean that they win out over South America at least in terms of providing a venue.  The successors to Pele, Jairzinho, Garrincha, Ronaldinho, Holland, Ronaldo, Tostao and so on would of course still get to win the cup more often than not, so Brazil should not feel as though it is being sidelined in any way.

A further way to reduce transport demand would be to hold much more of the tournament at a regional level.  This option seems a non-starter: the World Cup is what it is because it is seen to bring people together – remember some of those intriguing contests at previous World Cups like Iran vs the USA?  Play ball, not war, is a great message.  It is also possible that by making attendance easier via regionalisation, emissions could increase with many more people flying all over Europe (etc.) for every match.

A final demand reducing option would be to hold every tournament in North Korea as it seems likely that no-one would be allowed in except the players and referees.  Emissions immediately fall by a third by taking out the international spectators.  Most of the players’ entourage would not be allowed in either, so there would be further big cuts there.  Use of mass transit systems would slash the emissions from spectators who go to the games from within the country.  As we occasionally see big displays filling large stadiums in Pyongyang it appears as though the infrastructure is already up and running, and the quality of the opening and closing ceremonies guaranteed.

Some might just consider the options outlined as infeasible or unattractive. In that event one final option is the use of offsetting schemes.  With the price of offsets currently around £10/t CO₂eq the cost of offsetting the estimated 2.8 million tonnes of emission linked to South Africa 2010 is in the order of £28 million.  Whilst some consider offsetting to be a bad or even immoral idea and will quote cases where it has undeniably been manipulated as a money making venture of no benefit to the climate, there are plenty of high quality schemes around.  The World Cup could easily be used as a marketing vehicle for offsetting schemes.  This could be particularly useful for financing a REDD scheme to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (an action that is a key part of global emission control strategies) in a world that currently seems unwilling to provide the required finance.  Major organisations and governments could contribute to a very public REDD fund throughout the competition, with the one that provides the most funding getting the recognition that they would deserve.

The uncertainties inherent in carbon footprinting may well have you reaching for the salt pot.  However, as shown here, footprint data can help stimulate debate about options for reducing emissions, identifying some novel ideas along the way.  It also serves to focus attention on the areas where the greatest emissions are expected.  This means that footprinting is a worthy exercise, almost irrespective of the uncertainties involved.  See you in Pyongyang in 2014.