The World Cup is due to kick off next week but the reality is that it is likely to generate a staggering 2.75 million tonnes in carbon emissions. A study has declared that it will have the biggest environmental impact of any sporting event, ever. In fact, this year’s tournament has a carbon footprint eight times that of the 2006 World Cup in Germany before you even factor in the fans travelling to South Africa from their home nations. This is primarily because there are huge distances between the stadia being used for the tournament across South Africa, which is a country without a green transport infrastructure.
The South African and Norwegian governments carried out the Feasibility Study for a Carbon Neutral 2010 Fifa World Cup. They estimated that the output from South Africa would be 896,661 tonnes of carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide output from the international fan travel will add an extra 1,856,589 tonnes. This feasibility study seemed to suggest that a ‘climate neutral’ event was, in fact, not feasible.
It does seem that the geography of the event is the main culprit for the huge carbon footprint as all the footballers, coaches, officials and fans will have to travel these long distances across the nine host cities. There are 64 matches in all. If you want to think about in in terms of our country, South Africa is five times larger than the UK. Therefore, consider the impact of thousands of people travelling from a match in Cape Town to a match in Johannesburg – they are 880 miles apart. The only options are air travel which, we know, is harmful to the environment.
In terms of other modes of transport, South Africa just does not have the green infrastructure. In the report published following the feasibility study, it read: ‘For inter-city transport… distances between matches in South Africa are much greater than in Germany, and the lack of high-speed rail links means that most visitors will fly multiple times between matches, leading to much higher transport emissions.’
The other issue with public transport is that there is a lack of light railway or underground alternatives on offer for the abundance of visitors to the country, so the only other options are cars, buses and planes. However, as expected it is the fans travelling to South Africa from their respective countries who will be responsible for the biggest impact on the environment with international travel representing 67.4% of the tournament’s emissions.
It is predicted that any carbon offset programme introduced for the World Cup would cost between £3.3 million and £5.4 million. Some steps have been made to offset the carbon footprint and the building of the Soccer City stadium which was partly constructed from parts of another demolished stadium. This new stadium is fitted with waterless urinals and the pitch will be watered using non-drinking water. The aim is also to reduce waste during the World Cup with the introduction of reusable cups and a limit placed on the use of food containers.
Speaking as the report was published, South African environmental affairs minister Buyelwa Sonjica stated: ‘Some progress has been conducted toward processes for offsetting the footprint. However, even the footprint on its own is huge in comparison to the 2006 Fifa World Cup footprint. At least three of the nine host cities have considered the implementation of bicycle lanes.’
The feasibility study was conducted by Econ Pöyry. Their senior advisor for carbon and energy commented: ‘For this reason, the support of FIFA and the Local Organising Committee (LOC), and their agreement that FIFA or Green Goal brand can be used for marketing by offset sponsors is probably essential for the success of this programme. In addition, marketing a credible programme to funders requires an institutional home with both credible skills in the carbon market and transparent, robust accounting and reporting procedures.’
He added: ‘The opportunity of the 2010 World Cup to raise awareness of climate change and sustainability challenges, more broadly, among a wide range of stakeholder groups and the general public must not be missed.’
Back in November 2009 the Greening 2010 framework was launched with the aim of reducing the World Cup’s carbon footprint. Part of this incentive was the Green Goal logo and participants have been asked to pledge their dedication to the Green Goal initiatives. These will be in place during and after the even and relate to energy, waste, water, transport, responsible tourism and biodiversity. The themes of the initiative are to reduce emissions and offset carbon footprint alongside job creation, communication, outreach and sustainable procurement. However, while this all sounds good on paper there have been concerns raised that some of the smaller host cities will have the resources to dedicate to the Green Goal initiatives.
Further criticisms of the Greening 2010 framework are that the initiatives will only have an impact on the stadium emissions and precinct energy use alongside the intra-city transport. This only accounts for 9% of the overall carbon footprint of the event. The report authors state: ‘So while these interventions are important for raising public awareness and entrenching best practices at a local level, they will not have a significant impact on the size of the carbon footprint.’
A recommendation has been placed on the national and local governments to play an oversight role in the programme to offset the carbon footprint of the event. There is also a recommendation that a carbon offset services provider should be employed, as should a reputable voluntary carbon market standard.
The thing that is clear is the impact on the environment of the tournament and the costs involved in offsetting the carbon footprint. One thing is for sure, lessons will be learned from this event and if the Greening 2010 framework is a success then it will be a legacy of this event, which will inform future sporting events.
|
|
It’s all well and good talking about offsetting the carbon footprint which is lovely. My question from the very beginning is what is going to happen to these stadiums now that the World cup is over.
I mean come on – are any of these stations really viable?
The only good thing I can see is on a humanitarian level where now there is a much larger awareness of what goes on in Africa. I wouldn’t say they showed all the nitty gritty – but they did do a very good job of marketing.
If investments can be made in schools, infrastructure and hospitals from foreign investors – then I think the upheaval and damage done from this event would have well been worth what in my eyes was short of a massacre on the environment.