The Carbon Footprint OF The World Cup: Blame FIFA, Not South Africa

Posted on 01. Jun, 2010 by Ross in Africa

The world’s biggest sporting event is about to kick off in South Africa, as the 2010 World Cup gets under way. Away from the glitz, glamour, fans and football (or soccer to our less enthusiastic North American readers) lie an array of environmentalists ready to show a red card to the carbon footprint of latest incarnation of the beautiful game’s crowning competition.

A Norwegian government study (PDF) commissioned by South Africa has estimated that the 2010 World Cup will have a carbon footprint six times the size of the previous tournament in Germany. Unsurprisingly, the news has been the clarion call for various green institutions to criticise the event for not being green enough. The main reasons for the huge carbon footprint are

Lack of existing infrastructure - South Africa needed (or chose) to build entirely new stadia whilst Germany used many existing venues, meaning massive amounts of carbon-intensive concrete.
Internal transport - the distances between venues for the South African event are far larger, adding a bigger carbon footprint from fans travelling between games during the World Cup. South Africa also lack the green transport infrastructure that Germany possesses.
Energy mix - South Africa’s energy is primarily based on coal, with one of the dirtiest supplies of energy of any country in the world. Germany by contrast has one of the biggest levels of renewable energy installations in the world.
Lower building efficiency - after internal transport, the next biggest factor is accommodation energy use. Due to the poor energy efficiency of local buildings, this is estimated to be three and a half times worse per person for the South African World Cup than in Germany. This is further exacerbated by the average football fan staying for longer due to the average travelling distances being much greater.

The total of internal carbon emission factors sums to 0.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. This, however, is further dwarfed by the carbon footprint of international travel, which is being predicted to be twice that at 1.9 MtCO2. With greater distances being travelled by most fans (a European-based World Cup is always likely to have the lowest footprint since Europe have the lion’s share of competitors) most of the football World Cup’s carbon footprint is the fault of operations outside of South Africa. This leaves the World Cup with a carbon footprint twice as big as the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

Ultimate responsibility for the carbon footprint of the World Cup should not lie with South Africa, however, which is trying to make up for the environmental damage by furiously purchasing carbon offsets. They are a developing nation with insufficient technologies to present a truly green sporting event. Nor were they obliged to do so either: their bid did not promise an all-inspiring eco-Cup.

The fault lies with FIFA. They chose to award the event to a country incapable of delivering a low-carbon World Cup, in a part of the world which would force most attendees to fly huge distances to attend. If FIFA wants to play it’s part in the fight against climate change - ironically set to wreak the most havoc on the continent which they chose to bless with the World Cup this time around - then they must take environmental concerns into full consideration during the bidding process and hold the success country to account for fulfilling their commitments. It must also encourage a lower dependency upon offsets and focus on low-carbon technologies instead.

By doing so, the World Cup could become a real beacon for change, rather than a symbol of excess.

Image of the football World Cup’s Jules Rimet trophy with the Prime Minister of Thailand by thaigov @ Flickr