‘Greenwashing’ mars Qatar’s carbon-neutral World Cup promise

Hosting a football World Cup tournament may be good for fans, players and sponsors, but it’s rarely good for the planet. The 2022 World Cup due to start on November 20 in Qatar has already received bad publicity over migrant rights issues. Now, environmentalists are criticising the competition over its devastating evironmental impact.

With its recently built air-conditioned stadiums and 150 daily flights to bring in fans, the 2022 World Cup has been slammed as one of the biggest environmental fiascos in the competition’s history.  

In January 2020, Qatar promised to make the 2022 tournament the first “carbon neutral” World Cup. In September of that year, the organising committee detailed a roadmap to meet the challenge. “Our goal is to offset all greenhouse gas emissions while advancing low-carbon solutions in Qatar and the region. A carbon-neutral tournament is delivered through a four-step process : awareness, measurement, reduction and offsetting,” said the committee in a statement.

Organisers planned to use large quantities of renewable energy and environmentally responsible materials, as well as adopt carbon offsetting measures. The World Cup in Qatar “will change the way future FIFA World Cup competitions and other sporting mega-events are organised,” the statement added.

“This promise of carbon neutrality is absolutely not credible,” said Gilles Dufrasne, lead author of the Carbon Market Watch report published in May 2022 examining Qatar’s claims. “This is a blatant example of greenwashing.”

In June 2021, a FIFA report indicated that the 2022 World Cup would produce up to 3.6m tonnes of carbon dioxide. By comparison, France releases about 4.2m tonnes per year. The 2018 World Cup in Russia generated 2.1m tonnes of CO2. “It’s inherent in this type of competition which brings together fans from all over the world in one place. As things stand, a football World Cup cannot be green. Despite our efforts, the environmental impact will still be significant,” said Dufrasne. “In my opinion, this is the real problem. Although it is high time we take this reality into account when organising the next World Cup, FIFA would rather launch a greenwashing campaign.” 

‘In the heart of the desert, every human gesture has an impact’

The vast majority of CO2 emissions related to the World Cup are generated by transport and infrastructure construction. When the event was awarded in 2010, Qatar’s main argument was that it could limit travel by organising a centralised competition concentrated around one airport and in one city, Doha. 

Over the past decade, Qatar has tried to focus on reducing emissions through a number of green initiatives. While this gas-rich state ranks first in the world in terms of CO2 emissions per capita – they reached 32.5 metric tonnes in 2019, according to the World Bank – it has notably announced a gigantic solar plan designed to cover 10% of its energy needs and the widespread use of electric cars by 2030.  

Its efforts have culminated in the showcase Msheireb eco-district, which is located in the centre of Doha and is one of the World Cup’s biggest construction sites. Solar panels shine on the roofs of the buildings, all accessible by tram. In the middle of the hotels, shops and housing, planted trees and small bodies of water cool the atmosphere. 

Jonathan Piron, historian and author of the book “Qatar, le Pays des Possédants: du Désert à la Coupe du Monde“, says that while these initiatives should be welcomed, they are still not enough to compensate for the damage being done to the planet. “We must not forget Qatar’s geographical characteristics. In this country in the middle of the desert, every human gesture has a greater impact on the environment than elsewhere,” said Piron.  

“First of all, the country is not at all autonomous when it comes to accessing raw materials. For each building constructed, many materials had to be imported by plane,” he continued. “For example, installing solar panels is very good. But you have to build them and then recycle them when they reach the end of their life. In a climate like this, they deteriorate more quickly. Has this been taken into account?” 

The historian feels the turf on which the players will meet from November 20 perfectly illustrates this problem. “No matter how hard FIFA tried to meet the standards, hundreds of tonnes of grass seed had to be flown in from the US in air-conditioned planes. The country is short of water, so they had to be grown using desalinated seawater — a process that consumes a lot of energy and is very disruptive to the ecosystem,” he said.

In total, each of the eight stadiums built for the World Cup requires 10,000 litres of desalinated water per day in winter and 50,000 litres in summer, according to a Reuters survey. 

“When we talk about the environmental impact, we need to not just consider the month when the teams and the public will be there. All the pollution generated over the past 10 years to host the event also counts,” he said. 

Reusing infrastructure: ‘What will it become?’

At the heart of the problem is the matter of reusing infrastructure built for the occasion. “For whom is the Msheireb eco-district intended? What will it become after the World Cup? Will it house expatriates? If so, are we sure it will have takers?” asked Piron. In other words, is the pollution generated worth the cost? 

The same question pertains to the new stadiums. According to Carbon Market Watch, the carbon footprint of their construction may have been underestimated by a factor of eight. It is estimated that 1.6m tonnes of CO2 will be emitted instead of the 0.2m tonnes claimed by FIFA and Qatari authorities.  

“Doha believes that the carbon footprint of their construction should be divided by their 60-year lifespan, ensuring that they will be used again,” said Dufrasne. “But for the moment, the authorities are still being very vague about what they are going to do with them. And in this country of only 2.4 million inhabitants, we think there is a real risk that they will only be used occasionally.” 

Qatar has said these stadiums will be used to host the Asian Football Cup in the summer of 2023. Six of them will then be dedicated to public use for schools, hotels and clubs. The seventh will be completely dismantled. “This stadium also raises many questions. It is supposed to be dismountable and transportable, so that it can be used in future competitions around the world. At the moment, we have absolutely no information about where it might be used again. We also know that it is more expensive when it comes to CO2 emissions… If it has to be transported thousands of kilometres to its next destination, then the planet will certainly suffer for it,” said Dufrasne. 

The air-conditioning of these stadiums has also been a major controversy. But Dufrasne notes that, “in reality, it produces relatively low total emission levels, although it would obviously be better if stadiums were not air-conditioned at all”.

Air travel is the final source of pollution that has disrupted carbon-neutral plans. While organisers had hoped to limit internal travel during the month of the competition, spectators will be constantly flying back and forth from neighbouring countries. More than 150 daily return flights have already been announced. 

Carbon offsetting 

To keep their promise of carbon neutrality, FIFA and Qatar say they will offset all their greenhouse gas emissions by buying carbon credits, which means supporting CO2 reduction and sequestration programmes around the world. But Dufrasne notes that just weeks ahead of the opening, “we’re a long way from achieving this”.  One credit corresponds to one tonne of CO2. Qatar must therefore buy 3.6 million credits. To date, it has only bought 200,000. 

“For the moment, these credits are unlikely to have a positive impact on the climate”, he continued. “Not least because they are financing projects that had little need for them.”

One of the projects involves developing renewable energy in Turkey, “an economically viable project that would have seen the light of day with or without Qatar’s help,” said Dufrasne. 

“Not to mention the fact that, although international carbon offset organisations already exist, the World Cup decided to create its own programme,” he continued. “This raises a real question of transparency and credibility.” 

Beyond that, the carbon offset system itself is open to debate. “Financing good actions elsewhere in the world does not repair the damage we do,” said Piron. “Once again, this is a typical example of greenwashing.” 

This is an adaptation of the original in French.