It is a promise with which the host country applied in 2010. Although Qatar has become so rich because it sells fossil fuels all over the world. And although the emirate had to rebuild almost the entire infrastructure for a World Cup, including seven completely new stadiums, and most of the guests will travel by plane.
Significantly more CO2 emissions than in 2018 in Russia
One point of criticism: According to the emissions report, the total footprint of six completely new stadiums is 200,000 kilotons of CO2. In fact, the construction work caused significantly more CO2 emissions. But since the stadiums are only used for FIFA events for 70 days, the World Cup organizers are only responsible for a fraction of the total emissions.
Stadium construction only partially included
During a discussion in Doha, the sustainability expert on the World Cup Organizing Committee, Talar Sahsuvaroglu, defended this decision:
Sahsuvaroglu: “The stadiums would have been built one way or the other. And that’s why we are convinced to use a part in the estimate, because there are also various plans for subsequent use.”
Reporter: “But let’s be honest – without the World Cup there would not have been a need for so many large stadiums in Qatar. You can see that from the fact that almost all stadiums are to be downsized after the World Cup. So why do you think it is correct not to include these CO2 emissions in the World Cup footprint?”
Sahsuvaroglu: “Because there are so many plans for repurposing the stadiums! They weren’t just built for the World Cup. So I don’t think it would be fair if we had to take full responsibility for it when there are already so many plans.”
In fact, it is often still unclear exactly how the stadiums can continue to be used. Plans are currently being drawn up for the final stadium in Lusail, says the project manager on site. The premises could be used for selling groceries, or for medical practices, maybe even a school. Anything that Qatar could have built without a stadium that could hold 80,000 people.
Another example is Stadium 974, which is to be dismantled after the World Cup and rebuilt in another country at Qatar’s expense. However, even twelve years after the award, it is not clear where the stadium should go now.
However, as with almost all sporting events, most of the emissions are caused by the arrival of the guests. A large proportion will travel to Doha by plane. And Talar Sahsuvaroglu has to admit: When the footprint was calculated, it was not planned that many fans would fly in by shuttle flight from Abu Dhabi or Dubai because there are too few hotels in Qatar.
Emission should be compensated
The footprint of this World Cup could be significantly larger. In order to make the World Cup climate-neutral anyway, FIFA and Qatar want to offset the emissions. “We are committed to low-carbon solutions for the tournament – we offset all remaining emissions, including from travel and accommodation,” said Federico Addiechi, FIFA’s Sustainability Officer, at the Play the Game conference in the summer.
The idea is simple: if CO2 enters the atmosphere at one point, CO2 emissions must be reduced at another point – or CO2 must be taken out of the atmosphere. Companies or associations like FIFA can buy climate certificates for this. The money from this sale can then be used to implement projects that reduce CO2 emissions – for example, to buy solar cookers for refugees in Dafur so that they no longer have to cook with wood.
Certificates for the World Cup questionable
Because Qatar has set up its own program to evaluate CO2 certificates: the Global Carbon Council. FIFA has announced that half of the 3.6 million certificates for the World Cup will be obtained through this program – and not through internationally established standards. But the Global Carbon Council has only approved six projects so far (as of November 14, 2022), for example a wind farm in Serbia or a waterworks in Turkey.
Other international programs no longer allow such projects to be traded, Dufrasne explains: “For the most part, these projects are economically viable. It makes financial sense to build these projects. Buying certificates from such projects therefore makes no difference in terms of emissions .”
No emission reduction through FIFA compensation
The operators are very likely just making more profit with the World Cup certificates without helping the climate. Axel Michaelowa sees it that way too. He is a professor for international climate policy at the University of Zurich and was one of the first to deal scientifically with CO2 certificates worldwide. He tells the Bayrischer Rundfunk research team:
“If FIFA had bought reasonable certificates, there would be an emission reduction. If FIFA buys certificates from non-additional projects, there is no emission reduction. So in that respect it is clear that if FIFA buys these certificates now, the World Cup cannot really claim that it’s CO2 neutral. That’s greenwashing.”
Wind farm in Serbia should not have been approved for certificate trading
It is also remarkable that the managing director of Energy Changes, Clemens Plöchel, sits on the steering committee of the Global Carbon Council. Just like Werner Betzenbichler, who assessed the wind farm in Serbia.
Two members of an important body in the Qatar certificate program are also project developers and appraisers. Axel Michaelowa sees this as “an inadmissible amalgamation of interests.”
Clemens Plöchel replied to this criticism that he abstained from voting on his projects in the steering committee. He also didn’t cheat when calculating the wind power figures for Serbia, but rather had a clear conscience.