Compared to industry or transportation, sport’s contribution to climate change is rather small, says environmental researcher Roger Pielke from the University of Boulder, Colorado. The risk of greenwashing in sport is therefore high, he says. Because the climate actions of the sports organizations would have a rather small impact on climate change.
That is dangerous, because these actions could blur the view of what is really important. And according to Pielke, these are new technologies and, above all, political action.
This does not mean that sport should interfere in political decisions. However, sport can use its reach to provide information about really effective measures. “People should be made aware of where the greatest returns lie. That’s where sports organizations face geopolitics,” says Pielke.
Read the full interview here
Maximilian Rieger: Mr. Pielke, what influence does sport actually have on the climate?
Roger Pielke: When we talk about climate change, which is real and a big problem, our instinct is to say we need all hands on deck. Everyone has to contribute. And the role of sport is interesting. Because sport takes up a lot of space in our thinking and our attention.
But the reality is: Sport is only a very small part of the world economy. Sport is not like industry, like transportation, like agriculture. If you do the math and look at the emissions from sport, the first thing people see is: oh wow, that’s pretty low by global standards!
When sports organizations then say we want to reduce our carbon footprint, we want to contribute to sustainability – that’s all well and good, but the danger of greenwashing is very great. So the idea that while they say very nice things, the impact is very small.
Pielke: “I am very concerned about greenwashing”
Riders: But if you look at the soccer World Cup in Qatar, for example. The carbon footprint from this event was larger than the annual footprint of 68 countries, and that’s FIFA’s conservative calculation. So these events are certainly not the only and most important culprit, but they do play a role, don’t they?
Pielke: Yes, of course, every small step helps. But what this statistic says: There are a lot of small countries in this world. And there are many countries with a small carbon footprint because there is no industry, because there is no access to electricity, which are poor. So that’s more of a statement about global development than FIFA or Qatar.
You can also look at it this way: There are many infrastructure projects in the world, including stadiums. people travel. Travel accounts for 1.5 percent of emissions every day. But let’s just say we’re getting rid of professional sport. World Championships, Olympics, professional leagues. Mass sport, let’s get rid of that too. And then we wake up tomorrow. The climate problem would be exactly the same as it is today.
So it’s a mixed message. Yes, of course we need everyone on board. But we need an influence on politics that brings the greatest benefit. If we want to slow climate change, then we should focus on the steps that will have the greatest impact, not those that are most visible or that feel good.
That’s why I’m very concerned about greenwashing, because greenwashing distracts us from decisions that have a much bigger impact but maybe aren’t as sexy as talking about the World Cup or the Olympics, for example.
“Compensation payments are greenwashing”
Riders: What is greenwashing for you and how could sports organizations get seriously involved in the fight against climate change?
Pielke: Compensation payments are a good example of greenwashing. For example, when people travel, they see it. You can press a button, pay 15 euros and it says you have offset your CO2 emissions. This is greenwashing because it makes us feel like we’ve done something, but most studies show that offsetting is not a path towards a decarbonized economy. So this is an example.
And then when sports organizations say: oh, we are carbon neutral and you look at the fine print and it says they paid someone in Indonesia to plant a tree – then it’s more of an accounting issue and nothing, what really affects the world. My concern about greenwashing is: We feel like we’ve done something, but nothing happened out there in the real world.
Let’s talk about the mega events, world championships, olympic games taking place in different places. There is much debate about the legacy of these Mega Events. And that’s where it gets very complicated very quickly.
And it’s important to understand that the impact of exercise isn’t just limited to carbon dioxide. For example, if a new metro is built to survive the event – then the impact on local people and sustainability could be much bigger than just counting CO2 molecules.
“The climate crisis will be solved by technologies”
Pielke: Well, there’s a big debate in the environmental community about how individual lifestyle choices can actually affect climate. The statistic I think is important to understand is that there are approximately three billion people worldwide who do not have access to electricity to the extent that you and I have in Europe and North America, but who are working hard to get access.
And I always tell my students: If it feels right, then do it. But do the math and understand that our individual choices in developed countries will not matter in the future. The reality is: people love sports, they like to travel, they like to go to soccer games on weekends and they take the train, plane or car to do it.
Changing the behavior of large numbers of people – trying. But in reality the CO2 problem will be solved by technology. Technologies, how we produce energy, i.e. wind, solar, nuclear power, geothermal energy and how we use energy. These changes are easier to influence than changing the lifestyles of billions of people.
Riders: Can sports associations promote this change?
Pielke: The first thing sports governing bodies should do is understand the magnitude of the problem and what changes will make a difference. Sports organizations will not say: We want to host fewer games. The DFB will not simply cancel the DFB Cup because of the climate. FIFA is talking about hosting more World Cups.
So sport will continue and sport organizations will not work against their interests – and that means getting people into the stadiums and in front of the television, getting people excited about sport. Women’s sport is growing right now, the attention will double, which is a great thing and good for the sport.
So sports governing bodies need to understand that there are decisions that can make a difference. One of the biggest steps would be to stop burning coal for energy. People should be made aware of where the greatest yield lies. This is where sports organizations face geopolitics.
Coal consumption is falling in Europe and North America, which is great. But in India and China it continues to rise. So if sports organizations pointed out how big the carbon footprint of coal-fired power plants is, suddenly different parts of the world would react differently.
It is therefore very simple and politically safer to say: It depends on individual actions. But sports organizations are a bit bold with this because it doesn’t have the greatest effect.
Pielke: UEFA should make a table on the exit from coal
Riders: Then let’s take UEFA as an example. In your opinion, should UEFA say to the German government before EURO 2024: You have to get out of the coal faster?
Pielke: Well, there’s a difference between advocating for certain policy choices and educating consumers. One of the things that UEFA could do would be simply to publish and publicize the status of the coal phase-out in each UEFA country. You can make a table out of it! Without saying that we like Poland’s politics better than France’s.
Nuclear power is another example, highly controversial in some parts of the world but with great reduction potential. As soon as a sports organization dares to tackle political issues – we saw that in the Ukraine war – it becomes very political and people take sides. Climate change is not a simple problem. Because it is about energy and energy is deeply intertwined with the global economy.
So sports organizations first have to do some research and then think about how they want to position themselves. My advice would be: First, make sure you’re not making the problems worse. Then you can tackle the problems. And the starting point would be: sensible people have different perspectives on how best to decarbonize. And that’s okay! Sports organizations can help people understand this complexity.
Riders: Where are the sports organizations at – are they smart enough?
Pielke: I think there’s been a rush to appear to be the greenest – not just in sports. Where being green is more of a marketing tool than politics or education. You know, my university advertises how green their football stadium is – and I’m a little cynical about that. It’s more about showing off your own values than actually promoting CO2 reduction, which is really important.
I would like to see sports organizations approach these things a little more seriously and politically, and less from a marketing perspective. Because it can be confusing for people. If people think: oh, I’ll just offset my cheap flight from London to Portugal for a UEFA game and I’ve solved climate change – it’s not like that at all.