By Andrew Mills
DOHA (Reuters) – Climate advocates have cast doubt on Qatar’s efforts to host soccer’s first climate-neutral FIFA World Cup, according to a report released Tuesday.
Organisers in the Gulf Arab state are omitting some emissions from their calculations and will rely on flimsy carbon offsets to reach carbon neutrality, said the report, complied by Carbon Market Watch, an advocacy group.
“The emissions from this World Cup will be considerably higher than expected by the organisers, and the carbon credits being purchased to offset these emissions are unlikely to have a sufficiently positive impact on the climate.” Gilles Dufrasne, the report’s author, said in a press release.
Qatar’s tournament organisers dismissed the conclusions as speculative, saying emissions will be calculated using “best-in practice” methods after the tournament ends to ensure they are based on actual activities.
Unavoidable emissions “will be offset through investing in internationally recognized and certified carbon credits…(which) should be recognised, rather than criticised,” a spokesperson for the tournament organisers, the Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacay, said in a statement.
Qatar, the world’s largest producer of natural gas, pledged to host a carbon neutral tournament when it bid for the event more than eleven years ago.
Since then, organisers have highlighted the tournament’s carbon limiting efforts, such as introducing solar-powered stadium air conditioning, building a reusable stadium from shipping containers and the fact that fans won’t need to fly from one match to the next in tiny Qatar.
But Carbon Market Watch’s report cast doubt on several initiatives, like a large-scale grass farm that Qatar, which has negligable water resources, has built in the desert to produce stadium-ready turf. (https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/qatars-world-cup-turf-needs-chilled-stadiums-desalinated-water-thrive-2022-02-21)
“The claim that this will absorb CO2 emissions from the atmosphere and contribute to reducing the impact of the event is not credible as this carbon storage is unlikely to be permanent in these artificial and vulnerable green spaces,” the report says.
(Reporting and writing by Andrew Mills; Editing by David Gregorio)
