This number has no meaning in and of itself. Until you back out the carbon footprint that would have been generated had everyone been elsewhere doing whatever they would have been doing, you only have one side of the equation. What's the NET additional carbon footprint? Perhaps many of the folks attending this year's Cup would have been utilizing non-HSR transportation anyway and are merely changing where it occurs.
All of the numbers are interesting to look at, but they don't give any sort of accurate picture as to the true carbon footprint "cost" of this cup versus any other major event.
The carbon footprint of this year’s premier sporting event — the FIFA World Cup in South Africa — will be eight times as large as that of Germany 2006, according to a new study.
Specifically, that’s 988,400 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent — and that’s not including the international travel necessary to attend the event. (That figure is an astounding 2,046,539 tons.)
According to a feasibility study (.pdf) prepared by the Norwegian Embassy, here’s how it breaks out:
- International transport 67.4%
- Inter-city transport 17.6%
- Intra-city transport 1.4%
- Stadia constructions and materials 0.6%
- Stadia and precinct energy use 0.5%
- Energy use in accommodation 12.4%
Why so much larger? It’s a question of geography and infrastructure, according to the study.
With regard to inter-city transport, distances between matches in South Africa are much greater than in Germany, and there’s a lack of high speed rail — meaning planes, rather than trains, will be the means of choice.
For intra-city transport, it’s the same problem: travel by passenger car or small buses over long distances is less efficient than the light rail used in Germany.
The folks at EU Infrastructure put it all into perspective in a new infographic, which separates the carbon footprints by mode of transportation and venue location.
The main takeaway? There’s nothing green about visiting Africa.
