"The 2026 World Cup is not only the most politically combustible tournament in modern history, but it is also on track to be the most polluting World Cup ever, with total greenhouse gas emissions hitting nearly two times the historical average. Scientists conservatively project that the tournament will generate around 9m tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Air travel comprises approximately 7.7m tons of this carbon budget, and more than four times that of the average for tournaments held between 2010 and 2022. The researchers note that the worst-case upper estimate for air transport is about 13.7m tons of CO2."
"Much of this can be chalked up to Fifa own goals. It chose to increase the number of participating teams to 48, up from 32 at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. It also selected three host countries Canada, Mexico and the US that encompass a massive geographical expanse. Even if the US train system wasn't in relative shambles, the distances that many fans need to travel make less carbon-intensive forms of transportation impractical."
"Some may point out that the 2026 World Cup's estimated 9m tons of CO2 pales in comparison to the 5.9 billion tons of CO2 that the US spewed into the air in 2025 alone. While that is true, it's equally true that to passively allow Fifa to willfully trash the enviro"
The 2026 World Cup faces major political controversy alongside significant climate impacts. Total greenhouse-gas emissions are projected to reach nearly two times the historical average. Scientists estimate the tournament will generate around 9 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Air travel accounts for about 7.7 million tons, exceeding the typical air-travel emissions of tournaments from 2010 to 2022 by more than four times. A worst-case upper estimate for air transport is about 13.7 million tons of CO2. The emissions outlook is worsened by FIFA decisions to expand the tournament to 48 teams and to host it across Canada, Mexico, and the United States, where long travel distances make lower-carbon options difficult.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]