Climate Change Denial

Notice: start_wp is deprecated since version 1.5.0! Use new WordPress Loop instead. in /var/www/html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 3839

December 8, 2010


George Marshall @ 7:09 pm

Guest blogger, Terence Blacker decries the ‘Ozymandian’ stupidity of holding the 2022 World Cup in air conditioned stadiums in Qatar, one of the world’s hottest  countries and FIFA’s feeble greenwashing of its stupendously destructive choice of host country.

If the delegates currently attending the global climate conference in Mexico need any reminding of the magnitude of their task in the face of human stupidity and hubris, they do not have far to look. At another meeting of a distinguished international body, the decision has been made to hold the most needlessly energy-wasting sporting event that the planet has ever seen.

As a symbol of the confusion and hypocrisy which surrounds the questions of climate change and energy conservation, the Qatar World Cup of 2022 will surely take some beating.

Qatar is not only one of the hottest countries in the world, but, as was announced last week, football’s greatest tournament is to be held during its high summer in June and July, when temperatures are between 40 and 50 degrees centigrade. Any kind of outdoor activity is impossible, so that, unless you are an immigrant worker (40 Nepalese construction workers died from the heat over six months in 2006), you will need to be inside.

Qatar may be small but, when it comes to profligate use of energy, it punches well above its weight. According to the recently published Living Planet Index, its per capita consumption of the world’s energy resources is higher than that of any other country, with the exception of the United Arab Emirates. Oil and gas usage in Qatar increased by 310 per cent between 1999 and 2009.

The response to these dubious claims to fame from international football’s ruling body, Fifa, has been to invite Qatar to go on a massive energy binge. Twelve new stadia will be built. There will be training grounds. The infrastructure to support an influx of between one and two million fans will be created. The venues will all be air-conditioned, reducing the outside temperature of 40 degrees to 27 degrees, even when the roof is open to the sun. Spectators will enjoy cool air projected from the back and neck of every seat. Similar facilities will be supplied to training grounds and, one assumes, to the buildings where visitors will spend their time when football is not being played. In fact, most of the country will have to be air-conditioned.

Then, when it is over, the stadia will be dismantled and shipped to different parts of the world where they will be re-erected. The true hypocrisy here lies not in the sheer idiocy of this organised spree of wastefulness, but in the way it is presented. A month-long, air-conditioned World Cup is, we are told, good for the planet. The Qataris, knowing that there is no fool like a green-washed fool, included in their plans the promise to use photovoltaic panels, situated in the desert, to power the stadium’s cooling systems. These will be carbon-neutral venues, it is claimed.

To put it mildly, these plans have caused surprise among scientists. Air-conditioning famously requires a vast amount of energy, even in temperate climates. The idea that solar energy can power cooling systems in a number of large stadia, reducing the temperatures from 40 degrees to 27, would seem to belong in the realm of dreams.

There are other niggling little problems. Air-conditioning units do not only use an inordinate amount of energy. They emit greenhouse gases – HFCs – which are incomparably more powerful than carbon dioxide. Then there is the small question of the construction process. The stadia are built. They are air-conditioned for a month, and then taken down, shipped across the world and re-erected. What happens to the millions of solar panels sitting out in the desert remains unexplained.

A perfect, tragic example of man’s arrogant belief that he can build his way out of trouble – save energy by accelerating his use of it – the Qatar World Cup is the global equivalent of someone leaving all the lights and heating appliances blazing away in a house, and claiming to be green because there is a wind turbine on the roof.

It is a mad Ozymandian desert folly. In Mexico, they should look on the works of Fifa, and despair.

Terence Blacker is an author, critic, social commentator and tree planter. He writes a twice weekly column for The Independent

This article was originally published in The Independent link and has been reproduced with the permission of Terence Blacker.


George Marshall adds- I wrote a piece for Climate Denial back in 2006 (see Football Pants) observing that the declaration that the 2006 World Cup in Germany would be ‘carbon neutral’ conveniently ignored the thousands of tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted by people flying to attend. I suggested that, like addicts, FIFA had a remarkable capacity to create self serving definitions of their own problem behaviour.

The same criticism can be made of this event but, try as hard as I can, I can’t find any metaphor that adequately describes how insane this new ‘green’ World Cup seems seems at a time when scientists  are confirming that their worst case climate predictions  may have been too low. So what next, the world ski championships in Brunei (which, let’s not forget, has the world’s largest indoor ski slope)?

I must admit that I got a slight wry smile when  found that the company installing the solar panels is Albert Speer & Partner founded by the son of Hitler’s favourite architect. I fear that you have to look at Papa Speer’s plans to flatten Berln to build a vast capital for the Nazi empire to find hubris on a similar scale.


A further comment: according to a FIFA consultant’s report, the total carbon footprint for the 2010 World Cup came to 2,753,250 tons of CO2 equivalent, an eight-fold increase over the previous World Cup in Germany. As noted above, the vast majority of this was due to air travel. So the footprint of a ‘green’ sporting event exceeds the entire emissions of many small developing countries  including Burundi, Congo, Djibouti,  Mauritius, Bhutan Bahamas,  Grenada and Guyana.

Notice: Theme without comments.php is deprecated since version 3.0.0 with no alternative available. Please include a comments.php template in your theme. in /var/www/html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 3970


  1. Fishmarket says:

    Having lived in the Middle East until recently I am well aware that destructive lifestyles syndrome is alive and well and second only to that of the USA.

    Air conditioned stadiums are ‘de rigueur’in a state like Qatar along with vast shopping malls and the worlds third largest indoor ski-slope is in Dubai.

  2. Mark Brown says:

    Ironically enough I took a little cold comfort (pun intended) from how the BBC waxed lyrical about the low-carbon nature of the cooling systems. There was actual cynicism in their reported words when they told us the Qataris claimed they would be “carbon-neutral”. It was a sign of how far our social landscapes have changed that the BBC should think it perfectly natural that their audience would be intensely curious about how to air-condition football stadia in a low-carbon fashion. I would hardly have expected such a News report twenty years ago. “Carbon-neutrality” maybe on the tip of every football fans’ tongues but we are still a long way from facing up to the absurdity of holding a massive football event outside in such a hot country. I can only assume that the Qataris will replant most of the Amazon as an attempt to “neutralise” the emissions? Anyone wish to hazarad a guess as to how many trees they would have to plant to do this and how much it would cost? Maybe such a technical report should be forwarded to FIFA? Or maybe we are just “poor losers” as the head of FIFA so arrogantly told us this week? Exasperation.

  3. opit says:

    Perhaps their objectives are simpler. I can think of no more effective example they could make of flagrant waste ; and if you think of people who used $100 notes to light cigars back in the Roaring 20’s to ‘get a reaction’ then I don’t see any essential difference.

  4. Meme Mine says:

    Warning! A denier’s (former believer) response the terms mentioned. Please post my opinion, please?

    “Distancing – defining climate change as far away, in the future or someone else’s problem.”
    -That’s why the “crisis” hides in faraway places like mountains, deep in the seas and jungles at both poles of the planet.

    “Compartmentalizing – finding ways to resolve the dissonance between highly polluting personal behaviour and knowledge of its impacts.”
    -Or in other words; “Ug ug. Cave man see strange thing. Cave man put out fire and sacrifice oneself to please the angry weather gods. Ug ug.

    “Positive Framing – how we seek to turn climate change into a personal advantage.”
    -That’s easy, we could just as easily be in the real killer environment, Nature’s “ice ages”. Our effect on climate flutcuation and varitaion is like farting in a tornado and 5 billion years of evoluton of the powers of the cosmos and 25 years of wrong IPCC predictions proves it.

    “Ethical Offsets – how we adopt the easiest behaviours as proof of our virtue.”
    -So if we just do less, buy less, consume less and BE less, the planet will be like in an indoor shopping mall. And “We must be having SOME effect on the plant.”…… not science. It’s superstition.

    “Cynicism- the commercial appropriation of climate change images.”
    How cynical can a real planet lover be about taxing the air we breathe with corporate run CARBONT TRADING MARKETS ruled by politicians.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

0.124 seconds | Valid XHTML & CSS | Powered by Wordpress | Site Design: Matthew Carroll