Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Culture

A Climate Hero — and a Climate Laggard — Are Hosting the World Cup

New Zealand and Australia are at two very different stages in the energy transition.

A soccer player amid clean energy.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

I’ll drop any notion of journalistic objectivity for a moment: I would really, really like to see the United States win the Women’s World Cup.

Abby Wambach’s miracle goal in 2011, Carli Lloyd’s 2015 hat trick in the final, and Megan Rapinoe’s dominant 2019 tournament are all ineffable memories in my journey of soccer fandom. This year, as Alyssa Thompson, Sophia Smith, and Trinity Rodman take the baton for a new generation, I’ll be watching the tournament intently as it takes place in New Zealand and Australia.

But it’s also not lost on me that major sporting events like this are also often major emitting events. While all 10 host stadiums are LEED or Green Star certified (no new stadiums were purpose-built for the tournament), these tournaments are a test of every piece of a country’s infrastructure — and a barometer for nearly every element of their respective energy transition. Stadiums need electricity to keep floodlights on and beer refrigerators cold; fans fly from around the world for the tournament; cities construct new stadiums or retrofit old ones; countless tchotchkes are produced; and public transit systems snap into high gear.

Hosting the World Cup completely sustainably is probably impossible right now, in spite of what FIFA falsely claimed about its tournament in Qatar last fall, according to Swiss regulators. What this World Cup does offer, though, is a case study in two very different stages of paths towards decarbonization.

Get one great climate story in your inbox everyday:

* indicates required
  • Earlier this month, my colleague Robinson Meyer made a point about the diminishing marginal returns towards the end of the energy transition. As challenging as it is to get shovels in the ground, incentivizing new solar arrays and wind farms is in some ways easier than solving wicked problems: Cross-country travel, transitioning heavy duty vehicles away from fossil fuels, catalyzing a clean steel industry.

    New Zealand is in the enviable — and somewhat unusual — position of starting its work on decarbonization in the world of wicked problems.

    World Cups have had sustainably powered hosts before — France (Women’s World Cup 2019) boasts a nearly decarbonized grid in large part due to nuclear, and Canada’s electricity is primarily powered by hydropower and nuclear. Other hosts have had more mixed climate impacts. The 2014 host Brazil has an electricity sector dominated by hydropower, but it also built a brand new stadium in the middle of the rainforest that was effectively abandoned the moment the tournament ended.

    New Zealand can make a case as one of the most climate-friendly hosts of a World Cup ever. (This requires a key caveat from the outset: You need to consider hydropower an environmentally friendly renewable. Right now, most people in the energy world do — though researchers have raised questions about methane emissions from reservoirs and the broader impacts of disrupting an ecosystem.)

    The country’s electricity sector is overwhelmingly supplied by hydropower. Renewables in total generated 81% of the country’s electricity in 2021. Hydropower has made up a significant piece of New Zealand’s electric generation for more than a century — and while installing new facilities requires significant investment, the cost of generation itself is low. By one analysis, “business as usual” would still mean that 98% of the country’s generation will come from renewables by 2030, in large part driven by wind and solar.

    The country has also made significant climate pledges, albeit ones that have raised questions about their enforcement — including an emissions budget for 2022-2025 and net zero by 2050 (excluding biogenic methane). And its carbon credits have spurred the transformation of farmland to forestry.

    That leaves questions about energy and other emissions that most other countries have yet to act on. Watching a game in New Zealand is a reminder of the questions that remain: How can fans get between host cities without flights? How fast can the country kick its reliance on fossil fuels for heating and industry? And perhaps most importantly, how can New Zealand slash emissions from its extensive agriculture sector — especially when levying a tax on methane emissions from cows has proven a third rail among farmers?

    Still, if New Zealand has moved to the most challenging part of decarbonization, Australia is at the outset of its process — the easy part, in some ways. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has expressed the goal of the country becoming a “renewable energy superpower,” but that process is just starting.

    The country has made some progress: 29% of electricity generation came from renewables in 2021, largely driven by solar and wind, better than the United States’ 21% but a far cry from New Zealand, much less France. Australia, thanks to friendly government policy, easy permitting and speedy grid connections, has also enjoyed a particularly robust deployment of rooftop solar. And recently, the country established its own emission reduction commitments (43% by 2030) that leave room for more action in later years — their most recent try at comprehensive climate policy, following the passage and repeal of a carbon tax in the 2010s.

    Australia, though, does not only rely on fossil fuels: It is also the world’s second-largest producer of coal, significantly ahead of any other country save for Indonesia. Coal dominates their energy use, with oil and natural gas making up the other major sources. And while Australia has signaled that they will transition away rapidly from coal, that transition could prove bumpy for both the grid and workers.

    While New Zealand is a climate leader with caveats to sort out, games hosted in Australia will take place in a country that has fallen well behind its neighbor and most other high-income countries in addressing climate change. On the other hand, Sam Kerr is likely to be so dominant that fans will have little time to think about anything else.

    Practically, what does this mean for the World Cup? In truth: Not much. As long as the lights stay on and the TV cameras work, we almost certainly won’t hear about the electric grid — and given that it’s winter in the southern hemisphere, the topic of climate change might not come up at all save for player-led activism. But as tournaments take place, they’ll offer a chance to check in on a given host country’s decarbonization efforts.

    The next World Cup after this? The 2026 men’s tournament — in Mexico, Canada, and the United States.

    Read more about climate and sports:

    Home Runs Are One Way Climate Change Affects Baseball. Here Are 11 More.

    __

    Green

    You’re out of free articles.

    Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
    To continue reading
    Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
    or
    Please enter an email address
    By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
    AM Briefing

    The Rare Earth Shopping Spree

    On aluminum smelting, Korean nuclear, and a geoengineering database

    Mining.
    Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

    Current conditions: Winter Storm Fern may have caused up to $115 billion in economic losses and triggered the longest stretch of subzero temperatures in New York City’s history • Temperatures across the American South plunged up to 30 degrees Fahrenheit below historical averages • South Africa’s Northern Cape is roasting in temperatures as high as 104 degrees.


    Keep reading...Show less
    Green
    Energy

    The Grid Survived The Storm. Now Comes The Cold.

    With historic lows projected for the next two weeks — and more snow potentially on the way — the big strain may be yet to come.

    Storm effects.
    Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

    Winter Storm Fern made the final stand of its 2,300-mile arc across the United States on Monday as it finished dumping 17 inches of “light, fluffy” snow over parts of Maine. In its wake, the storm has left hundreds of thousands without power, killed more than a dozen people, and driven temperatures to historic lows.

    The grid largely held up over the weekend, but the bigger challenge may still be to come. That’s because prolonged low temperatures are forecasted across much of the country this week and next, piling strain onto heating and electricity systems already operating at or close to their limits.

    Keep reading...Show less
    Blue
    AM Briefing

    White Out

    On deep-sea mining, New York nuclear, and kestrel symbiosis

    Icy power lines.
    Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

    Current conditions: Winter Storm Fern buried broad swaths of the country, from Oklahoma City to Boston • Intense flooding in Zimbabwe and Mozambique have killed more than 100 people • South Australia’s heat wave is raging on, raising temperatures as high as 113 degrees Fahrenheit.


    THE TOP FIVE

    1. America’s big snow storm buckles the grid, leaving 1 million without power

    The United States’ aging grid infrastructure faces a test every time the weather intensifies, whether that’s heat domes, hurricanes, or snow storms. The good news is that pipeline winterization efforts that followed the deadly blackouts in 2021’s Winter Storm Uri made some progress in keeping everything running in the cold. The bad news is that nearly a million American households still lost power amid the storm. Tennessee, Mississippi, and Louisiana were the worst hit, with hundreds of thousands of households left in the dark, according to live data on the Power Outage tracker website. Georgia and Texas followed close behind, with roughly 75,000 customers facing blackouts. Kentucky had the next-most outages, with more than 50,000 households disconnected from the grid, followed by South Carolina, West Virginia, North Carolina, Virginia, and Alabama. Given the prevalence of electric heating in the typically-warmer Southeast, the outages risked leaving the blackout region without heat. Gas wasn’t entirely reliable, however. The deep freeze in Texas halted operations at roughly 10% of the Gulf Coast’s petrochemical facilities and refineries, Bloomberg reported.

    Keep reading...Show less
    Blue