management and introducing more environment-friendly transport systems.

However, even the most ambitious measures to green the World Cup would only impact the emissions from the use of the stadiums and precincts, which in total account for only some 6 per cent of the entire domestic footprint estimated at 850,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (all GHGs expressed as a common metric in relation to their warming potential)—and that is not even including international air travel, estimated to reach 1.4 million tonnes.

So offsetting all emissions and achieving full climate neutrality is not going to be cheap. Cost projections for offsetting the domestic footprint alone are between US$6.8 million and US$12 million, while offsetting international travel could be double that.

“Use the opportunity, when hosting events like this, to educate the broader public on the significance of achieving climate neutrality.”

—Jenitha Badul, Greening the 2010 FIFA World Cup team

The official coordinating the climate neutral commitment for the 2010 World Cup, Jenitha Badul, is frank about the challenges she has faced. “The most significant challenge has been the lack of availability of funds to offset the 2010 carbon footprint,” said Badul. “This has been despite the attempt to mobilize the key stakeholders, donors, sponsors and corporate sector.”

Badul argues that a commitment to climate neutrality can be seen as a process of improvement, rather than necessarily a goal to be absolutely achieved. “Your footprint cannot be determined 100 per cent, so climate neutrality can never be achieved totally, but can be worked towards,” she adds. “The most important lesson here is never to give up. Ensure planning well in advance and secure political buy-in. Environment needs to be equally prioritized at every step of planning and implementation.”

44

Badul has a final piece of advice to others considering carbon neutrality for a major event: “Use the opportunity, when hosting events like this, to drive the communication and awareness aspects as well as educating the broader public on the significance of achieving climate neutrality.”

Another Climate Neutral Network member is the Norwegian Golf Federation. Norway’s third-largest sports association, it has made a commitment to remain climate neutral from 2009.

Golf is criticized for its environmental impact in many parts of the world, for using large quantities of water and chemicals to produce aesthetically-pleasing links. But Ole Martin Lilleby of the Norwegian Golf Federation (NGF) says the game in Norway keeps its impact as low as possible. “In Norway, things are well regulated through legislation,” says Lilleby. “Water is not a limiting factor for us, and we can only use a few pesticides. We feel that we do a lot of things in a good way, but we can always be better.”

average European individual emits about 12 tonnes a year), and this is being offset through purchase of emission reduction certificates through the Clean Development Mechanism.

As well as seeking emission reductions from, for example, transport and electricity consumption, the Golf Federation is seeking to integrate their courses with the biodiversity of the countryside in which they are set—at Oppegaard Golf Club, for example, an ecological management plan has been drawn up.

“One challenge is to create a good certification system dealing with the environmental aspects of running a golf course,” says Lilleby. “We have applied to the Ministry of Culture for a financial contribution to develop a certification for sports federations in Norway.”

The NGF has gone through the standard procedure of climate neutrality—deciding on the commitment, measuring emissions, reducing them as far as possible, and offsetting those emissions you can’t avoid. The Federation had a relatively modest footprint of 324 tonnes of CO2

for 2008 (the