Euro2020: football's carbon footprint?

[Christophe]

Coincidence of my question? EURO2020 is particularly a generator of CO2 because it is the first time that it has been done in so many countries and stadiums ... 11 or 12 I believe ... according to the "knowing" press ...

But this only shocks mediocre journalists and analysts who want to give pseudo ecological lessons without knowing what they are causing since the movement of the players is not much compared to that of the spectators as we have just said!

In 2018 it was in 2 or 3 it seems to me?

[Obamot]

And BLAM!

Switzerland leaving France 5 - 4

Not good for Macron!

[Christophe]

But it's good for the euro's carbon footprint !!

[Rajqawee]

It's a bit stupid to go and calculate the carbon footprint of something that will be valued by millions of people. The simple fact that the euro is followed by a large part of the world means that the balance sheet should be attributed, in part, to each of them. Largely "profitable" therefore, compared to many other activities.

As often, what is very collective is also very efficient, reduced to the head of the pipe.

[Christophe]

Why do you think I said that the defeat of France was a good thing for the carbon footprint of EURO2020? You can turn it around: there are fewer beer-drinking supporters in Switzerland than in France ...

If you had read the study above on F1, you wouldn't speak of stupidity since most of the carbon in an F1 GP is from ... spectators ... so I imagine that for football it's the same.

Largely profitable? Based on what? Your conviction or numbers?

Do you include the construction of stadiums and their maintenance in your reasoning?

Because the construction of a stadium should not be pretty nice carbon footprint level ... for what? A few hundred hours of use per year?

[Obamot]

It's a bit stupid to go and calculate the carbon footprint of something that will be valued by millions of people. The simple fact that the euro is followed by a large part of the world means that the balance sheet should be attributed, in part, to each of them. Largely "profitable" therefore, compared to many other activities.

As often, what is very collective is also very efficient, reduced to the head of the pipe.

What is stupid is this habit of shooting the ambulance!

[Rajqawee]

Why do you think I said that the defeat of France was a good thing for the carbon footprint of EURO2020? You can turn it around: there are fewer beer-drinking supporters in Switzerland than in France ...

If you had read the study above on F1, you wouldn't speak of stupidity since most of the carbon in an F1 GP is from ... spectators ... so I imagine that for football it's the same.

Largely profitable? Based on what? Your conviction or numbers?

Do you include the construction of stadiums and their maintenance in your reasoning?

Because the construction of a stadium should not be pretty nice carbon footprint level ... for what? A few hundred hours of use per year?

What I want to tell you is that:
-it is not for you (or anyone, alone) to decide whether a particular construction or activity is useful or not. It is above all society that decides, and as far as football is concerned, the opinion has been widely given. People want football.
-making the calculation is impossible since it is necessary to get out of the simplistic reasoning "number of hours used per year". If you attribute every hour of every spectator and viewer to the depreciation of any famous football equipment, you divide by an absolutely huge number. And that's the right thing to do: after all, why shouldn't we make the most of Jean-Michel's hour of entertainment on his sofa?
-the construction of anything is not "pretty-pretty" carbon level. The advantage over football is that it benefits a huge population. This is not the case for activities which are more "pretty", but which affect very few people.

I don't watch football (I don't have TV!) And I don't particularly like this sport. But if we start to take stock of an event valued by millions of people, in my opinion other events such as small festivals, village festivals, the construction of the Trou-en-galet football field, they will shoot the face.

[Rajqawee]

So I read the study on F1.

Well, if we take the 8400 T of CO² emitted, and divide by the number of spectators (only ...) which is 65 (figure from the study), that makes ... oh my god 000T of CO² per spectator! That is to say the equivalent of 0,12 terminals traveled by car ... It puts a little perspective anyway.

And there, we did not even count the viewers, who however also benefit from the event. And this is considering that the utility is only for spectators, not runners or teams (which is wrong).

In short, it does not seem to me so disproportionate at all.

[Christophe]

It's a bit stupid to go and calculate the carbon footprint of something that will be valued by millions of people. The simple fact that the euro is followed by a large part of the world means that the balance sheet should be attributed, in part, to each of them. Largely "profitable" therefore, compared to many other activities.

As often, what is very collective is also very efficient, reduced to the head of the pipe.

What is stupid is this habit of shooting the ambulance!

Absolutely ... but hey he must already be annoyed by the slap that the bruises took last night ...

His desire to reduce the CO2 impact of football certainly betrays a passion for this activity ... Am I wrong Raj?

[Rajqawee]

It's a bit stupid to go and calculate the carbon footprint of something that will be valued by millions of people. The simple fact that the euro is followed by a large part of the world means that the balance sheet should be attributed, in part, to each of them. Largely "profitable" therefore, compared to many other activities.

As often, what is very collective is also very efficient, reduced to the head of the pipe.

What is stupid is this habit of shooting the ambulance!

Absolutely ... but hey he must already be annoyed by the slap that the bruises took last night ...

His desire to reduce the CO2 impact of football certainly betrays a passion for this activity ... Am I wrong Raj?

Missed! Nothing to square with football, even mediated sport in general

It's just that calculating production costs or whatever is my job. So when I see "oulah, but it costs a lot such and such a thing, so it's not good", I bristle.
It would be like saying "my god, look at the carbon footprint of building a road! Horrible!" Yeah. But if the road is used by millions of travelers, it is monstrously less polluting per unit of use (kilometer traveled, for example) than the 20m of asphalt in your driveway for the house.