Global Sporting Events, their emissions, what’s being done (and does it even matter?) The London Marathon is one of the most sustainable global sporting events. It’s way ahead of the game when it comes to delivering a huge, mass participation event with as little impact as possible. So, in the week after working with the fabulous team at LME to help deliver a conference focussed on the future of sustainable mass participation events, we thought we’d take a look at other global sporting events, and one in particular, Formula 1, and see just how sustainable it is, see what they’re doing to improve and to ask the controversial question: in the grand scheme of things, does it really matter? Let’s start with a general overview: why do sports events have such an impact on the environment? 1. Land Use: The development of stadiums and other facilities can involve the conversion of previously natural environments into concrete wastelands, leading to habitat loss and fragmentation, which directly impacts biodiversity. 2. Stadiums and Facilities: Once the land has been destroyed, the construction and maintenance of stadiums and other sports facilities require vast amounts of resources – not only the eye-popping quantities of steel and concrete used in their construction but land, water, and the energy required to power them. 3. Travel: once the stadiums are built, people have to get there, so travel is a major component of professional sports, with teams, staff, and fans often making long journeys for games and events. This leads to significant carbon emissions from just about every form of transport there is. 4. Waste: All those people generate huge amounts of waste, including food packaging, single-use plastics, and many other disposable items. Proper waste management and recycling practices are getting better but still aren’t fit for purpose. 5. Water: Maintaining sports fields, especially golf courses, and other outdoor facilities requires substantial water usage. For example, the golf courses in Las Vegas use nearly 10% of all the water used in the whole city! 6. Sponsorship and Advertising: Most sports rely on sponsorship – (Pep doesn’t get paid £17m a year from ticket sales alone!) Often this sponsorship is promoting products and brands that may have negative environmental impacts, which causes ‘downstream impact’. Who are the worst offenders? There are the obvious ones, like football, rugby, cricket, the NFL and NBA – all the sports that draw in tens of thousands of fans, many of whom will have travelled sometimes great distances. Then there are the less obvious ones; the minority sports with high ‘per head’ emissions, like golf, water sports (of the motorised kind) and even parachuting! But there’s one sport in particular that always gets a (dis)honourable mention: Formula 1. Formula 1, with 24 races in 21 countries, is estimated to generate 256,000 tonnes of harmful emissions every year. That, at first glance, is a big number. How can it be justified, and what are they doing about it?! It turns out, they’re doing quite a lot: - introducing biofuels has led to emissions from logistics falling by 83% - erecting a solar panel array at races has helped reduce pit lane, paddock and broadcast area emissions by 90% (given the UK weather, probably a bit less at Silverstone!) - 75% of promotional events are now powered by renewable sources - and trials of sustainable fuels are well underway These measures have helped F1 achieve a 3* environmental accreditation. The sport is on track to be net zero by 2030, so for the next 6 years there will be emissions from Formula 1 So let’s put 256,000 tonnes in to perspective: The world as a whole is pumping 40 billion tonnes of CO2e into the atmosphere every year. Now, that’s a big number! So Formula 1’s contribution is, wait for it, 0.0000064% (which is a very, very small number!) Plus Formula 1 entertains 100,000,000 people every race and it contributes massively to local and even national economies so, in the grand scheme of things, do their emissions really matter? Yes! We need to achieve net zero as soon as we can and every major sporting event needs to play their part. One has to applaud the efforts of The London Marathon, Formula 1 and others (Forest Green Rovers, we see and salute you). Let’s hope they inspire (or guilt) other major sports in to action. Over to you, EPL, NFL, NBA et al. We’re watching…

1. ‘Buy Local’: Buying locally sourced products reduces your carbon footprint because of lower transportation emissions. Right? Yes, most of the time that is true. However (there’s always a ‘however’!), in some cases, products sourced locally may have higher production emissions compared to similar products imported from regions with more efficient production methods or climates better suited for farming. 2. ‘Electric Cars are emission free ’: Electric cars, or EVs, are sold on the promise that they’re both cheaper to run and a greener alternative to traditional petrol-powered vehicles. However, the overall carbon footprint of EVs can vary significantly depending on the source of electricity you use for charging it (do you know how renewable your supply is?) and the manufacturing process of your battery. In many cases taking public transportation, and in some cases car-sharing in a regular petrol vehicle may have a lower carbon footprint per passenger-mile than driving an EV. 3. ‘ Reuseable is better than disposable ’: Again, yes. But only ‘mostly’. Reusable products are generally more environmentally friendly than disposable ones. ‘However’ the manufacturing processes of some reusable products can result in higher carbon emissions than the production and ‘chucking away’ of disposable alternatives. The overall carbon footprint depends on things like the materials and the energy required in manufacturing. But, if in doubt, always go for reusable. 4. ‘ Recycling is better than landfill ’: Recycling is the sustainable waste management solution that reduces carbon emissions by diverting materials from landfills and conserving resources. Easy, right? However, the recycling process itself requires energy and may emit pollutants, especially if materials are transported long distances for processing. In some cases, landfilling certain materials with low recycling rates may result in lower overall carbon emissions compared to recycling them. And to add to that, ‘wishcycling’, where you put something into the recycling bin because you think it might be recyclable, can contaminate a whole load of otherwise perfectly recyclable products, leading to it all being landfilled. So don’t do that! If in doubt, check! And if you’re still in doubt, bin it. 5. ‘ Swap meat for plant-based foods ’ ‘Eat Less Meat’ has been drummed into us all for years. There isn’t really an argument against that reducing meat consumption can lower your carbon footprint. But there is still a debate around whether locally raised and grass-fed products may have a lower carbon footprint than heavily processed plant-based foods. The jury can’t reach a unanimous verdict but it’s safe to say that the air-freighted Argentinian ribeye is guilty as hell! Right, got it?!

“How easy is it for you to design & build a low carbon exhibition stand?” “Will it be expensive?” These are two of the questions we’re often asked. And the two answers we always respond with are: “It’s easy” and, “No, it isn’t at all expensive. In fact, it you’re planning on doing more than one exhibition, it will cost you considerably less” As well as working with organisers to help decarbonise their exhibitions, we’ve been designing & building low carbon exhibition stands for clients in the UK and Europe for a few years now. Not only do they give our clients a warm glow knowing that they’re doing their bit for the planet, they’re very (very) economical. Everything is designed to be reused which minimises waste, minimises the carbon footprint and has a similarly minimising effect on the costs. Let’s take a look at each of the fairly standard elements of an exhibition stand: Walls – our ‘go-to’ is modular walling. It’s quick and easy to erect (reducing labour costs), packs away into holdalls (reducing both transport costs and emissions) and, because they’re designed to be used over and over again, the embedded carbon in their production is so spread out that it’s minimal - like the equivalent of a quarter-pounder burger minimal. Graphics – if you steer clear of anything including event names, dates or stand numbers, graphics for modular stands can be used multiple times. And when you need to update them, they’re recyclable - another win for the planet. Furniture – you can buy your own (and store it, maintain it, and have to hump it around from show to show) or you can hire. At first glance, hiring doesn’t appear to be awfully cheap, but once you take out the cost of the initial purchase, the storing, the maintaining and the humping, it’s actually great value. And because that lovely bespoke spray painted counter is used week in and week out the embedded cardon footprint is tiny. Like really tiny. Flooring – these days a lot of expo carpet is either recycled, recyclable, or both. Even so, it’s still really a one-time use product and so it isn’t our first choice. There are alternatives. 100% recycled tiles are a thing. They look great, can be adapted to different stand shapes and sizes, and take minutes to put down. And (there’s a pattern emerging here!) you can use them again, and again. Labour – Modular stands don't need a skilled workforce so you, if you need help, hire locals. You'll cut down on transport emissions (happy planet) and you’ll slash your hotel costs (happy finance department) We wish we could make it sound more complicated - we could probably charge more if we did! But it just isn’t. Low carbon exhibition stands are easy and economical. The only hard bit is making sense of why everyone isn’t doing it…