[ad_1]
As leagues adjusted to the pandemic, they reduced their regular seasons and took drastic steps to reduce travel. NHL teams began meeting consecutively in the same place. The AL East baseball teams only faced divisional rivals and the NL East. The NFL cancelled four international games, including four that were held in London.
The goal was to reduce player exposure to COVID-19. Seth WynesA different benefit was discovered: the environment was helped by the reduction in chartered flights by sports.
Wynes is a Montreal-based geographer who studies climate change mitigation. In a Recent studyHe found that the combined flights of the NHL, NBA, NFL and NFL teams flied 7.5 million km in 2018. This is close to 122,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.
The 2020 experience was both unusual and shocking. Wynes estimates that if the Big Four leagues reintroduced the scheduling changes they made on safety and health grounds, Wynes would reduce their carbon footprint by 22%. This is a significant reduction considering the world is warming and climate catastrophes are likely to become more severe.
Wynes stated that most fans wouldn’t like to see the MLB 2020 season repeat, in which you only get to play teams close by. But if you look at a league during a regular season, they make a lot more trips to (distant regions) than you might be able to afford.
Wynes spoke to theScore to discuss the climate crisis, the opportunities leagues have in combating it, the upside to an NBA midseason tourney, and the reasons why fewer players would benefit. This conversation has been edited to be more concise and clear.
TheScore: What effects do carbon dioxide emitted from flights have on the environment
WynesBecause each flight emits a lot of carbon dioxide, aviation is a vital part of climate change. It releases high levels of pollution into the atmosphere. It is more likely to cause warming than pollution at ground level. It is also difficult to find alternatives. There are great ideas for electric vehicles, and other ways to reduce pollution, but they don’t work as well for air travel. Climate change is a difficult area to address.
You’ve researched air travel in Major League Baseball, the NBA, NHL, and NBA. What amount of carbon dioxide does each league produce when they fly to games during a regular season?
The NBA releases the most. The NHL follows closely. They play many games, including basketball and hockey. Baseball is also a very active sport, with many games. However, scheduling series allows for much less travel. Because the NFL’s season is so short, it produces fewer emissions.
Did you know that 2020 scheduling changes could have an impact on the environment?
This was something I had been thinking about before the pandemic: What can leagues do to reduce climate impacts? Scheduling is one example. These ideas are often conceived by climate experts. What would happen to conferences in the NBA playoffs? While there are good competitive reasons for doing that, if you are a climate person, you might think: That would mean more travel.
This is a very minor thing. The pandemic is a big issue and all these leagues take strong measures to reduce travel. They want to keep their players (and team staff) safe. This makes me wonder if they would be able to reduce their carbon footprint each year, as a climate-conscious person.
Hockey and baseball regionalized their schedules. In 2020, MLB teams would only face opponents in their division and the interleague division that corresponds to it: the AL East and NL East. For division-only play, the NHL was split into four regions. What was the climate effect?
MLB was very aggressive in its pursuit of regionalization. Because of this, their emissions fell by around 20%. The number would be lower if other leagues did a bit less. It’s a fascinating step, but it’s not as sustainable as a normal season. It’s a simple step if you do at least a little bit of it.
The MLB is divided into the American League and the National League. They are not grouped by regions. It’s possible for teams to play more games against other teams. You could keep the American League and the National League, but increase efficiency and reduce emissions.
The NHL followed the example of baseball by holding more consecutive matchups within one city. This might not be possible because fans will get to see a different opponent every night. However, do you think that the NHL and NBA should schedule a greater number of miniseries?
There is a strong argument for this policy. You are saving a lot on travel. Regionalization is simply a shorter trip. You’re reducing trips entirely.
You’re reducing more carbon and your players will get more rest. There will be fewer red-eye flights and time zone changes. This would have a greater effect on player health and performance. Players who aren’t getting enough sleep won’t be able to play as well. They are more likely to be injured. You can cut back on the miniseries. This is something I believe should be explored more thoroughly.
Many players might not have enjoyed 2020 because they were also stuck at hotels. They’re in quarantine when they do miniseries. It’s pretty miserable.
Imagine it happening in 2023. At that point, you’re probably not as concerned about COVID. These players suddenly feel like: Oh, I have a long stay in Los Angeles. I can take a break. We can practice between games. I can go out. You might be able to enjoy yourself rather than thinking, OK, I’m going in L.A., then the next day I’m flying to Utah and then the night after that I’m heading to New York. That’s exhausting.
International leagues can be justified on both a marketing and financial basis. Except for 2020 the NFL visits London each year to grow its fanbase. What climate argument does it have for abandoning international games?
If the NFL eliminated international games, I believe it could reduce their emissions by 8%. It’s a big change that many fans at home wouldn’t care about. You’re trying make these fans happy. I don’t think it would cause too much harm if a game was removed from an overseas country.
There are financial reasons to not do it. So maybe the leagues won’t do it. But, I believe there is a strong argument that the climate emergency really is important. The role of professional sports leagues is to be role models for society. A person who takes a stand like this would show that they care.
That being said, you acknowledged in your study the fact that less than 1% of private aircraft emissions is attributed to Big Four sports travel. Private flight emissions only account for a fraction compared to the global total. What is the value of these leagues reducing flights? What could this mean for the grand scheme of things?
Leadership by example is crucial. It sets an example in business communities and for millions of people. It is also important to me that elite members of society do what they choose. This is what we need to do when we think about the global climate crisis and how to solve it.
If we want to make big changes, it’s hard for us to imagine doing so while the wealthy, even the most well-known, continue to act as though there’s no problem. It’s normal to attend international games and fly on large, luxurious planes. While saying “OK, we’re making these big changes” is something that’s useful, it’s not.
There is one other point that I would like to make. These are some alternatives. sustainable aviation fuelsThey are also quite expensive. Many businesses can’t afford to pay for these credits or upgrade to these fuels. But the aviation industry must switch to this. These fuels are a strong hope for the future, but they are so expensive to test out.
Leagues have lots of money. If they were truly concerned about money, they’d already have implemented these (travel reduction) policies. It is clear that they have some extra cash that could be used for a good cause.
You’re saying that the League emissions make up only a small fraction of global or aviation emissions. So why does it matter? They could be part in accelerating a bigger change by purchasing credits to these cutting-edge technology and helping to kick-start this field. Another area where leagues could have a huge impact is in the field of entrepreneurship.
You mentioned how players could benefit by playing more baseball-style games. When advocating for climate solutions, and trying to get organizations into action with urgency, what is the importance of presenting win/win solutions – ideas that benefit all parties?
It’s a big deal. You might be talking to policy-makers about the possibility of shutting down coal power plants, outside of the NBA. It’s important that you present the facts that closing down coal power stations would be good for the health of residents in your province or state. We are referring to fewer hospital visits, less asthma, and less cancer.
Sometimes, talking about co-benefits can be persuasive rather than talking about climate. It all depends on the audience. If I were to bring this to a player’s union and try to get them on board I would be focusing my attention on the data for: These are the injuries that are hindering your players. These scheduling changes should be supported by you when you negotiate with the league. Maybe negotiations about the length of the season.
The NBA is considering reducing its regular season by four games from 82 to78 and introducing a centralised scheduling system. Midseason tournament. What do you think this idea is from a climate perspective.
It’s a brilliant idea. One thing to be cautious about is that if you only cut a few of the entire season and then introduce a midseason tourney and decide to put it into Seattle, that’s too far from the coast. It’s not the best way to go. There might be a backfire effect, where you increase emissions. It’s safer to cut 10 games out of a season rather than, for example, four. These policies can be complicated and you need to think them through.
Last month, a United Nations expert panel warned of an intensifying climate crisis. The New York TimesIt summarized its report as follows: “A harrowing future in floods, fires, and famines displace millions, species disappear and the planet is irreversibly affected by climate change is a dire situation.” The panel urged countries to take immediate action to reduce their emissions. Is there anything the sports world could do that we haven’t yet covered?
If you think beyond the four major leagues, you can see climate change as an all-hands-on deck situation.
When a tournament is being planned, you might ask yourself: Where are we putting this tournament so that people fly as little as possible? Beyond aviation, you could say: We have people coming from all over (to watch home games). We can talk to the city to find a way for our fans to take public transit. Perhaps the best spots in our parking lot have EV chargers and you must drive an electric car to use them.
There are other ways that you can communicate climate change. You can also be more vocal about it. Owners, players, and others can take a stand and use their social media influence to promote climate action. This is something you see a lot more in Europe. Some (soccer teams) are more inclined to take trains than flights to games. Because winter sports are going to be the first to suffer, they have been strong advocates. Downhill skiing is difficult to envision a future for in a warming climate.
However, I would also add that climate change has already begun to affect the leagues we are referring to. There are games that officials are weighing whether to cancel due to wildfire smoke. LeBron James was forced to evacuate his home in 2019 due to a wildfire.
These wildfires are fueled by climate change, as we know. As the planet warms, we will see more of these wildfires. It’s going be an inevitable issue for sports.
Nick FarisIs a writer for theScore.
[ad_2]
