Can the next World Cup really be the greenest ever?

Not when you consider how many air miles are notched up flying in a million-plus fans from all corners of the globe.

Or that vast ‘green’ stadiums have been built at the expense of vulnerable ecosystems.

International travel alone accounted for 57% of the carbon footprint at this year’s tournament in Russia.

But even then the greenhouse gas emissions of the 2018 World Cup were 550,000 tonnes lower than the one in Brazil in 2014.

This was despite the Rio one being marketed at the greenest ever, or the Copa Verde, after FIFA invested in solar panels, water conservation and waste reduction.

Before that the South African tournament pumped out a massive 2.7million tons of harmful emissions, 1.8 million tonnes of which was from travel.

The 2010 World Cup on the African Continent and South Africa was the first one after FIFA announced a commitment to environmental issues in the wake of its so-called Green Goal initiative.

There were some successes in South Africa – but the lack of recycling facilities meant that too much waste ended up in landfills.

By contrast, Germany produced eight times’ fewer emissions due to shorter distances, free public transport for fans, free bicycle parking and multiple stadiums using solar power and rainwater collection.

Just as its predecessors have done, Qatar is also promising an environmentally friendly World Cup.

As well as offering a "new concept", a compact World Cup, that will enable spectators to physically attend more than one match in the same day, it is preparing the first "carbon neutral" World Cup in 2022. They plan to do this by offsetting all the harmful emissions which are released into the atmosphere.

But given an estimated 1.5m people are expected to travel to the World Cup 2022, can Qatar really pull off this promise?

And for all the appeal of major sporting events, is FIFA selling us short when it claims to promote environmental conservation?

The cornerstones of greening tournaments like the World Cup include environmental best practice such as minimising waste, energy usage and air and water pollution, socio-economic development, education and awareness, and leaving a positive legacy.

FIFA insists on each event being assessed for the effectiveness of its greening activities before, during and afterwards, so on the surface, there should be no place to hide.

For example, the Brazilian government’s initiative, Agenda for a Sustainable World Cup, saw sustainability as the neutralisation of carbon through the purchase of certificates issued by those who created the emissions.

So the environmental damage associated with the construction of the Arena Pantanal Cuiaba was offset by a reforestation project on the banks of the River Pantanal.

However, the gloomy lessons of history tell us that standards often slip.

Qatar is widely credited with pulling off a minor miracle for its energy-saving cooling technology in stadiums, defeating criticism that players and spectators could not tolerate the nation’s extreme temperatures.

More than 500 jet nozzles will blast out cold air, keeping temperatures at around 23 degrees Celsius (73 F) for everyone inside.

Chilled water is piped to the stadium from a cooling centre a mile away and once it arrives cold air is pushed out into the arena.

Qatar claims this uses 40% less energy than other cooling methods. Other innovations include the showcasing of pavements that generate electricity and seating made out of recycled palm branches.

The eight stadiums are within just a 31-mile radius of the capital, Doha, cutting down on travel time during the 28-day event.

And at the end of the tournament, they have pledged to rebuild them in the developing world.

The tiny Gulf nation is growing 1.2million sq.metres of grass every year – enough to cover 168 football pitches – to make the areas around stadiums more fan-friendly.

Along with 5000 trees (of which there are 56 species) and thousands of shrubs, these are all being cultivated at a nursery farm irrigated by Doha North Sewage Treatment Works, which keeps two 18,000 sq m lagoons topped up.

Qatar’s World Cup organisers, the Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy, proudly trumpets its green credentials on its website.

This includes a list of Sustainability Facts about Qatar 2022 stadiums which include water conservation, energy-efficient LED lights and the demountable stadiums made out of shipping containers which will be donated to developing countries along with 170,000 seats.

The question remains, however, whether they’re able to pull it off. Certainly, there are sceptics who point to FIFA’s carbon-offsetting scheme in Russia. A recent study suggested that only 7% of its emissions reductions were likely to deliver real results.

If Infantino gets his wish to increase the 2022 World Cup from 32 to 48 teams, then he also risks increasing the tournament’s carbon footprint, as extra matches held in other countries will necessitate more air travel by players and fans.

It is not enough to pay lip service to sustainability and conservation. The World Cup remains the most lucrative and costliest football event in the world, with FIFA raking in billions of dollars in revenue every four years.

Construction and preparation for the 2018 World Cup cost £9.4bn for Russia, with most coming from public funding. Brazil spent to build £11.9bn stadiums and transportation.

For FIFA to truly deliver on the promises of its Green Goal project, it is crucial that tournaments factor sustainability into the planning, design and construction of tournaments from the outset, and involve both the private and public sector.

We must all demand total transparency when it comes to measuring the impact of each tournament.

With all its money and laudable goals, there are high hopes for Qatar. Only time will tell, however, if Infantino’s pledge is accurate.

Anthony Harwood is a former Head of News at the Daily Mirror and foreign editor at the Daily Mail