The World’s Biggest Game Is Coming
Every four years, the world stops to watch football. Billions of fans tune in, millions travel, and for a few glorious weeks the sport unites people across language, culture, and geography in ways almost nothing else can.
The 2026 FIFA World Cup is set to be the most ambitious tournament in the history of the sport. For the first time ever, 48 national teams will compete across 16 host cities in three countries: the United States, Canada, and Mexico. From Atlanta to Toronto, from Guadalajara to New York, the tournament will span an entire continent and draw an estimated five to six million visitors.
That scale is extraordinary. It is also an invitation.
When an event this large takes shape, its environmental footprint grows alongside it. More teams mean more matches. More host cities mean more travel. More fans mean more flights, more hotel stays, more food, and more waste. But scale also means influence, and that is exactly where the opportunity lies.
The 2026 World Cup arrives at a moment when awareness of climate responsibility is higher than it has ever been. Fans, sponsors, cities, and governing bodies are increasingly asking: how do we celebrate something we love while taking better care of the planet we share? The good news is that the answer is not about sacrifice. It is about small, intentional choices made by millions of people acting together.
This article breaks down the environmental footprint of the tournament, explains what FIFA and host cities are doing to reduce it, and offers practical ways for every fan to participate in something bigger than the beautiful game itself.
What Is the Environmental Impact of the 2026 FIFA World Cup?
Quick Answer: The 2026 FIFA World Cup will generate greenhouse gas emissions through international and domestic air travel, ground transportation, hotel stays, stadium operations, food and beverage consumption, and event logistics. Fan travel, especially long-haul flights, typically represents the largest share of a major sporting event’s total carbon footprint.
A tournament the size of the World Cup generates emissions across nearly every category of human activity. Understanding where those emissions come from is the first step toward reducing them.
The primary sources of World Cup emissions include:
- International flights: Fans traveling from Europe, Asia, South America, Africa, and beyond generate significant aviation emissions. Long-haul flights are among the most carbon-intensive activities an individual can undertake.
- Domestic flights: With 16 host cities spread across three countries, fans attending multiple matches will likely fly between venues within North America.
- Ground transportation: Rental cars, taxis, rideshares, and buses connecting airports to stadiums and hotels all add to the overall footprint.
- Hotel stays: Millions of nights of lodging consume electricity, water, and heating and cooling energy at scale.
- Stadium operations: Lighting, cooling, sound systems, and food service at each venue require significant energy.
- Food and beverage: Catering at scale, with meat-heavy menus and single-use packaging, contributes both direct emissions and substantial waste.
- Event logistics: Equipment transport, broadcasting infrastructure, and official travel all factor in.
No single estimate exists yet for the 2026 tournament’s total footprint, but context from past events is instructive. FIFA’s own sustainability reports acknowledge that major tournaments generate hundreds of thousands to millions of metric tons of CO2-equivalent emissions when fan travel is included. The 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar drew considerable scrutiny for its construction-related emissions and for the long-haul flights required to reach a single Middle Eastern host nation.
The 2026 tournament’s multi-country, multi-city format presents different challenges and, importantly, different opportunities.
Why Sports Matter in the Fight Against Climate Change
Quick Answer: Global sporting events like the World Cup reach billions of people and have a unique power to inspire behavior change at scale. That makes them one of the most important platforms for communicating and normalizing climate-conscious choices.
Sport occupies a rare space in public life. It commands attention from people who may not read policy papers, follow environmental news, or consider themselves particularly engaged with climate issues. A single World Cup final draws a television audience measured in the hundreds of millions. That kind of reach is genuinely extraordinary.
The United Nations Sports for Climate Action Framework, launched in 2018, recognizes this explicitly. The framework calls on sports organizations to use their platforms to raise awareness, reduce their own emissions, and inspire broader action among fans and communities. As of 2024, more than 300 sports organizations have signed on, including national football associations and major leagues across multiple disciplines.
When sports organizations commit to climate action, they do not just reduce their own footprint. They send a signal to fans, sponsors, broadcasters, and host cities that sustainability is a shared priority. When a stadium installs solar panels, it normalizes renewable energy. When a league actively promotes public transit, it makes that choice feel obvious rather than inconvenient. When a tournament takes accountability for its unavoidable emissions, it shows that responsibility is possible even at enormous scale.
The 2026 World Cup has the potential to reach more people with that message than almost any other platform on earth.

Why Transportation Is the Largest Source of Emissions
Quick Answer: Transportation, especially aviation, typically accounts for the majority of a major sporting event’s total carbon footprint. It involves millions of individuals making high-emission journeys that are genuinely difficult to avoid or replace with lower-carbon alternatives today.
When sustainability researchers analyze the footprint of a mega sporting event, one category consistently dominates: how people get there.
Aviation is among the most carbon-intensive modes of travel per mile. A single round-trip transatlantic flight, say from London to New York, generates roughly 1 to 1.5 metric tons of CO2-equivalent per passenger depending on the aircraft, seat class, and routing. For a fan flying from Buenos Aires or Tokyo, that figure climbs considerably higher.
The 2026 World Cup will draw fans from every continent. Many will travel internationally. Some will attend matches in multiple cities and need additional domestic flights between venues. Ground transportation adds further emissions once fans arrive at each destination.
Hotels come in as the second major source. With millions of visitors needing accommodation across dozens of cities over several weeks, the aggregate energy consumption of lodging is substantial.
This concentration of travel-related emissions is why transportation is the category most often targeted by sustainability strategies at major events. It is also the area where individual fan choices can have the most meaningful real-world impact.
Existing Stadiums Help Reduce Environmental Impact
Quick Answer: Most 2026 World Cup venues are existing stadiums, which significantly reduces the construction-related emissions that have contributed to the environmental footprint of past tournaments.
One of the most meaningful and often underappreciated sustainability advantages of the 2026 World Cup is the decision to use venues that are largely already built.
Stadium construction is enormously carbon-intensive. Concrete, steel, and the energy required to assemble them at scale contribute millions of metric tons of emissions before a single match is played. Using existing infrastructure eliminates that category of impact from the outset.
Many 2026 host venues, including AT&T Stadium in Arlington, MetLife Stadium in New Jersey, Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, and SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles, are large, established facilities with existing transportation connections, utilities, and operational infrastructure. Similar existing stadiums anchor the schedule in Canada and Mexico.
Host cities are also using the tournament as an opportunity to invest in improvements that will benefit communities long after the final whistle:
- Public transit expansions: Several host cities are upgrading rail and bus infrastructure to handle increased tournament traffic. Those improvements will remain useful to residents for decades.
- Renewable energy integration: Some venues are increasing their use of solar, wind, and other clean energy sources in preparation for the event.
- Waste diversion programs: Enhanced composting, recycling, and single-use plastic reduction efforts are being built into venue operations.
- Water conservation: Stadiums in drier climates are adopting more efficient irrigation and water management systems.
None of this erases the footprint of the event entirely. But it does mean the 2026 World Cup is starting from a more sustainable foundation than tournaments that required massive new construction.

FIFA’s Sustainability Strategy
Quick Answer: FIFA has developed a Sustainability and Human Rights Strategy that includes environmental commitments around emissions reduction, responsible sourcing, and legacy planning for host communities. Independent oversight and third-party verification remain important to ensuring those commitments translate into real outcomes.
FIFA’s approach to sustainability has evolved meaningfully over the past decade. The organization’s current Sustainability and Human Rights Strategy covers several interconnected areas.
On the environmental side, FIFA has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions across its operations, promoting sustainable venue management, and encouraging host nations to integrate sustainability into their planning. The strategy also addresses responsible procurement, supply chain transparency, and waste reduction.
Legacy planning sits at the center of the framework. FIFA works with host cities and nations to ensure that infrastructure investments, community programs, and environmental improvements outlast the tournament itself. The goal is that hosting the World Cup leaves communities measurably better off, with improved transit, upgraded facilities, and stronger environmental standards.
It is worth noting that large international sports organizations operate under significant public scrutiny, and sustainability commitments are most meaningful when supported by independent verification and transparent reporting. Fans and stakeholders are right to ask for accountability alongside ambition.
For the full details of FIFA’s approach, readers can consult the official FIFA Sustainability and Human Rights Strategy and the associated FIFA World Cup 26 sustainability documentation.
How Fans Can Reduce Their Carbon Footprint
Quick Answer: Fans attending or following the 2026 World Cup can reduce their environmental impact by choosing lower-carbon transportation, staying in sustainable accommodations, reducing waste at venues, and offsetting unavoidable emissions through verified carbon offset programs.
The most powerful lever in World Cup sustainability is not a stadium design or a transit system. It is the combined weight of millions of individual choices made by fans who care.
Here is a practical guide to making yours count:
Getting There
- Choose direct flights when possible. Takeoffs and landings are the most fuel-intensive parts of any flight, so fewer of them means less fuel burned.
- Consider train travel for shorter distances between host cities, particularly in the U.S. Northeast corridor or within Mexico.
- Use public transit from the airport to your hotel and to the stadium. Most host cities have rail and bus connections to venues, and several are expanding those networks specifically for the tournament.
- If you need to rent a car, opt for an electric or hybrid vehicle.
- Share rides with other fans when driving is unavoidable.
At the Hotel
- Book accommodations that have earned recognized green certifications. Look for LEED, Green Key, or similar credentials as a starting point.
- Reuse towels and linens, take shorter showers, and turn off lights and air conditioning when you leave the room.
- Choose hotels within walking or transit distance of the stadium rather than driving in from farther away.
At the Match
- Bring a reusable water bottle. Many venues will have refill stations available.
- Choose plant-based food options when they are available. Food production is a meaningful contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, and the menu choices of millions of fans add up.
- Use the designated recycling and composting bins at the venue.
- Skip single-use plastics wherever an alternative is offered.
Supporting Local Communities
- Eat at locally owned restaurants rather than large international chains. This keeps economic benefits inside the host community and typically means shorter, less emissions-heavy food supply chains.
- Buy souvenirs from local artisans and makers.
- Be a thoughtful guest in every host city you visit.
Offsetting What You Cannot Eliminate
- Calculate your travel emissions using the Terrapass Carbon Footprint Calculator and balance the portion of your footprint you could not reduce by purchasing carbon credits that support verified climate projects.
What Are Carbon Credits?
Quick Answer: Climate projects are basically carbon reduction factories. They generate one carbon credit every time they reduce or remove one metric ton of CO2-equivalent (CO2e) greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere. Individuals and organizations can compensate for their own emissions by purchasing an equivalent amount of carbon credits that fund projects for reducing CO2e.
Carbon offsetting works by balancing the emissions generated in one place with emissions reduced by climate projects somewhere else. When you purchase a carbon credit, you are funding projects that restore and protect nature, accelerate decarbonization, and remove carbon from the atmosphere.
Common types of carbon projects include:
- Forestry and land conservation: Protecting and restoring forests that would otherwise be logged prevents the release of the carbon stored in trees and soil.
- Renewable energy: Projects that build wind, solar, or small hydro capacity in regions that would otherwise rely on coal or other fossil fuels.
- Methane capture: Methane is known as a climate super-pollutant. Capturing methane from landfills, orphaned oil wells, or agricultural operations prevents a particularly potent greenhouse gas from reaching the atmosphere.
- Regenerative agriculture: Farming practices that sequester carbon in soil while improving overall ecosystem health.
Not all carbon credits are created equal, and that distinction matters. High-integrity carbon credits are generated by projects that operate on carbon credit registries like the American Carbon Registry, Climate Action Reserve, Verra, and the Gold Standard which have been approved by the Integrity Council for Voluntary Carbon Markets (ICVCM) for rigorous governance, tracking, transparency, and no double-counting. All carbon credits from these projects go through independent third-party verification to ensure that the emissions reductions claimed by a project are real, measurable, additional (meaning they would not have happened without the carbon credit funding), and permanent.
Carbon offsetting works best as a complement to emission reductions, not a substitute for them. The goal is always to reduce first, then offset what cannot be avoided. You can learn more in the Terrapass Guide to Carbon Credits.
Why Carbon Offsetting Make Sense for World Cup Travel
Quick Answer: Many of the emissions generated by World Cup travel, particularly long-haul international flights, cannot currently be eliminated with available technology. Carbon offsetting give fans a practical way to take responsibility for those unavoidable emissions while supporting verified climate projects around the world.
Aviation remains one of the most difficult sectors to decarbonize. Sustainable aviation fuel exists and is growing, but it currently accounts for a small fraction of global fuel supply and comes at a significant price premium. Electric long-haul aircraft are still years away from commercial viability. For most fans, flying to the World Cup means generating emissions that cannot yet be avoided through any other realistic means.
This is precisely the situation carbon offsetting is designed to address.
By calculating the emissions from your flights, hotel stays, and ground transportation, you can take meaningful financial responsibility for that footprint today, while the world works toward the technologies and systems that will eventually make low-carbon travel universally accessible.
Terrapass makes this process straightforward. The company has been helping individuals and businesses calculate and offset their carbon footprints for more than 20 years, funding verified projects in forestry, renewable energy, methane capture, and other categories. For fans planning to attend the 2026 World Cup, the Terrapass Flight Carbon Calculator provides a clear estimate of travel emissions and purchasing personal carbon offsets takes only a few minutes.
This is not about guilt or restriction. It is about celebrating the sport you love while acknowledging that our choices have consequences, and then actually doing something about it.

The Lasting Legacy of Sustainable Sporting Events
Quick Answer: When sporting events invest in sustainability, the benefits extend well beyond the tournament itself. Infrastructure improvements, cleaner energy systems, stronger transit networks, and community investments all create lasting value for host cities and the people who live in them.
The 2026 World Cup will end. The infrastructure, habits, and standards it helps establish will not.
Host cities that expand their public transit systems for the tournament will keep those systems running after the last match. Stadiums that invest in renewable energy and efficient operations will benefit from lower costs and reduced emissions for years. Communities that build composting and waste diversion programs during the event have the framework to sustain them long afterward.
This is what legacy planning means in practical sustainability terms. The most successful sporting events do not just minimize harm. They leave behind something genuinely valuable.
The tournament also has the potential to accelerate the normalization of sustainable behavior among millions of fans. When people experience public transit that actually works, venues that make recycling easy, and hotels that back up their environmental commitments with real action, those experiences reshape expectations. Fans carry those expectations home with them and apply them to their daily lives.
Climate action at scale is not driven only by policy. It is driven by cultural change, by enough people deciding that this is simply how things are done now. A World Cup can contribute to that shift in ways that are hard to quantify but easy to recognize when you see them.
Sustainable Travel Checklist
Use this as your personal guide for the 2026 World Cup:
Before You Go
- Calculate your travel emissions using the Terrapass Carbon Footprint Calculator
- Purchase verified carbon offsets for your flights and other travel
- Book accommodations with recognized green certifications
- Research public transit options at each host city you plan to visit
- Pack a reusable water bottle, travel mug, and shopping bag
Getting There
- Choose direct flights to reduce fuel burn from multiple takeoffs and landings
- Consider train travel for shorter routes between host cities
- Use public transit from the airport rather than renting a car
- If renting, select an electric or hybrid vehicle
During the Tournament
- Use public transit or walk to the stadium
- Fill your reusable bottle at stadium refill stations
- Sort waste into the correct recycling and composting bins
- Explore plant-based food options at the venue
- Eat at locally owned restaurants
- Buy local souvenirs to support host community economies
- Respect local environmental regulations and natural spaces
When You Get Home
- Share your experience and the sustainable choices you made with friends and family
- Keep the habits you built during the tournament going
- Consider a home energy audit or a renewable energy subscription
Did You Know? Sustainability Facts Worth Sharing
Fact 1: The United Nations Sports for Climate Action Framework has more than 300 signatories from the global sports community, including leagues, clubs, national associations, and event organizers all committed to reducing sports-related emissions.
Fact 2: Reusing existing stadiums avoids the construction-related carbon emissions that have been one of the most criticized aspects of past World Cups and Olympic Games. Building a new stadium can generate hundreds of thousands of metric tons of CO2-equivalent before a single match is played.
Fact 3: A single round-trip transatlantic flight can generate roughly as much CO2-equivalent per passenger as several months of average home energy use, which is why aviation is such an important focus for anyone thinking seriously about their personal carbon footprint.
Fact 4: Verified carbon projects often generate benefits beyond emissions reductions, including biodiversity protection, community employment, cleaner water, and improved public health in project communities.
Fact 5: The 2026 FIFA World Cup will be the first ever to feature 48 teams, meaning the number of matches and participating nations will be larger than at any previous tournament in the sport’s history.
Fact 6: Plant-based food options generate significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions per serving than beef or lamb on average, making menu choices at stadiums a surprisingly meaningful sustainability decision when multiplied across millions of meals.
Fact 7: Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) allow individuals and businesses to match their electricity consumption with verified renewable energy generation, making it possible to support clean energy even when your local grid still relies on fossil fuels.

Every Goal Counts On and Off the Field
The 2026 FIFA World Cup is going to be extraordinary. Forty-eight teams. Sixteen cities. Three countries. The greatest players in the world are competing for the most coveted prize in sport. Billions of people watching.
It is also a moment.
Moments like this are rare. Occasions when the whole world is paying attention at the same time, when shared experience opens the door to shared action. The players on the pitch will give everything for 90 minutes. Fans in the stands and at home can give something too.
Not perfection. Not sacrifice. Just intention.
Choosing a direct flight. Riding the subway to the stadium. Filling a reusable bottle. Eating a plant-based meal. Staying somewhere that has earned its green credentials. Offsetting the emissions from your journey before you even board the plane.
None of these things are dramatic on its own. Together, across millions of fans in 2026, they add up to something significant.
Terrapass has spent more than 20 years making it easy for people to take genuine responsibility for their carbon footprint. Whether you are attending matches in person, hosting viewing parties, or following the tournament from afar, there are meaningful ways to reduce your impact and offset what you cannot yet eliminate.
Calculate your World Cup travel footprint and offset your emissions at Terrapass.com.
The world is watching. Let’s make this one count.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the environmental impact of the FIFA World Cup?
The FIFA World Cup generates greenhouse gas emissions across several categories: international and domestic air travel, ground transportation, hotel stays, stadium operations, food service, and event logistics. Fan travel, particularly long-haul flights, typically represents the largest share of total emissions for a sporting event at this scale. The 2026 tournament spans three countries and 16 host cities, making transportation planning especially important for fans who want to minimize their footprint. While exact projections for 2026 are not yet finalized, past tournaments have generated hundreds of thousands of metric tons of CO2-equivalent.
Why does air travel create so many emissions?
Aircraft burn large quantities of jet fuel during flights, releasing CO2 and other climate-warming compounds. Unlike ground vehicles, which can be electrified relatively quickly, long-haul aircraft have very few low-carbon alternatives available on a commercial scale today. Sustainable aviation fuel exists but currently makes up a small fraction of global supply. A single round-trip transatlantic flight can generate roughly 1 to 1.5 metric tons of CO2-equivalent per passenger, comparable to several months of home energy use. Flying in a higher class or on older, less fuel-efficient aircraft increases emissions further.
Are existing stadiums better for the environment?
Generally speaking, yes. Constructing a new stadium requires enormous quantities of concrete, steel, and other materials, all of which carry substantial embedded carbon emissions. Using existing venues avoids those construction-related emissions entirely. The 2026 World Cup benefits significantly from this approach, as most venues, including major NFL and MLS stadiums across the U.S., are already built and operational. This does not eliminate the event’s footprint, but it removes one of the most carbon-intensive categories that has drawn criticism at past tournaments and Olympic Games.
How can I travel more sustainably to the World Cup?
Sustainable travel starts before you leave home. Choose direct flights when possible, since takeoffs and landings are the most fuel-intensive phases of any flight. Use public transit from airports to hotels and stadiums rather than renting a car. If a car is necessary, choose an electric or hybrid option. Book accommodations with recognized environmental certifications. Pack reusable bags, bottles, and utensils. And calculate your unavoidable travel emissions with the Terrapass Flight Carbon Calculator so you can offset them through a verified program before you depart.
What are carbon credits?
Carbon credits are verified units representing the reduction or removal of one metric ton of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions. When you purchase carbon credits, you fund projects that prevent greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere, such as protecting forests, building renewable energy capacity, or capturing methane from landfills. High-integrity carbon credits are independently verified under recognized standards organizations, ensuring the emissions reductions claimed are real, measurable, additional, and permanent. Carbon credits work best when used to compensate for emissions that cannot currently be eliminated, not as a substitute for actually reducing your footprint.
Should I offset my flight?
If you are flying to attend the 2026 World Cup, offsetting your flight emissions is one of the most practical and immediate steps available to you. Aviation is among the most carbon-intensive activities most individuals engage in, and the technology to eliminate those emissions on a commercial scale does not yet exist. By calculating your flight’s emissions and purchasing verified carbon credits, you take direct financial responsibility for that footprint and fund climate projects that make a measurable difference. It is not a perfect solution, but meaningful steps taken by millions of people are how real progress gets made. Use the Terrapass Flight Carbon Calculator to get started.
How can fans reduce their carbon footprint at the World Cup?
Fans can reduce their carbon footprint through choices made at every stage of the trip: flying direct, using public transit, staying in sustainable hotels, bringing reusable water bottles, choosing plant-based food options at the venue, sorting waste properly, supporting local businesses, and offsetting unavoidable travel emissions before departure. No single action eliminates a fan’s footprint entirely, but the combined effect of millions of fans making better choices produces a meaningful reduction across the tournament as a whole. The single most impactful individual action is almost always reducing transportation emissions, particularly from flying. Explore personal carbon offset options at Terrapass to cover what you cannot eliminate.
What is sustainable tourism?
Sustainable tourism means travel that minimizes negative environmental and social impacts while contributing positively to host communities. In practice, it means choosing lower-carbon transportation, supporting locally owned businesses, respecting natural environments and local cultures, reducing waste, conserving water and energy, and taking responsibility for unavoidable emissions through verified offset programs. For World Cup fans, it means being a thoughtful guest in each host city, recognizing that the places and communities welcoming the tournament deserve real respect, and that travel itself can be conducted in ways that leave a lighter footprint.
What is FIFA doing to reduce environmental impacts at the 2026 World Cup?
FIFA’s Sustainability and Human Rights Strategy includes environmental commitments around emissions reduction, responsible procurement, sustainable venue management, waste diversion, and legacy planning. For the 2026 tournament, FIFA is working with host associations in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to incorporate sustainability requirements into venue operations, transportation planning, and community investment. The decision to use largely existing stadiums is itself a significant sustainability choice. Independent stakeholders and advocacy organizations continue to monitor FIFA’s progress against its stated commitments, and transparent reporting will be essential to evaluating the actual outcomes. More details are available at FIFA’s official sustainability pages.
Can sporting events be sustainable?
Mega sporting events cannot be carbon neutral in any simple sense. They involve too much travel, too much energy, and too much logistical complexity. But they can be substantially more sustainable than a business-as-usual approach, and they can generate lasting positive legacies in host communities. The goal is not perfection but meaningful reduction, honest accounting, and genuine investment in the infrastructure and behaviors that make lower-carbon futures possible. The 2026 World Cup has real opportunities in all three categories. Whether those opportunities are fully realized depends on the choices made by FIFA, host cities, sponsors, and the fans themselves.
How can businesses support climate action around the World Cup?
Businesses can use the 2026 World Cup as an occasion to assess and reduce their own operational carbon footprints, offset emissions from employee travel and corporate hospitality, engage customers and partners in sustainability initiatives, and support climate projects through verified carbon programs. Sponsoring or hosting sustainable events, choosing suppliers with credible environmental commitments, and publishing transparent emissions data are all meaningful steps. For companies with significant travel or event-related footprints, working with an established carbon management partner to measure, reduce, and offset those emissions is a practical place to start. Terrapass offers business carbon offset programs and Renewable Energy Certificates to help organizations take concrete action.
Links Reference
Terrapass Internal Links (live throughout article)
- Carbon Footprint Calculator
- Flight Carbon Calculator
- Personal Carbon Offsets
- Business Carbon Offsets
- Renewable Energy Certificates
- Carbon Credit Guide
External Sources
- FIFA World Cup 26 Sustainability Documentation
- FIFA Sustainability
- UN Sports for Climate Action Framework
- United Nations Environment Programme
- IPCC
- American Carbon Registry
- Climate Action Reserve
- Verra / Verified Carbon Standard
- Gold Standard
The post 2026 FIFA World Cup Carbon Footprint: A Sustainability Guide appeared first on Terrapass.
Carbon Footprint
Unlike A.I., climate change’s existential threat is not hypothetical. It is killing people now.”
Leah Stokes, professor of environmental politics at U-C, Santa Barbara, in New York Times, The Big Threat Has Been Climate Change. Now Comes A.I., Sept. 22.
Carbon Footprint
Why I’m Pro-Nuke Now: Beginning
I composed this essay over much of 2026, as I was writing Beyond Vogtle — my detailed study (co-authored with James Boucher) of U.S. nuclear costs from the 1980s post-Three Mile Island reactors to the Vogtle 3 and 4 units completed earlier in this decade. It traces my journey from nuclear power doubter to proponent.
My story is both general and personal: what was changing in the wide world of nuclear power, energy policy and climate; and how I viewed those changes. I hope this mode of story-telling resonates with a wide audience and also provide a backdrop to “Beyond Vogtle.”
It’s in three parts.
Detail from 1979 rally poster. Full poster appears below.
The first installment begins at the big Washington rally called to mark the Three Mile Island reactor accident, and covers the recession of nuclear dread, the advent of virtually always-on reactor operation, and nuclear’s status as the least carbon-emitting energy supply technology.
Installment #2 begins with the failure (to date) of carbon tax advocacy — “A Climate Cure No One Wanted” — and continues with the closure of Indian Point and the concurrent slow dissolve of my dream that renewable energy could do it all.
The third and final installment begins with a slight detour in which I contrast the appalling human damage from automobility with nuclear power’s increasingly remote dangers, and then return to energy policy with a fresh way to regard nuclear power’s potential contribution to decarbonizing U.S. grids.
Thank for reading. Enjoy. And be sure to look at Beyond Vogtle: What History Tells Us About the Cost of New Nuclear (yes, that’s the full title).
— C.K.
* * * * * * * * *
I’m pro-nuclear power. Big time.
I don’t just want the U.S. to keep running its 95 extant reactors. I want us to build more. Lots more. Hundreds.
I’m not alone. Public opinion is shifting toward nuclear power. But I came to that conclusion after spending years arguing the other side. From the mid-1970s to the late 1980s, I published a raft of critical analyses that got a good deal of public attention ― and even some traction within the nuclear industry itself. My core argument was that the cost of building nuclear plants was rising much faster than the costs of competing sources of energy. The main driver, I said, was a cascade of safety-requirement changes triggered by widespread fears of reactor accidents.
Here’s the full poster.
That work earned me a speaking spot at the massive May 6, 1979 rally in Washington demanding a halt to reactor construction in the wake of the March 28 meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. In the weeks before the rally, my research was cited in hundreds of news stories. At the Capitol, I stood alongside consumer advocate Ralph Nader, the leading figure in the U.S. antinuke movement; actress Jane Fonda, whose new film, “The China Syndrome,” had eerily foretold the Three Mile Island meltdown; and folk-rock icon Jackson Browne. I told the cheering throng that nuclear power was finished.
Cost overruns and canceled reactor projects were putting billions of dollars on the line, and I spent much of the next decade in courtrooms all over the country, explaining patiently to utility regulators why investors, not customers, should bear those losses. I eventually moved on to other public policy work, sparking big-city bicycling and helping bring congestion pricing to New York. But I kept watching nuclear power and the broader energy landscape. Over time, what I saw led me to turn from skeptic to supporter. Here’s why, in eight parts.
1. Fear and Dread Recede
Ask 100 random people today what “TMI” means, and at least 90 will say “Too Much Information.” Maybe one will mention the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island.
That’s a real shift.
The 1970s were commercial nuclear power’s first decade, and the Three Mile Island accident brought it to a terrifying close. Sixty hours into the slow-unfolding crisis, as fears grew that a “hydrogen bubble” in the reactor might explode and rupture the containment dome, CBS Evening News anchor Walter Cronkite captured the nation’s dread: “The world has never known a day quite like today. It faced the considerable uncertainties and dangers of the worst nuclear power plant accident of the atomic age. And the horror tonight is that it could get much worse.”[1]
The stricken reactor was eventually stabilized. But a combination of soaring costs and public apprehension brought an end to nuclear power’s rapid expansion in the United States.
Cronkite’s warning was about Three Mile Island itself, but it seemed to foreshadow more disasters to come. Yet since 1979, the U.S. nuclear industry has accumulated nearly 20 times as much reactor operating experience as it had built up in its entire history before the meltdown, without a sequel.[2] Like the dog that didn’t bark, this quiet fadeout of reactor calamities is an overlooked shift ― and it is prompting a rethink of long-held certitudes about nuclear power.
With each passing year there are fewer people who grew up with dread from Cold War-era A-bomb drills and weapons test fallout that got bundled into nuclear power. There are more young people like Zeke, a Brooklyn high-schooler who in 2019 went to Battery Park City to greet climate activist Greta Thunberg after her sail-powered trans-Atlantic voyage, but who this past May called fears about nuclear power “over-exaggerated.”[3] (Thunberg herself has said that Germany made a mistake by phasing out its nuclear plants, since it led to a sharp rise in coal-fired electricity.)
I’ve heard the same sentiment in hundreds of casual conversations over the past decade ― at climate rallies and on Trader Joe’s checkout lines, in California and in New York. These conversations suggest that the oppositional currents that once compelled federal nuclear regulators to keep piling on costly new safety requirements are losing force.
2. Permanent Peak Performance
Even before construction costs began to soar in the 1970s, nuclear power had another Achilles heel: spotty operating performance.
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the U.S. nuclear power sector struggled to maintain even a 60 percent “capacity factor” ― a measure of how much of a plant’s potential output it generates. That’s a dismal rate for equipment that’s expensive to build. I know this because I researched and wrote the first full-length study of shortfalls in U.S. nuclear plant performance, in 1976.[4]
That started to change in the mid-1980s. Plants finished safety upgrades required after Three Mile Island. The industry began sharing best practices ― and mistakes to avoid. Economic incentives helped too, as utility earnings became tied to how often plants actually ran.
A remarkable turnaround, though seldom credited in climate and nuclear discourse.
The turnaround has been dramatic. Since 2000, U.S. nuclear plants have averaged 90 percent capacity factor ― a huge leap from the earlier 60 percent. In effect, downtime has dropped four-fold, from 40 percent of the time to just 10 percent. Repair jobs and retrofits that used to drag on are now precision-scheduled like the train heist in “Breaking Bad.”
The higher reliability brings a huge symbolic benefit. In the 1970s, U.S. reactors seemed to stumble from one fiasco to the next. In Alabama, a technician using a lit candle to locate an air leak started a fire that burned through a thousand cables and knocked two brand-new reactors offline for 19 months. At some ocean-cooled plants, saltwater corroded delicate heat-transfer tubes, forcing protracted repairs. Profits and industry morale took a beating, and nuclear power became a punchline on “The Simpsons.”
Those days are long past. Nuclear power, uniquely, has blossomed into both grid bulwark and climate hero. Thanks to those higher ― much higher! ― capacity factors, each nuclear plant now displaces 50 percent more carbon-emitting power generation than it used to.[5] In fact, at a 90 percent capacity factor, a kilowatt of nuclear power delivers double or triple the climate benefit of a kilowatt of wind power (which averages 30 to 40 percent capacity factor) and roughly five times that of solar (15 to 20 percent) ― a crucial distinction that’s often missing from gushing coverage of renewable energy.
3. Climate to the Fore
Nuclear power’s newfound operational mastery would matter much less but for the urgency of the climate crisis and the persistence of U.S. and global carbon emissions. Like wind and solar, nuclear power generates electricity without burning carbon.
Squint to see that nuclear lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions range from 5.1 to 6.4 (in g CO2 equivalent per kWh); analogous range for solar-PV is 7.4 – 83.0; wind, 7.8 – 23.0. Source, Dinon et al., in report linked in this section’s second paragraph.
It is true that fossil fuels are implicated in nuclear power’s supply chain. Uranium mining uses petroleum, and enriching nuclear fuel requires electricity. But even counting upstream carbon, nuclear power’s climate footprint is smaller than that of wind, solar or hydropower, according to an authoritative 2022 analysis by a multinational team for the UN Economic Commission for Europe. (Their finding matched that of the similarly comprehensive 2018 report by the UN-chartered Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[6])
That’s another big change. In nuclear power’s early years, uranium fuel enrichment was so energy-intensive that the three U.S. “gaseous diffusion” plants were said to consume 10 percent of all electricity used by American factories. But diffusion enrichment has given way to gas centrifuges and, more recently, laser isotopic separation ― methods that use 20 times less energy to isolate fissile U-235 from U-238.
The bottom line: kilowatt-hour for kilowatt-hour, nuclear-generated electricity is at least as effective as solar and wind at cutting climate pollution. Meanwhile, Hurricane Katrina, Superstorm Sandy, “heat domes” and wildfires, and, in August, the first Himalayan glacial collapse, have made once-hypothetical climate death and disruption a daily reality. More than rising electricity demand from A.I., it’s the climate crisis that’s driving renewed interest in nuclear power.
Click here for the second installment, Why I’m Pro-Nuke Now: Beginning.
[1] Quoted passage is from a local (PA) news site, though the an archived Channel 2 broadcast it cited is no longer on line.
[2] The sole “near-miss,” and a major one, was the 2002 discovery by operators at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant near Toledo, OH of extensive corrosion of the reactor vessel head — a vital barrier against loss of coolant and release of radiation. The U.S. General Accounting Office sternly rebuked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for failing to identify and prevent the corrosion. See GAO, Nuclear Regulation: NRC Needs to More Aggressively and Comprehensively Resolve Issues Related to the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant’s Shutdown, GAO-04-415, May 2004.
[3] In-person conversation at People’s Policy Conference at the New School for Social Research in New York, May 2, 2026.
[4] C. Komanoff, Power Plant Performance: Nuclear and Coal Capacity Factors and Economics (15 MB pdf), Council on Economic Priorities, 1976.
[5] Dividing today’s 90% uptime by the former 60% yields 1.50, indicating 50 percent more kilowatt-hours per kW.
[6] IPCC Annex III report, Technology-Specific Cost and Performance Parameters, 2018. See table on p. 1333.
Carbon Footprint
Why I’m Pro-Nuke Now: Centerpiece
This is the second part of a three-part post. It begins with the failure of carbon tax advocacy and continues with the closure of Indian Point and the concurrent dissolution of my dream that renewable energy could do it all. Part I, “Beginning,” started with the Three Mile Island accident and covered the decline of nuclear dread, the advent of splendidly reliable reactor operation, and nuclear’s climate-hero status. It’s available here. — C.K.
4. A Climate Cure No One Wanted
Nuclear fission, wind turbines, solar panels. Each is a kind of miracle, creating electricity from sunlight, air currents, or the splitting of atoms rather than by setting things on fire. But to economists focused on decarbonization, a greater miracle would have been the widespread adoption of carbon taxes, or, as some prefer to call it, a “price on carbon” — a fee added to fossil fuels’ market price based on their carbon content. Such a tax would shift incentives across the economy away from using fossil fuels, cutting production of the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide.
Economists trace the carbon tax idea to the early 20th century British economist Alfred Pigou and his conception of “externalities” ― social costs, like pollution, that aren’t reflected in market prices, and are dumped on communities “external to the process.” My interest dates to the early 1970s, when I was a fledgling environmental analyst in New York City government. I had a front-row seat as an ingenious “sulfur surcharge” eliminated the price advantage of dirty, high-sulfur fuel oil, foiling an eleventh-hour attempt by the oil industry to undercut a groundbreaking clean-air regulation.
Much later, in 2007, I co-founded the Carbon Tax Center, an organization built around the idea of taxing fossil fuels by their carbon content. We proposed a national carbon tax starting at $15 per ton of CO2 and rising in annual steps to $100 within a decade. Our modeling suggested that by then, the myriad changes driven by the financial rewards for burning less carbon would be cutting U.S. emissions by nearly a third ― far more than conventional energy-efficiency standards or clean-energy subsidies.
To be clear, this wasn’t an either-or choice. A carbon tax was unusual in that it reinforced nearly every other decarbonization measure rather than competing with it. But what really set carbon pricing apart was its reach. Carbon taxes would reward every action that reduced fuel use ― not just buying more fuel-efficient cars, but driving less overall; not just laws mandating energy-efficient buildings, but reforming zoning to let new homes be built in town instead of spreading into sprawl; and, in the power sector, switching from higher-carbon coal to lower-carbon gas and from gas to virtually zero-carbon solar, wind, and nuclear power.
A carbon tax would have worked something like New York’s congestion pricing program, which last year began charging drivers $9 a day to enter Manhattan south of 60th Street. Congestion pricing hits gridlock with a one-two punch. The first punch is the price itself: faced with the toll, enough car owners find driving no longer worth it, that traffic actually drops. The second punch is the steady stream of subway improvements funded from the toll revenue — station elevators, real-time train signals, new lines — which pull still more commuters out of cars. Just so, the “stick” of a price and the “carrot” of better alternatives reinforce each other.
I took part in the 20-year campaign that pushed congestion pricing across the finish line. Its advent — and survival — in Trump’s second term is heartening. But it also highlights, by contrast, how little headway has been made toward a U.S. carbon price.
That failure constitutes a tragically missed opportunity for nuclear power, given how much a $100-per-ton carbon price could strengthen its economics. Compared with burning natural gas, the dominant source of U.S. electricity today, a $100/ton CO2 price would give nuclear roughly the same competitive edge as shaving 40 percent off the cost to build new reactors. Or, put another way, that carbon price would be like doubling or tripling what gas-fired power plants pay for pipeline fuel — pushing prices back to pre-fracking scarcity levels.[7])
5. Losing Indian Point
In the spring of 2020, with the COVID-19 pandemic raging, my wife and I fled the city for our cabin in the Adirondacks. One morning I was outside the general store, loading groceries onto my bicycle, when my phone started buzzing. It was Dietmar Detering, someone I knew slightly as leader of the advocacy group Nuclear NY, calling from Queens. I picked up and said hello.
“You call yourself a climate activist,” Dietmar began, his voice sputtering with anger. “Indian Point is being taken apart, and you haven’t said a word to stop it. How dare you?”
I vaguely knew that a 2017 deal ― pushed by the self-proclaimed environmental group Riverkeeper and brokered by then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo ― was about to shut down the Indian Point nuclear plant, located on the Hudson River 35 miles north of midtown Manhattan. The older of its two reactors unit would (literally) get the chop within a week; its twin would follow in a year. Both reactor vessels would be cut to pieces and their radioactive components chemically dissolved. Once that process began, there’d be no turning back.
I stood there holding my phone, stunned. A near-stranger was berating me! I would have hung up, but there was something raw in his voice that I couldn’t ignore. I don’t remember exactly what I said ― probably some version of “don’t blame me.” After all, the carbon tax I’d spent years advocating would have made Indian Point too valuable to shut down. Then I offered what I thought was my strongest point: soon enough, Indian Point’s carbon-free electricity would be replaced by zero-carbon wind and solar anyway, so little harm would be done.
Then Dietmar lowered the boom.
“You don’t get it, do you?,” he said, his voice now cold. “Even if all those new solar panels and wind turbines get built, they won’t displace fossil fuels. They’ll just be replacing carbon-free nuclear electricity that was already protecting the climate. They can’t do both.”
“Wait. What? Say that again.”
“Think of it this way,” Dietmar said. “When new renewables have to replace an existing power source that was already displacing fossil fuels, like Indian Point, their net climate benefit is zero. The renewables you’ve been counting on to push out fossil fuels can’t do that job as long as they’re having to take the place of nuclear plants that were already doing the decarbonizing.”
Full disclosure: those aren’t Dietmar’s exact words. They’re actually mine, drawn from articles I later wrote for Gotham Gazette and The Nation, and from a letter I co-wrote with futurist Stewart Brand, yes, the “Whole Earth Catalog” guy, urging California Gov. Gavin Newsom to halt the planned closure of the Diablo Canyon reactors along his state’s coast. But they capture Dietmar’s central point: shutting down a working nuclear power plant ― or any large source of carbon-free electricity ― nullifies the climate benefit that new replacement wind and solar projects are supposed to provide.
Six years later, Indian Point’s closure still haunts me. Why didn’t I speak up? It’s how I imagine I’d feel if a climbing partner had died because of some mistake I made. In New York, where I live, I measure every increment of renewable energy against the carbon benefit we threw away when Indian Point was shut down and dismantled.
By that gauge, wind and solar look mediocre. Take those 42-inch square “balcony solar” arrays that Germans are buying like hotcakes ― they’re a neat idea, but it would take 50 million of them to match the carbon reduction Indian Point provided, as I wrote here in June. Or consider a rooftop solar setup for the City Island boathouse where my ecologically minded physicist pal stows his sailboat ― fine on its own, but matching Indian Point’s climate value would require solarizing 600,000 similar buildings across the state.[8]
Underneath these daunting numbers is Dietmar’s deeper point: all of this new renewable capacity should have been added on top of Indian Point, not built to replace it.
6. Renewables in a Dimmer Light
Solar and wind power were guiding passions of my adult life. From the 1970s onward, I savored every news story about the latest gains in solar efficiencies and blade lengths. Wind turbines especially stirred me, with their kinetic kinship to bicycles and futuristic look.
Befitting my mathematical bent, I would calculate how much fossil fuel each new wind farm would keep in the ground. For Cape Wind, intended as the first U.S. offshore wind farm, near Cape Cod, I consulted a digest of ballpark dimensions to illustrate how much coal the project would displace each year: enough to cover the entire playing field at Boston’s Fenway Park — foul territory included — in a pile three times the height of the park’s famed “Green Monster” outfield wall.[9]
While I was playing with those numbers, a Stanford mechanical engineering professor named Mark Z. Jacobson was launching a stream of papers spelling out just how many wind turbines and solar panels ― on land, at sea, on rooftops, on farmland or rangeland ― would be required to satisfy the energy needs of different states and countries.
A table in Jacobson’s paper for New York helpfully broke down how much energy had to come from each source. Offshore wind was his largest category, charged with supplying 40 percent of New York State’s energy year-round. The number of turbines: 12,700.
That figure should have given me pause. Filling that quota meant building a hundred Cape Wind projects in the waters off Long Island, even as well-heeled locals including Riverkeeper figurehead Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (yes, that Kennedy) and Walter Cronkite (yes, that Cronkite) were NIMBYing the actual Cape Wind project to death. Ditto, wind projects proposed for the next county over from our cabin in the Adirondacks.
None of those projects were ever built — not just because of local opposition, but also because of a lack of full-throated support from environmentalists who should have championed them for their climate value. Especially in liberal Northeastern states, it seemed impossible to build anything that asked property owners to tolerate construction disruption or changed views, decarbonization be damned.
You might expect the outlook for Jacobson’s all-renewables vision for New York to be improving. Wind turbines are now so prodigious that he can propose 8,000 15-gigawatt turbines instead of 12,700 5-gigawatt ones.[10] And solar power has captured the public’s imagination in a way wind power has not — it’s no accident that climate activist (and Jacobson acolyte) Bill McKibben titled his 2025 call-to-action book, “Here Comes The Sun.”
Nevertheless, the carbon-free electricity lost when Indian Point closed has gone almost entirely unreplaced. Nearly nine-tenths of the power it generated is being made up by burning natural gas — not due to corporate chicanery but because no other source has stepped up. (See chart below.)
And dreams of an all-renewables grid still have to contend with an intrinsic fault ― one even more disabling than the NIMBY opposition sparked by the projects’ thirst for land. That weakness is intermittency: the fact that wind and solar output varies not just day to day, but moment to moment, at the mercy of the weather.
Jacobson has doggedly calculated how many megawatt-hours of wind and solar would be needed to match New York’s ― and other states’ ― total annual energy use. But neither his nor anyone else’s atmospheric models are detailed enough, meteorologically, to verify that a 100% wind-water-solar grid could keep the power on continuously ― hour by hour, year in and year out. Building in extra capacity doesn’t solve this problem. Compensating for weather’s unpredictability by deliberately oversupplying wind and solar, or backing them up with batteries, may look good on paper. But either approach would be punishingly expensive and probably insufficient as well, without ample supplies of reliable, dispatchable power such as nuclear. If there’s no wind, having twice as many turbines won’t help.[11]
In New York, the political fallout from losing Indian Point’s copious ’round-the-clock carbon-free electricity is landing on Cuomo’s successor. With the plant’s closure having pushed New York’s carbon-reduction targets out of reach, Gov. Kathy Hochul this year bowed to reality and froze a 2019 law tying New York’s climate and energy future to renewables. Forces ranging from standard-issue Democrats to grassroots greens are pillorying Hochul as a sellout to Big Oil, though her proposal to add five large reactors across the state — she dubs it her Nuclear Reliability Backbone — is almost certainly a more assured path to decarbonization than the fashionable all-renewables approach.
Click here for the final installment, Why I’m Pro-Nuke Now: Conclusion.
[7] The two representations in the text of carbon pricing’s boost to new reactors’ economics are derived and sourced in my Sept. 2026 paper with James Boucher, Beyond Vogtle: What History Tells Us About the Cost of New Nuclear.
[8] Comparisons in this paragraph employ: 2,028 MW capacity and 90% capacity factor for Indian Point; 220 W capacity and 15% CF for balcony solar. 17 kW capacity and 20% CF for boathouse solar. 10 MW and 40% CF for each wind turbine.
[9] Cape Wind assumptions: 130 3.6-GW turbines and 40% capacity factor yield 1,641 GWh/year. Coal assumptions: 9,800 Btu/kWh, 11,500 Btu/lb of coal, 1.32 coal specific gravity, 62.4 lb of water per cubic foot. Calculations yield 132-foot-high coal pile covering Fenway Park’s 128,000 sq ft surface (est’d from http://www.baseball-statistics.com/Ballparks/Bos/index.htm). That is 3-4x Green Monster height of 37 feet, 2 inches, per Wikipedia.
[10] While Jacobson’s new offshore wind configuration would outproduce its predecessor by nearly two to one, he has also upped his forecast for total required energy, leaving constant offshore wind’s share 40 percent share.
[11] To take a recent example: at the onset of a late June – early July 2026 heat wave, New York State’s wind farms collectively were producing less than one percent of their rated 3,000-megawatt capacity. See my “Beyond Vogtle” report (FN 46) referenced in Footnote 7.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Climate Change2 years agoAnalysis: China’s CO2 falls 1% in Q2 2024 in first quarterly drop since Covid-19
