World Cup begins as climate change threatens permanent change to beautiful game
Welcome to Callaway Climate Insights, your daily guide to global climate finance. Was this newsletter shared with you? Please enjoy and subscribe.
Today’s edition of Callaway Climate Insights is free for all our readers. We really want to bring you the best and latest in climate finance from around the world. Please subscribe now.
I attended the final warmup for this month’s World Cup tournament in Chicago last weekend, featuring Germany vs. the U.S. team, a brief rainstorm and troubling heat on the city’s aging Soldier Field. Like in many big soccer tournaments recently, extreme heat was met with a plan to let players take a hydration break in between halves, kind of like if the game were actually divided into four quarters.
Indeed, climate change is threatening to permanently alter the beautiful game, as concerns for the health of players has forced these hydro breaks over the past few years despite the objections of purists who disdain any sort of breaks in the two 45-minute halves. Like the fake snow at the Winter Olympics, changing climate conditions are forcing themselves on the world’s great sporting events.
A study of the match venues conducted by non-profit researcher Climate Central and ClimateCrisis247, a sister publication of Callaway Climate Insights, found that many of the sites expected to be most affected by extreme heat, which it defined as over 82.4°F, are in Mexico. But among the most vulnerable sites in the U.S. to extreme heat in the next month are the ones in Miami, Kansas City and Philadelphia, according to the study. Some of the hottest cities, such as Atlanta and Houston, can enclose their stadiums and use air conditioning.
What’s certain to happen is that all the games will feature hydration breaks, which started as a reaction to extreme heat, and are now slowly becoming accepted by the teams and coaches because of the opportunity for strategy discussions and changes. While still a long way off from being formally instituted as part of the games — which would generate enormous controversy — the extreme heat that has plagued Europe, Asia and now the U.S. in recent years is making the change a lot more acceptable.
While professional soccer players are used to playing matches in drenching downpours, thunderstorms common on hot summer days in the U.S. also provide a threat in terms of delaying games and even forcing fans to take shelter inside stadiums. And while hydration breaks are designed to protect the players, there are no plans to protect the thousands of fans who in some ways are even more vulnerable as the heat or storms bear down.
None of this will detract from the fact that four fans of football, or soccer, or whatever one calls it, this next month is as big as it gets. Like many of you, we will be watching as many matches as possible and even attending a few. There will be plenty of excitement, hopefully more on the pitches then around them. We like the Netherlands to win it all.
Don’t forget to contact me directly if you have suggestions or ideas at dcallaway@callawayclimateinsights.com.
Follow us . . . .
Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram
Caught by satellite - the pollution reduction lie
. . . . Beware the climate polluters who brag about their emission reductions the most, writes Mark Hulbert. The companies that boast the most about their climate programs actually do the least, according to a study of the earnings calls and regulatory filings of the largest polluters. The results set up the theory, which Hulbert wrote about last month, that the real climate adaptation and emission reduction work is being done by those who have their heads down and stay out of the political crossfire. Those who are bragging about their progress in many cases are just blowing more hot air. What this means for investors is that it establishes an even more pressing need for regulatory climate transparency so that companies are made to put their money where their mouths are.
Thursday’s subscriber insight
Pyramids in the sky: the age of the public AI giants
. . . . Wall Street’s main event of the week — indeed of the year — will take place Friday when Elon Musk’s SpaceX opens for trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market sometime before midday Eastern time.
The shares are set to be priced at $135 each but heavy orders at the outset will likely prevent the market from announcing the opening price for a few hours after the open. At $135 the funds invested will raise up to $75 billion for the company, making it the largest initial public offering of all time and valuing the company at $1.78 trillion.
The red flags on this deal for investors are many, from the lack of transparency around how the company’s AI and space data centers mission will play out to the unprecedented amount of voting control Musk will retain over shareholders. Yet according to the latest reports, the deal is more than four times oversubscribed.
If SpaceX launches successfully, investors will then turn to AI giants Anthropic and OpenAI later this year for more excitement when they go public, as planned.
As for SpaceX, much of the thinking is that Musk will use the proceeds of the IPO to eventually (sooner rather than later) buy Tesla TSLA 0.00%↑, which has stagnated lately. The offer would bail out longtime Tesla fans and Musk loyalists while shifting the risk to new shareholders of SPCX. There is a term for this type of maneuver, and it begins with a P.
Indeed, the strategy seems emblematic of the entire Wall Street plan for dumping the AI speculative frenzy on an unsuspecting public as early investors and Silicon Valley insiders take the profits.
This is not to question the unparalleled potential of AI to build something new, but the hype built around it is a different monument indeed. Let the buyers beware.
Editor’s picks: Is this weather normal? Plus, hot matches
Watch this video: Data where you live. The Reuters Climate Monitor provides a real-time window into a changing planet, giving users the chance to compare today’s temperatures — anywhere in the world — with a historical baseline from 1961-1990.
World Cup schedule? Check the TV listings. And the weather.
Despite the clear evidence of the impact of higher daytime temperatures on players and fans, why does FIFA insist on afternoon matches in full sunlight? The answer, a report in Yale Climate Connections says, is not found on the playing fields but in television contracts. 3 p.m. Eastern Time in the United States is 8 p.m. in London and 9 p.m. in Paris and Berlin, or European primetime, where the most lucrative markets are. Sports Media Watch documented that FIFA deliberately assigned the highest-profile matches — those featuring European teams — to afternoon windows to align with that schedule. Add to that: For the 2026 World Cup, only 31 of the 104 matches will be played under a roof with air conditioning. While the problem of hot weather and of players objecting to playing through extreme temps is not new, a new analysis from Climate Central shows:
Climate change is boosting the likelihood of performance-impairing heat during most scheduled World Cup matches (97 of 104).
Nearly half of the matches (49) have at least a 50% likelihood of experiencing heat that can impair performance. In 26 of those matches, climate change increases the likelihood by at least 10 percentage points.
Among all matches, climate change boosts the odds of performance-impairing heat most during the June 26 match in Guadalajara between Uruguay and Spain. The 70% chance of such heat during that match is 37 percentage points higher due to climate change.
Words to live by . . . .
“Deep summer is when laziness finds respectability.” — Sam Keen.