New Delhi, June 15 -- The 16-city FIFA World Cup 2026 is under criticism for its environmental impact. Most of the emissions result from air travel by fans and the teams of the football championship, as venues change across Mexico, the United States and Canada. The demand for new infrastructure, such as stadia, also worsens this impact. The arguments against FIFA are that not only will it emit significant carbon emissions, but that its attempts to buy carbon credits are extremely inadequate and cannot prevent the environmental cost of travel. To better understand FIFA, I compared data that would help me compare it to the other disaster in our midst-West Asia War. In the first fortnight, according to the Climate and Community Institute, the war had already emitted 5 million tons of carbon dioxide. Another study, by a master's student at the University of East London suggests 7.2 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) by the 24th day of the war. Estimates expect FIFA to emit 7.8 million tonnes across 39 days. I won't offer comments on the war, but the data makes it clear that FIFA planning has sacrificed the planet in search of grandeur. It could have held the games in one or two cities that already had the infrastructure. Perhaps it might have limited the crowds as well. It didn't, because it was too much of an advertising opportunity to dial down. But it still leaves us with the question of whether it is time to dial down events that are spectacles. We all know the answer. But who will bell the cat?...