Who would win the 2010 Green World Cup?
A1 vs B2
France (7) vs. Greece (71)
Analysis: Greece had no shot in this match up. It will need to significantly reduce its industrial greenhouse-gas emissions and improve biodiversity if it ever wants to be a contender.
C1 vs. D2
England (14) vs. Serbia (29)
Analysis: Serbia should look to improve its pesticide regulation and biodiversity if it’s expecting to compete at this level.
E1 vs. F2
Japan (20) vs. New Zealand (15)
Winner: New Zealand
Analysis: The first upset of the second round went to New Zealand. Japan‘s solid scores in water quality were nullified by horrid air pollution.
G1 vs. H2
Portugal (19) vs. Chile (16)
Analysis: Chile scraped by. Air pollution, once again, took out another quality soccer club (Portugal).
B1 vs. A2
Argentina (70) vs. Mexico (43)
Analysis: Mexico won this battle of lowly ranked green clubs who shouldn’t have made it out of group play. Argentina will need to vastly beef-up its biodiversity and fisheries if it has bigger ambitions.
D1 vs C2
Germany (17) vs. Algeria (42)
Analysis: Algeria, Africa’s only hope in the knockout stage, drew a tough opponent in Germany. It could improve its luck next time by improving the air quality, the stress level of its water, and its marine protection.
F1 vs. E2
Slovakia (13) vs. Denmark (32)
Analysis: Denmark‘s surprising early exit can be chalked up to poor fisheries and CO2 emissions.
H1 vs. G2
Switzerland (2) vs. Brazil (62)
Analysis: Switzerland soundly destroyed the world’s top soccer club, Brazil. To become a powerhouse in climate as well as sports, Brazil will need significant gains in air quality and reductions in CO2 emissions.