theroundsquare

Well unless you never go out, read a paper, watch TV or listen to the radio, you would know that the Olympics is on. This year provides somewhat of a controversial one, as the host nation China holds the games in one of the most air polluted cities in the world Beijing. How can a city that has such an unbelieved rate of air pollution hold a major sporting event, I do a lot of sport to a national level and I suffer from asthma and I know that it would be a problem in such a city, for example on the 7th August 2008, just one day before the start of the games, the level of pollution reach 96, levels between 51-100 is considered moderate pollution, anything over 100 is stated as unacceptable air pollution and is harmful to sensitive groups such as children, elderly and people suffering with breathing problems. This must affect an athletes ability to perform to his or her’s best, as well as affecting their health. At the end of the day we awarded the games to Beijing, so in affect we are pouring our money in and almost rewarding China, even though it’s city shows how bad problems like global warming and pollution are becoming. They are said to have poured millions into greening up the city, how is it  really possible to green up a city with a population of 17 million? They have made more urban parks which is good for the city and have introduced more public transport to cut down car emissions. But what made the real change for the Olympics (and not a big enough change) was the took 3.3 million cars of the road, stopped most constructions and closing down dozens of factories - which will only be for the duration of the Games - so no big long-term change there. Don’t get me wrong, the opening ceremony was beautiful and the facilities and stadiums are amazing and the level of sport is world class, but maybe we should of thought of the environmental principles before giving it to Beijing.

The fact that China also has one of the biggest economies in the world, yet has such poor human rights and extreme poverty in some parts grates on me slightly. They spent millions and millions on these games to show the world what a communist country can do, but don’t you think it would of been better if they had toned down the theatricals and only invested half of what they did and put the other half into developing the more rural and poverty stricken parts of China.

It was always going to be controversial giving the games to China, and I don’t think the Games should be a point for political stir but we should nominate countries on basic environmental and Humanitarian principles. I don’t want to take away from the magic and outstanding sporting achievement that the games provides, I just hope London implements long-term benefits with the money they invest in the city for 2012.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS