London olympic games environmental issues

In an article submitted back in to Games Monitor, a site that specialises in scrutinising mega-events, there is evidence that the obligation to replace lost land has been removed for Olympic developers. One of the consequences of the Olympics is that communities have been set against each other, and with the ODA seeking out the limited green space in the area this has been a particular issues with regards to land.

The Manor Gardens Allotment Holders, who fought a long and successful fight to preserve their community, found they were to be relocated to Marsh Lane Fields, which was common land being defended by the Lamas Lands Defence Committee.

Likewise, the Clays Lane Travellers , having successfully resisted being sent to live next to a flyover at Jenkins Lane, in the east of Newham, found their alternative move involved the loss of open space and a community centre at Major Road. There have been other arguments over the loss of open space. The siting of equestrian events in Greenwich park has met strong opposition from Nogoe , local footballers have denounced the loss of football pitches at East Marsh, residents at Leabank Square and others have protested at the loss of Arena Field and the Eastway Cyclists had to argue long and hard to get adequate facilities to replace those lost up to and during the Games.

There have also been concerns raised that trains carrying highly radioactive nuclear waste both are and will be travelling through the Olympic Park during the Games. During the course of the Games, London will inevitably experience an influx of tourists, facilitated primarily by the aviation industry.

Although there are a number of airports across the country looking into expansion, the closest to the Park is London City, in Newham. As well as all the issues mentioned above, Stratford is a former industrial zone which has repeatedly been shown to be unsafe, with clean-ups of toxic ground-water from leaking chemical storage costing millions and the discovery of radioactive contamination. An investigation from Games Monitor found that 7, tonnes of contaminated soil was shifted in the run-up to the big build — soil with a uranium radiation signature which experts said posed a serious inhalation hazard.

What does the city of Chelmsford have in common with the London Olympic Games? The answer is that they both required 35 million kilowatt hours to operate, although one used that much over the course of a year and the other used the same amount in just one month. The Commission concluded the Games broadly delivered against its key environmental objectives, and is on track to meet targets to send zero waste to landfill and ensure 70 per cent of waste is re-used, recycled, or composted.

However, the report also highlights a number of concerns, particularly around energy management. However, it said it was "disappointed" with LOCOG's last-minute development of a comprehensive energy plan, which limited the potential for further carbon reductions.

Offers may be subject to change without notice. Article continues below advertisement. What are the negative environmental impacts of the Olympics? View this post on Instagram. What are the positive environmental impacts of the Olympics? The Tokyo Olympic Games have made a few efforts o be eco-conscious. So, while there can be no doubt about the fact that Rio, and many other cities in the past, have tried to manage the impact felt by our environment, there are still negatives to being a host city.

The worrying answer is that there is no solid figure or statement that can be given to explain or define exactly what the environmental costs of hosting the Olympics is.

The reality is that the organisations that typically promote the Olympics generate a majority of the analytical data about the Games themselves and so there is no way to know just how much information is left out, tampered with or actually included in the reports.

In short, Games that are environmentally friendly are likely to be more expensive but with a growing number of people beginning to understand the impact we have on the environment is important, Games which are environmentally damaging are fast being deemed as unacceptable. With a number of host cities beginning to implement environmentally friendly schemes; from carbon offset projects, to investing in more sustainable water supplies, organising transportation for spectators and sourcing sustainable materials for the buildings themselves it seems the Games may already be changing for the better.

Perhaps in the future the competitive nature of the Olympics will come hand-in-hand with a positive embrace of sustainable schemes. If you would like to make a positive difference to our environment, check out Frontier's environment conservation projects. Frontier runs conservation , development , teaching and adventure travel projects in over 50 countries worldwide - so join us and explore the world!