Beijing must up its game to meet Olympic emissions standard
by David Masters
February 25, 2008
China must up its game if Beijing is to reach acceptable levels of pollution in time for the Olympic games later this year.
Xinhua, a state owned media outlet, reported on Friday that government officials from the Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau are implementing a Blue Sky plan to significantly reduce emissions from industries and vehicle exhaust fumes before the August games.
The Blue Sky plan covers the city and its surrounding regions, including Tianjin, Hefei, Inner Mongolia, Shanxi and Shandong.
Deputy director of the bureau, Du Shaozhong, is reported to have said: “During the Games, Beijing will limit the number of vehicles on roads, stop polluting work at construction sites and impose pollutant reductions on key companies.”
Construction projects within 1.5 kilometres of any Olympic stadium will be halted during the games. Coal-based power stations will be fitted with emissions reducing equipment. A number of heavily polluting construction sites and industries, including cement and steel plants, have already been shut down.
Athletes have already been outspoken about the air quality in Beijing. China has been told that it must seriously cut down on pollution if the country is to prevent the tarnishing of its international image.
China have also refuted suggestions that the food they are planning to provide for the games will not be up to standard. This follows a leak claiming that in contravention with Olympic protocol, U.S. athletes will be making their own food provisions.
Discuss this in the Fair Home Forums
Add to Bookmarks:
Related posts to "Beijing must up its game to meet Olympic emissions standard":
- Air quality in Beijing dangerous for Olympic athletes ...
- Beijing bans heavy-polluting cars ...
- Beijing continues Olympic pollution controls ...
No Comments
No comments yet.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Previous: « Lecture to outline how technology will help reduce emissions
Next: Fairtrade really so ‘fair’ after all? »
Visited 361 times, 1 so far today