Putting the Earth in Play: Environmental Awareness and Sport Since time immemorial, people have entertained
themselves with sports. Sports are emblematic of
health, with the best matches played by athletes
in peak physical form. But ironically, even as sports
promote health, they can also degrade the environment
upon which good health depends. Whether played or
watched, athletic endeavors have the potential to
produce huge environmental “footprints” in
terms of their use and abuse of natural resources.
Ski slopes, for instance, disrupt fragile alpine
ecosystems, while snowmobiles spew exhaust fumes
into the air. Golf courses sprawl across the land,
and consume large amounts of pesticides and water,
while parking lots for stadiums and arenas produce
vast paved surfaces. And major sports events use
energy, emit greenhouse gases, and produce voluminous
trash. The 2006 Super Bowl in Detroit produced 500
tons of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (from transportation
and utility usage), while the 2004 Summer Olympics
in Athens produced half a million tons in two weeks--roughly
comparable to what a city of 1 million people would
emit over a similar period. Each match during the
2006 World Cup this summer will use up to 3 million
kilowatt-hours of energy (similar to the annual consumption
of 700 European households), and produce an estimated
5-10 tons of trash.
These impacts have spawned an environmental movement
with two broad goals: to reduce the ecological footprint
of sports activities, and to exploit the popularity
of sports to raise environmental awareness in general. “Like
any other sector, sport has environmental consequences,” says
David Chernushenko, president of Green and Gold,
a sports sustainability consulting firm in Ottawa,
Canada, and author of the first book on the subject--
Greening
Our Games, published in 1994. “But sports
are also heavily impacted by degraded environments,
and that’s important to an athlete who can’t
run on smog days, or to those in the golf industry
who get told they can’t build a new course
because bad practices have tarred their image. So,
sports create opportunities to produce leaders for
better environmental practice.”
UNEP at the Fore
The sports sustainability movement now encompasses
numerous environmental groups, businesses, and nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs). The UN Environment Programme
(UNEP), a veteran influential player in this arena,
was among the first to get involved. In 1994, UNEP
created a Sports and Environment Program, and charged
it with promoting environmental awareness through
sports as well as the design of sustainable sports
facilities and equipment.
Currently headed by Eric Falt, UNEP’s director
of communications and public information in Nairobi,
Kenya, the program has fostered numerous initiatives.
In 1994, the Centennial Olympic Congress of Paris
established the environment as a “third pillar” of
the Olympic charter, along with sport and culture.
In a pivotal milestone, UNEP teamed with the International
Olympic Committee (IOC) in 1995 to host the first
World Conference on Sport and Environment, held in
Lausanne, Switzerland. Participants there created
a Sport and Environment commission within the IOC.
The latest world conference, held in Nairobi in November
2005, yielded the Nairobi Declaration on Sport, Peace,
and Environment, which calls upon the IOC and national
Olympic committees to act as leaders in promoting
environmental sustainability through sports.
|
Doing
the wave. The ecoflag, a symbol
of environmental awareness in sports,
flies at sports events.
images: Ecoflag |
UNEP has also organized three meetings of the Global
Forum for Sport and Environment (G-ForSE) since 2001,
in which sports stakeholders in and beyond the Olympic
Movement review their contributions to sustainable
development. At the July 2005 Sports Summit for the
Environment, a G-ForSE meeting held in Aichi, Japan,
participants signed the Joint Declaration on Sports
and the Environment, in which they pledged to help
address environmental problems and create a sustainable
world society through sports.
UNEP has also worked with the IOC to develop an “Agenda
21” for the Olympic Movement based on environmental
sustainability guidelines created by delegates at
the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development.
By adopting its own Agenda 21, the IOC committed
itself to encouraging sustainability among its member
nations and sports governing bodies. This agenda
is being used by several National Olympic Committees
for sustainable development work at the national
level.
NGOs working in this area include the Global Sports
Alliance (GSA), based in Tokyo. The GSA, which is
supported by UNEP, partners with numerous sports
groups including the IOC to help create an environmentally
aware sports culture. GSA members try to spread environmental
awareness in part by sending “ecoflags” to
schools and sports clubs, which these organizations
fly during games to affirm ecological commitments.
The GSA also sponsors several projects and, with
UNEP, the G-ForSE. [For more information on the GSA,
see “EHPnet: Global Sports Alliance,” p.
A279 this issue.]
Greening of the Olympics
The 1994 Winter Olympics in Lillehammer, Norway,
are now viewed as the first attempt to create a “green” Olympic
Games. Local activists in Lillehammer successfully
forced the country’s Olympic Organizing Committee
(OOC) to make changes based on environmental concerns.
Because of their actions, a speed skating rink was
redesigned to avoid impacts to a nearby bird sanctuary,
and officials agreed to an environmental plan emphasizing
renewable building materials and energy-efficient
heating and lighting for facilities, trash recycling,
and arena designs that harmonize with the local landscape.
Since Lillehammer, the IOC has tried to make the
Olympics a showcase for environmental sustainability.
With the 1999 adoption of the Olympic Movement’s
Agenda 21, any country that wants to host the Olympics
has to produce a strategic environmental assessment
to accompany its bid. David Crawford, a Winnipeg,
Canada-based sustainability advisor to OOCs, says
these assessments must describe environmental commitments
around energy use, water consumption, waste generation,
and sustainable building construction, in addition
to social commitments to include local communities
in the planning process. “If you look at who
won the last three Olympic bids--Beijing in 2008,
Vancouver in 2010, and London in 2012--you see environmental
assessments played a major strategic role in that
success,” he says.
|
|
Failure to medal. From
initial construction of facilities
such as
the Olympic Sports Complex (right)
through the closing ceremony (above),
the 2004 Athens Summer Olympics are
widely viewed as an environmental
failure, plagued by problems such
as poorly designed venues and inefficient
energy use.
images (left to right):
DigitalGlobe; Vincent Thian/AP |
Intent and implementation aren’t one and
the same, however. Despite successful bids, some
host cities have found their Olympic sustainability
obligations hard to meet. The Athens Games, for instance,
are widely viewed as an environmental failure, particularly
with respect to sustainable construction and green
energy. Despite Athens’ commitment to use 100%
renewable energy during the Games, almost
all the energy expended there ultimately came from
nonrenewable
sources.
Beijing could also have trouble meeting its environmental
obligations. The city’s air quality ranks among
the world’s worst--indeed, the highest nitrogen
dioxide levels in any city are found there. Exposure
to Beijing’s air can therefore irritate and
damage the respiratory tract, posing an obvious hazard
to competing athletes. To prepare its Olympic bid,
Beijing promised to achieve 230 “blue sky” days
per year, meaning days when air quality is “good
or moderate.” To achieve this, the city ordered
the Shougang Corporation, a major steel maker, to
move its coal-fired smelters--and some 120,000 employees--to
a small island in neighboring Hebel province. City
officials also imposed tighter auto emissions standards
two years ahead of national implementation. These
measures have produced some success: Beijing’s
air quality has improved, and the city claims it
achieved 234 blue sky days in 2005. But air quality
in January 2006 was the worst in six years, with
only nine blue sky days reported.
|
Competitive environment. Cranes
add segments to the National Olympic
Stadium, dubbed the “Bird Cage,” being
built in Beijing for the 2008 Olympics.
China’s bid to host the games
included a strategic environmental
assessment describing commitments
such as sustainable construction.
image: AP |
The IOC’s choice of Beijing underscores the
notion that environmental sustainability--while important--isn’t
a deal breaker for host city selection. “Let’s
not kid ourselves,” Crawford says. “The
Olympic Movement is global, the Games can’t
always be held in the same continents. Beijing’s
air quality is bad, so the Chinese are
using the Olympics for a public environmental education
campaign.
They are keenly aware they have a problem;
the Olympics can be a positive catalyst for change.”
As for the Torino Winter Olympics, a full picture
of its environmental performance is now emerging.
Falt acknowledges some problems at Torino: for instance,
bobsledding created environmental and sustainability
challenges, he says. The bobsled track, which Falt
describes as a “huge fridge in the mountains,” has
a coolant system containing 48 tons of ammonia that
could harm wildlife and human health if leaked. What’s
more, the track’s annual maintenance cost of
up to US$1.1 million will likely exceed visitor-generated
revenue. On a more positive note, in a press release
dated 1 March 2006, UNEP executive director Klaus
Töpfer commended Torino for building skating
rinks and other facilities in the city center to
promote continued use. He also lauded efforts to
limit erosion and runoff from ski slopes, and the
use of renewable materials and energy-efficient systems
in building construction.
|
On thin ice? The
bobsledding track used at the 2006
Winter Olympics in Torino contains
48 tons of ammonia that could harm
wildlife if leaked.
image: Andrew
Medichini/AP |
The Carbon Counting Game
Two of the environmental programs employed by Torino’s
OOC are particularly notable. One is its use of the
European Union’s Eco-Management and Audit System,
through which registered organizations in Europe
evaluate, report on, and improve their environmental
performance. Twenty-nine Olympic sites in Torino,
including training facilities and buildings in the
Olympic village, were built by companies registered
with the system. The other notable program is Heritage
Climate Torino, which strives to offset the estimated
300,000 tons of greenhouse gases released during
the two-week event. According to Ugo Pretato, the
Torino OOC head of environmental programs, the Regional
Public Administration in Piedmont (the Italian province
of which Torino is the capital) allocated approximately
US$6 million for carbon credits linked to several
greenhouse gas mitigation projects, including a reforestation
project in Mexico, renewable energy projects in India
and Sri Lanka, and an energy efficiency scheme in
Eritrea. “The expectation is that Heritage
Climate Torino will become more developed over time,” says
Pretato. “We hope our example will be followed
by other big sports events in the future.”
|
Paying to play. Children
plant trees in the Detroit area as
part of a carbon mitigation project
for Super Bowl XL.
image: NFL
Environmental Program |
Offsetting carbon emissions from spectator events
is a noble gesture, but also one that’s new
and untested. An obvious question concerns the amounts
of greenhouse gases that events like the Olympics
actually produce. Quantifying them is no easy task,
says Mark Bain, director of Cornell University’s
Center for the Environment. “Do you count the
extra flights, hotel stays, and changes in personal
habits?” he asks. “It’s not just
the spatial boundaries you have to consider, it’s
also the downstream and upstream consequences to
the carbon cycle. I think lots of organizations want
to say they’re making up for their environmental
effects, but most haven’t fully considered
what this actually means.”
For his part, Pretato says the Torino OOC counts
all transportation to and from the Olympics, including
air travel, in addition to energy consumption by
all Torino venues and stadiums. Data collection is
still ongoing, he says.
The U.S. National Football League (NFL) also plays
the carbon counting game. Seeking to
offset the greenhouse gas emissions of Super Bowl
XL, played 5 February
2006 in Detroit, the NFL consulted with
scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratories and
Princeton
University, who concluded that an acre
planted with 250 native Michigan trees would absorb
75 tons of
carbon over the trees’ life span. The NFL ultimately
planted 2,500 trees over 10 acres in Michigan to
offset the Super Bowl’s carbon emissions, a
number that Jack Groh, director of the NFL Environment
Program, says far exceeded what was necessary to
mitigate the game’s climate impact.
Meanwhile, organizers with the 2006 World Cup,
which overtakes Frankfurt, Germany, in June, are
striving for “climate neutrality” (i.e.,
zero impact), which they hope to achieve by offsetting
the expected 100,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions
with investments in renewable energy and energy-efficient
technology. Climate neutrality is just one aspect
of the World Cup’s extensive environmental
agenda, however. As described in Green Goal: Environmental
Goals for the FIFA 2006 World Cup, published
by the Institute for Applied Ecology in Berlin, additional
objectives are found in the areas of water use, recycling,
energy efficiency, and traffic mitigation. World
Cup organizers and The Coca-Cola Company have agreed
to use recyclable cups at the event. And rain will
be channeled into storage systems designed to provide
water for cleaning playing surfaces and parking lots,
in addition to toiletry needs. Indeed, organizers
plan to save as much as 10,000 cubic meters of drinking
water by installing the latest in water-free urinals.
Major sports events like the Olympics, the Super
Bowl, and the World Cup generate large environmental
footprints over short durations. But what of the
day-to-day sports played by billions of ordinary
people? Many are environmentally benign. But others
do have potentially serious environmental consequences.
Here are some examples.
|
|
. .
. And the crowd goes wild. South Korean
soccer fans gathered in Seoul to
watch a live broadcast of the 2002
World Cup quarter final match. The
2006 World Cup is striving for zero
impact on the environment through
greenhouse gas emission offsets,
recycling, and traffic mitigation.
images: left:
Ahn Young-joon/AP; right: Vincent
Thian/AP |
Skiing: A Slippery Slope
Skiing--a sport whose very existence is in some
places threatened by global warming--can produce
substantial environmental impacts. Ski slopes disrupt
the natural landscape, sometimes harmfully so, according
to Ryan Bidwell, executive director of Colorado Wild,
a Durango-based environmental group. “Downhill
ski terrain typically gets carved into ecologically
sensitive high-alpine environments,” he explains. “And
these areas have short growing seasons, so they aren’t
quick to recover.” Trail building contributes
to erosion because it removes trees and shrubs that
anchor soils. Other negative impacts come from snow
making, which could become more prevalent in some
areas because of global warming. Snow making diverts
natural waters, altering the normal flows of rivers
and streams that supply the necessary water, and
resulting in dry stream beds, effects on irrigation,
and consequences for species that depend on stream
flow.
Some streams in Colorado and other western states
are contaminated with acids and metals
such as cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc--a legacy
of the region’s
mining industry. Snow made from these sources might
contaminate otherwise pristine areas, Bidwell says.
In one high-profile case, owners of the Arizona Snowbowl
Ski Resort will soon make snow from treated wastewater.
Their announcement of doing so drew a sustained outcry
from the local Navajo population, which views the
surrounding San Francisco Peaks as a sacred natural
shrine. But these objections were overruled by U.S.
District Court judge Paul Rosenblatt in January 2006,
clearing the way for wastewater snow making to begin.
Snowbowl officials say the wastewater poses no health
risks, but caution skiers against eating the snow,
which--according to the resort’s website--contains
residues from “animals, litter, boots, saliva,
petroleum products, etc.”
Another key issue concerns the ongoing expansion
of western ski resorts on public lands. In these
cases, resorts expand until they buttress private
land boundaries, attracting the development of multimillion-dollar
homes built by those who can pay for residential
slopeside access. Construction of these homes in
delicate high-alpine areas brings numerous problems,
however, including erosion, air emissions, impacts
to endangered species, and water withdrawals.
|
|
Snowball
effect. With
greater attention focused on
the impacts of skiing, perhaps
more resorts will sign on to--and
honor--eco-friendly programs
such as the Sustainable Slopes
Initiative.
images (left
to right): Hamish Trounson/Alamy;
Digital Stock |
To improve their environmental performance, 178
U.S. resorts have endorsed the National
Ski Areas Association’s Sustainable Slopes Initiative,
a collection of environmental best practices for
ski owners and operators that was adopted in June
2000. The initiative promotes 21 principles in areas
such as planning design, water and energy use, recycling,
air quality, and forest management. A total of 71
resorts also participate in “Keep Winter Cool,” an
initiative sponsored by the National
Ski Areas Association and the Natural Resources Defense
Council that promotes
energy efficiency in ski operations and
also supports anti-climate change legislation.
While notable, these initiatives have critics who
counter that they don’t go far enough. Bidwell,
for instance, blasts the Sustainable Slopes Initiative,
suggesting it does little to address secondary impacts
from land development and the destructive consequences
of snow making, which he says pose the greatest environmental
damage from skiing. “The charter has no accountability
and no system to document whether resorts follow
through on any of their proposals,” he adds.
To counter these perceived gaps, the Ski Area Citizens’ Coalition,
also based in Durango, produces an annual “Ski
Areas Environmental Scorecard,” which grades
77 resorts on their performance in areas
such as energy efficiency, reduced habitat impacts,
and efforts
to expand operations within existing
area boundaries. In the 2005/2006 scorecard, the
coalition reported
that only 50% of resorts supported legislation
to combat climate change. Just 21% used alternative
fuels such as biodiesel, 31% used wind
or solar power,
and 60% supported mass transit programs.
Teed Off at Golf
Many golfers prefer their courses to be blanketed
in velvety green grass, regardless of where the course
is sited, be it the beach, the desert, or a naturally
lush locale. Golf courses thus must be intensively
coddled with lots of water and lots of pesticides.
Each of the more than 17,000 golf courses in the
United States alone can consume hundreds of thousands
of gallons of water per day. And according to Stuart
Cohen, president of the Wheaton, Maryland-based consultancy
Environmental & Turf Services, golfing greens
are among the most intensive nonagricultural users
of pesticides.
Cohen says approximately 50 pesticide active ingredients
are commonly used by the golf industry, although
the number typically used on any one course is much
lower, ranging from 4 to 12 per year, depending on
location. Among the chemicals used are chlorpyrifos,
an organophosphate insecticide whose residential
uses are banned by the EPA due to developmental hazards;
carbaryl, a carbamate insecticide; and chlorothalonil,
an organochlorine fungicide.
|
Missing the
green. Golf
courses are huge consumers of
water and pesticides, raising
environmental concerns for both
those who play and those who
live near them.
image:
iStockphoto |
Despite high-level use, documented cases of environmental
harm from pesticides on golf courses are rare. In
one instance, dating back to the mid-1980s, hundreds
of Canadian geese were found dead on the Seaway Harbor
fairways in Hempstead, New York--apparently poisoned
by diazinon, an organophosphate insecticide that
was subsequently banned from golf course applications
in 1990 and from all residential uses in 2005. Another
organophosphate pesticide--fenamiphos--has produced
fish kills when washed into waterways from golf courses
after heavy rains. Fenamiphos is now being phased
out in Florida, where these fish kills have occurred,
and a nationwide ban will be complete in 2007, Cohen
says.
Cohen has conducted the largest survey to date
of water quality impacts from U.S. golf courses,
which was published in the May-June 1999 issue of
the Journal of Environmental Quality. This
review of 17 studies performed on 36 golf courses
found little evidence of environmental harm, however.
Cohen wrote, “None of the authors of the individual
studies concluded that toxicologically significant
impacts were observed,” but he also concluded
that “there are major gaps in this review,
particularly in the mid-continent area.” He
is now updating and expanding this survey with funding
from the U.S. Golf Association and the Golf Course
Superintendent Association of America.
Cohen believes that when properly applied, golf
course pesticides pose a low risk of exposure to
players and nearby residential populations. This
is in part, he says, because turf is a dense “living
filter” with a thatch underlining that not
only grips pesticides but also prevents them from
leaching into groundwater. The turf system is also
microbially active, and thus tends to degrade pesticides.
J. Marshall Clark, a professor of entomology at
the University of Massachusetts Amherst, agrees.
He and PhD student Ray Putnam have performed extensive
risk assessments as part of Putnam’s thesis
showing that dermal exposure--particularly through
the lower legs, thighs, and lower arms--is the main
way that players are exposed to golf course pesticides.
Clark says his additional dosimetry studies, which
measured excreted pesticides and metabolites in urine,
have shown that the doses absorbed by players are
far beneath any hazardous level. “People used
to think hand-to-mouth was the main exposure route--for
instance, golfers putting golf tees in their mouths,” he
says. “But studies have dispelled that notion;
the amount of hand-to-mouth activity on golf courses
is small. Also, we find that hands are often well
protected, and players are always wiping their hands
off when they play, which removes the residues.”
Some environmentalists aren’t convinced,
however. Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond
Pesticides, a Washington, DC-based environmental
group, believes the exposure scenarios considered
by the EPA thus far are incomplete, particularly
as they apply to young golfers and chlorpyrifos. “The
EPA’s view is that children don’t play
golf, so golf courses can continue using chlorpyrifos,” he
says. “But if you look at the U.S. Golf Association’s
own statistics, you see kids are playing golf more
and more. We think childhood risks should be taken
into account by the EPA for all turf chemicals and
for chlorpyrifos in particular.”
Water conservation is perhaps a more pressing problem
for golf courses, and many facilities are trying
to conserve. According to the 2001 report Water
Right: Conserving Our Water, Preserving Our Environment,
published by the International Turf Producers Foundation,
the U.S. Golf Association has spent more than $18
million since 1982 seeking solutions to environmental
issues related to golf, including the development
of new grasses that require less water and pesticides,
improved irrigation techniques, and use of alternative
water sources, such as treated wastewater and storm
runoff collected in storage ponds.
NASCAR: The New Baseball
NASCAR racing is the fastest growing sport in America.
In 2004, a total of 3.5 million fans watched races
sponsored by NASCAR (the National Association of
Stock Car Racing). Once concentrated mainly in the
Deep South, NASCAR now lays claim to audiences throughout
the United States, and even in Mexico. While a day
at the races might seem like good clean fun, NASCAR
can also produce significant environmental problems,
including noise pollution, polluted runoff from tracks
and parking lots, and reliance on an old health villain:
leaded gas.
|
Fast track
to cleaner air. Under pressure from environmental
groups to phase out leaded gas, NASCAR
will require stock cars to use a
lead-free fuel made by Sunoco beginning
in 2008.
image:
Matt Sayles/AP |
Although the EPA phased leaded gas out of the consumer
market more than 30 years ago, its use
in stock cars has gone on with the agency’s blessing--an
exemption was written into the Clean Air Act. Lead
lubricates engines, helping them run smoothly, but
it’s also a neurotoxicant that can lower IQ,
particularly among young children. In
December 2005, a draft EPA document titled Air Quality Criteria
for Lead stated that leaded fuel may pose
a serious risk to residents living in
the vicinity of racetracks, fuel attendants, racing
crew and staff,
and spectators.
In a pilot study published in the February 2006
issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Hygiene, Joseph O’Neil of the Indiana University
School of Medicine and colleagues found elevated
blood lead levels among some mechanics and crew members
of a NASCAR race team. Specifically, the median blood
lead level in 47 tested individuals was 9.4 micrograms
per deciliter, which approaches the EPA’s own
risk threshold of 10 micrograms per deciliter, over
which toxic effects can be expected. Nineteen of
those individuals had blood levels at the EPA threshold.
For years, the EPA has urged NASCAR to quit leaded
gas voluntarily. The industry claimed it was trying
to find replacements, but also insisted the ones
that were available lowered performance and harmed
engines. But in January 2006, under pressure from
Clean Air Watch, a Washington, DC-based environmental
group, NASCAR finally relented. The industry will
begin using a lead-free fuel made by Sunoco called
260 GTX by 2008.
Other Impacts
Golfing, skiing, and stock car racing are not the
only sports that present problems for the environment,
however. Fishing, considered a competitive sport
by some and a recreation by others, is being shown
to have significant impacts on fish populations.
A study in the 27 August 2004 issue of Science showed
that recreational catches represented almost a quarter
of catches of fish species identified by the U.S.
government as species of concern for declining populations.
Other water sports also have significant environmental
impacts. Conventional outboard motors and personal
water craft may release as much as 30% of their fuel
into the water unburned. Recreational marine engines
contribute a high percentage of hydrocarbon emissions
to the air. And boating activities can have dire
effects on estuaries that serve as nurseries for
many fish species. [For more information on these
impacts, see “The
Environmental Pain of Pleasure Boating,” EHP 111:
A216-A223 (2003).]
One group is trying to bring awareness to these
issues. On 3 April 2006, the Earthrace, an
80-foot trimaran billed as the “world’s
coolest boat,” was launched in Auckland’s
Waitemata Harbour. The Earthrace project is
a bid to break the world record for circumnavigating
the globe (24,000 nautical miles) in a powerboat,
using only renewable fuel. The project includes an
18-month tour calling at 60 major cities, promoting
biodiesel and raising awareness about sustainable
use of resources along the way. Sponsored by more
than 200 marine supply companies, the boat is a showcase
of environmentally friendly technologies such as
low-emission engines, nontoxic antifouling paint,
and efficient hull design. Earthrace skipper
Paul Bethune said in a February 2006 press release, “By
racing an awesome-looking boat on this fuel around
the world, we hope to raise public awareness of the
need to take alternative fuels seriously, as well
as [display] incredible advances in the ways marine
technology now coexists harmonically with marine
ecology.”
|
|
Reeling in a big one for the
Earth. Sport fishing and boating have had
many negative ecological impacts,
but the Earthrace project (above),
which is attempting to break the
record for circumnavigating the globe
in a boat run on renewable fuels,
aims to show that marine sports can
be less damaging to the environment.
images (left to right):
Shutterstock; Tim Costar Photograpy |
The environmental footprint of sports extends beyond
the activities themselves. The manufacture
of sports clothing and equipment also exerts potential
environmental
impacts, mainly worker exposure to
production chemicals and plant releases of dyes and
wastewater, says André Gorgemans,
secretary general of the World Federation
of the Sporting Goods Industry (WFSGI) in Verbier,
Switzerland.
Of particular concern, Gorgemans says,
are uses of polyvinyl chloride (PVC)--a type of plastic
linked
equivocally to testicular cancer and
more definitively to many other health effects--for
making soccer and
cricket balls, footwear, bats, helmets,
gloves, shin pads, and other sports items. Many countries
around
the world have been phasing out PVC
(which also has numerous other uses in construction
and plumbing)
since toxicity issues first arose in
the 1980s.
Today, the WFSGI discourages the use of PVC and
hundreds of other toxic chemicals--including metals,
dyes, and ozone-depleting chemicals--by sports manufacturers.
All these chemicals are listed in the organization’s
2003 policy document titled Guidance on Restricted
Substances in Sports Footwear, Apparel, and Accessories.
Restricted substances, as described by the WFSGI,
include chemicals that have been either legally banned
by national governments in the European Union and
elsewhere, or subjected to voluntary restrictions
by nongovernmental ecolabeling schemes.
Frank Henke, global director of social and environmental
affairs at adidas-Salomon and vice chairman of the
WFSGI Committee for Corporate Social Responsibility,
which produces the restricted substances list, says
most “branded companies,” such as Nike
and adidas, adhere to it. But he acknowledges that
PVC and other restricted substances are still used
by smaller manufacturers in developing countries.
Henke declined to identify these manufacturers, however.
In addition to issues of the components of sports
equipment, the manufacture of such equipment also
plays into issues of obsolescence and waste. As any
parent with a cluttered garage knows, used sports
equipment can pile up quickly. Multiply one garage
by all the others out there, and it’s easy
to get a picture of how much waste sports activities
can produce. Although equipment is occasionally passed
down to siblings or resold, seldom is it recycled.
Two projects of the GSA are working to remedy this
situation. Sports-eco.net is a grassroots initiative
to reduce, reuse, and recycle sports equipment, particularly
the 30 million tennis balls that are manufactured
every year. The program collects the balls and distributes
them to schools for use on chair and table legs to
muffle noise. The GSA website states, “By sending
used tennis balls to primary and junior high schools
around the country, we are reducing noise levels
and creating a better atmosphere to learn, we are
helping hearing impaired children (hearing aids are
sensitive to sudden loud noises), and we are teaching
a valuable environmental lesson.”
|
A sticky wicket. Although
many large companies voluntarily
restrict or ban the use of toxic
chemicals in their sporting equipment,
smaller manufacturers in developing
countries still use chemicals, such
as the PVC used in cricket balls,
that may harm human health.
image: Aman
Sharma/AP |
Similarly, the Igfy Corporation in Japan has pioneered
a program to carry out the GSA mission.
Called RECYCL’art,
the program offers information and
workshops on how to turn used sports equipment--including
tennis rackets,
balls, and shoes--into art. The program
supplies special boxes that can be set up at schools,
stores,
and sporting events for collecting
old or unused sports equipment for recycling.
Some sports manufacturers themselves seem to be
catching on to the idea. Nike offers a program called
Reuse-A-Shoe in which used athletic shoes are collected,
deconstructed, and turned into “Nike Grind,” actually
three different materials, each used in a different
way to resurface soccer and football fields, basketball
and tennis courts, tracks, and playgrounds.
A Sporting Chance
In many ways, the emerging environmentalism in
sports is highly collaborative, says Falt. “We
don't think it’s useful to blame specific sports
or federations for environmental problems,” he
says. “Confrontation doesn’t work. We
need to engage these entities directly.”
Meanwhile, the sports and environment movement
continues to grow. Falt points out that during the
early 1990s, the linkage between them had barely
been made. But now, sports and the environment are
indelibly linked--from the glitziest athletic spectacles,
played out on the world stage, to the everyday games
played by billions of ordinary people--and from this
current generation of sports enthusiasts, a new generation
of environmentalists may be emerging.
|