The 2022 Winter Olympics held in Beijing was the first game to use 100% artificial snow. This is because the area did not have temperatures below 0 degrees Celsius and it did not have sufficient snow for the games. The usage of artificial snow is not new and it was first used at the 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid, New York and has been more commonly used since then with global warming.

The 2022 Winter Olympics require over 100 snow generators and 300 snow cannons. This requires a large amount of energy usage which according to the International Olympic Committee (IOC), wind and solar energy will be used to power the snow generators. However, these machines need more than 49 million gallons of water and the city has been facing chronic water scarcity. This will result in issues in water security for the population. Additionally, these snow cannons can also result in noise pollution. The average snow cannon produces a decibel of 60 to 80 which can affect the mountain wildlife since it was formerly part of the Songshan National Nature Reserve.

Another problem with artificial snow is that the melting of fake snow can lead to erosion and changes in soil composition as it contains more minerals and nutrients as compared to regular meltwater. This can result in the domination of certain plants that has higher nutritional requirements.  Additionally, artificial snow melts 2 to 3 weeks later as compared to natural snow which can disrupt the ecosystem.

Lastly, with climate change, the number of cities that will be suitable for the Winter Olympics will decrease over time. According to a report by Loughborough University London, it has projected how “climate change will affect the reliability of previous Winter Games venues to host future outdoor competitions” (p. 10) as seen in figure 1.

Figure 1

From the figure we can see that ” By the 2080s in a high emission scenario, only six out of the 19
would remain reliable.” (p. 10) suggesting the severity of how global warming and climate change have a dire impact on the Winter Olympics.

Hence, with the rate at which global warming is occurring, artificial snow may not even be the solution for future Winter Olympics (that’s if the Winter Olympics can even happen).

Cycling is an increasingly popular form of sports as well as commuting. In Singapore alone, the number of cyclists doubled from 5% in 2019 to 10% in 2020.  With entry level road bicycles costing $390 from Decathlon, the barriers to start cycling is as low. Other than the avid cyclists hitting the roads at top speeds, many have also started cycling as a form of commute, especially with COEs hitting a high of $99,999. On top of being friendly to the pocket, cycling is environmentally friendly as well, with per kilometre carbon emissions 13 times lower than driving a car.

Fig 1: Car emissions

Despite its accessibility and the low carbon footprint of bicycles, does cycling bring more harm than good for the cyclist? Although cyclists benefit by burning off up to 350 calories in a 30 minutes ride, riding in the heavily polluted cities might actually cause adverse health effects. Roads with heavy traffic are heavily polluted with metals such as copper and zinc, which is highly hazardous when breathed in. It is ironic that many cyclists actually started cycling to improve their health and well-being but end up unknowingly bringing more harm than good. In order to fully reap the benefits of cycling, much has to be done to reduce the number of vehicles on the road in order to reduce emissions that are harmful for one’s health.

Indoor gyms are common spaces for people to get in a quick workout be it a HIIT session, weights session, cardio session, etc. However, have we thought about how the conditions in the gym can affect our productivity during the workout or have the potential to affect our health negatively? I doubt so… Therefore, this post seeks to show how indoor pollution impacts the users in indoor gyms.

It is uncommon to find elevated pollution levels within an indoor gym. Humans in the gyms are a source of indoor pollution where we emit substances such as carbon dioxide, amino acids released from sweat and acetone from breathing heavily. It has been reported that we emit 3 to 5 times more chemicals when we are working out as compared to someone who is at rest. Besides, together with cleaning chemicals such as those containing chlorine which are commonly used to wipe down equipment and machines, gases such as formaldehyde can be released which are toxic to our body if inhaled excessively. Therefore, indoor pollution can affect our health significantly as during a strenuous exercise, we require more oxygen thus needing to breath in to get more air.

A study conducted by Ramos et al. (2014) collected air samples from 11 different gyms in Lisbon and measured the “comfort parameters (temperature and humidity) and indoor air pollutants (PM10, PM2.5, CO2, CO, CH2O and VOC)” (p. 349) to investigate the pollution levels in indoor gyms. The study has concluded that chemicals such as carbon dioxide, formaldehyde and particulate matter presented high concentrations in the fitness centers while carbon monoxide and ozone are not much of concern. This suggests that indoor fitness centers can be filled with excess levels of pollutants and airborne chemicals which are harmful to our body. It has also been noticed from the study that the pollutant concentration increases when the spaces were occupied especially during classes. How these pollution level rise to such levels mainly stems from inadequate ventilation system and air filtration. Therefore, these features can be improved or participants can choose to enter the gyms at a non peak period for better air quality.

Hence, gym owners can be more conscious on the air quality of their gyms to allow gym goers a much safer environment to train in. So next time when you head to the gym you may be losing more than you gain… but having said that exercise is still better than not exercising.

Electronic sports are also known as E-sports, are a form of competition using video games and more often than not, it releases a vast amount of greenhouse gas to the environment though it may seem like .

The video gaming industry brings about a multitude of problems for the environment. Firstly, the production of video gaming consoles requires several mined minerals such as copper, nickel, gold, and zinc. The act of mining is detrimental to the environment because carbon dioxide emitted from the various processes from extraction all the way to production. For instance, since the release of Playstation 4 in 2013, it has released 8.9 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide which is more than Jamaica’s emissions in 2017, all for a game console. This will also result in E-waste which is often shipped to Africa and Asia producing other sets of environmental and social problems.

Next, for gamers who stream and uses cloud storage, more data is needed which require more energy usage. Additionally, having to update game is more carbon intensive. For instance, games such as Fortnite and Call of Duty constantly require lots of updates which uses a huge amount of data. Therefore, with a huge fanbase, this will drastically worsen the energy usage. Therefore, in the realm of E-sports where often these games are being streamed to the viewers, do contribute to environmental pollution from the usage of energy.

Hence, e-sports also greatly contribute to environmental pollution through the usage of energy and materials needed for the production of the physical game consoles.

As previously mentioned on how diving affects coral reefs which are vital for the environment to fight climate change, as well as how it indirectly contributes to pollution. This post seeks to shed light on how diving can positively affect the environment.

Firstly, diving can aid in reef reconstruction. These reconstruction projects require professional and volunteer divers to aid the recovery of the corals. For instance, the Coral Restoration Foundation aims to restore “coral reefs on a massive scale, educating others on the importance of our oceans, and using science to further coral research and coral reef monitoring techniques”. Since 2012, the organisation has outplanted more than 120 000 corals out onto the Florida Reef Tract. Therefore, divers also play a significant role in reed reconstruction projects.

Secondly, through diving, divers can help remove the rubbish/marine debris from under the sea. It has been reported that 8 million tons of plastic enter the ocean yearly but only 5% stay on the surface. This suggests that 95% of the rubbish is underwater. Therefore, on top of technology to remove the rubbish, divers play a crucial role in reducing water pollution (figure 1). Besides, there are many organisations that work with divers to protect the oceans. For instance project AWARE, a non-governmental organisation work with volunteer scuba divers through their program, Dive against Debris, where they “house and engage the largest underwater citizen science database and movement for marine debris on the planet”. This program has not only save thousands of marine animals but also helped remove almost 2 million pieces of debris. Also, it represents the largest underwater clean up on the planet.

Figure 1: Divers clearing marine debris

To bring it closer to home, 110kg of rubbish has been removed from the sea around Raffles lighthouse by volunteer divers (figure 2). A group of volunteer divers organised by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) came together on World Oceans Day to help remove the trash.

Figure 2: Volunteer divers with the trash they removed

Additionally, clean up dives have also became more common as there has been more awareness being raised regarding marine pollution. Therefore, diving do have it’s benefits in managing water pollution and on a bigger scale, fight against the climate crisis. However, divers do have to be more aware of the footprint and impacts they leave behind.

The modern day scuba diving is a relatively new sport, which originated from the naval divers during World War II. After the war, the allure of travelling across the world to exotic dive sites was strong, with a whopping 6 million divers worldwide. The number of divers is estimated to increase at a 5.5% CAGR according to a report by Future Market Insights.

More than 300,000 newly minted scuba divers hit the depths each year. The open water course by PADI (Professional Association of Diving Instructors), requires only 4 dives before one is certified. Buoyancy control which is one of the skills covered during the course, is not an easily mastered skill. With poor buoyancy control, inexperienced divers often make contact with the coral reefs. In a study by  Roche et al. (2016), 88% of divers made contact with the reef at least once per dive. Coral reefs are delicate and with divers intentionally (or unintentionally) coming into contact with them, it will cause damage in the form of skeletal breakage and tissue abrasion. Up to 40% of coral reef damage can be attributed to scuba divers based on a study by Zakai et al. (2000) on reef corals at the Northern Red Sea.

Coral reefs are nature’s form of coastal protection and supports a diverse biodiversity. Increased destruction of coral reefs by divers and other causes have led governments to close off dive sites in order to reduce the impact on corals by divers and allow the corals to regenerate. In 2016, Thailand has closed off 10 dive sites, shutting off the dive sites to divers and tourists alike.

Scuba diving has opened up a new world for us but at the expense of destroying the underwater world. Does scuba diving only bring about negative impacts for the oceans? Let us explore further in the next post on how divers can potentially save the seas.

The effects of air pollution have affected the performances of football players so how much worse is it on endurance athletes such as marathoners and triathletes?

Studies have shown how marathoners do run slower in polluted cities. Data was being gathered from over 300 000 marathoners in China between 2014 and 2015 and it covers 37 cities. The daily Air Quality Index (AQI) which encompasses 6 indices  – PM2.5, PM10, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen monoxide, carbon dioxide and ozone, produces an index of between 0-500. AQI 100 and below suggests clear blue sky and that there are no negative health implications. The study has shown that with every doubling of AQI, the finishing time of the marathon increases by 4.08%. The authors have also suggested that the effects PM2.5 and PM10 might be the most harmful to them.

Another study conducted by Marr & Ely (2010) has also concluded that air pollution specifically the increase in PM10 has resulted in the decrease in performance by about 1.4%. The marathon race results, air pollutant concentrations and weather data were collected. With the data collected, “The top three male and female finishing times were compared with the course record and contrasted with air pollutant levels and wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT)” (p. 585). Lastly, it has shown that women are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution as compared to man.

For triathletes, water pollution is also of serious issue that could harm their health. As mentioned previously regarding the 2016 Rio Olympics, the waters were heavily polluted and that they were deemed to be unsafe to swim in. This is a common problem for triathletes as illnesses such as gastrointestinal illness is of serious concern especially so in contaminated sea water which can occur after a heavy rainy period.

Hence, with prolong exposure to air pollution can result in a decreased in performance for marathoners in terms of finishing time. While water pollution can bring about negative health consequences for triathletes.

Continuing on the sport of football, the environmental pollution can have detrimental effects on the athletes’ performances.

Studies have also shown the relationship that professional football players have with football. For instance, a study published by Lichter et al. (2017) have shown that, “the results of our analysis reveal statistically significant negative effects of air pollution on players’ productivity, measured by the total number of passes per match.” (p. 54).  The study was conducted between 1999 to 2011 in Germany on professional football players. The study uses the number of passes as the main indicator as “it reflects both individuals’ physical
ability as well as effort choices during a particular match” (Lichter et al., 2017, p. 56). The data of PM10 and Ozone were being extracted for each match as ozone can affect the respiratory system while PM10 can affect both the cardiovascular and pulmonary functioning.  Besides finding evidences suggesting how air pollution can affect football players performances, the authors have also found that “the overall effect to be mainly driven by players of relatively older age and those playing in positions that require more physical exertion” (p. 62). Therefore, the effects of air pollution are not homogenous across athletes.

Another study conducted by Qin et al. (2022) has also shown how air pollution has negatively affected Chinese professional football players. The study is held between May 2015 to November 2017 with two indicators selected specifically the number of passes and the success rate of passes. These indicators are selected as indicators for performance as it reflects ” how hard he performs during the game” (p. 282) and s the effectiveness of his efforts during the game” (p. 282) respectively. Lastly, the authors concluded that “air pollution leads to bad performance for almost all types of football players, including both less passing and lower accuracy, which decreases the quality of the game for the audience.” (p. 293).

Since air pollution has affected the performances of football players, I believe that marathoners or endurance athletes in general would suffer more from the impacts of the prolong exposure in polluted air which will be further explored in the next blog post.

Football. One of the most famous sports in the world that many love and enjoy – both in participation and viewing it. However, besides just enjoying it from the stands or through the TV, how often do we think of the impacts it has on the environment? I reckon not very often.

It has been estimated that there is an astonishing 3.5 billion fans supporting the sport of football. Football has contributed 0.3% of the world’s global emissions with about 60% of the emissions coming from spectators travelling to those matches. Transport has been noted to be the largest contributor to football’s greenhouse gases emission and more ought to be done to combat climate change.

The 2018 World Cup held in Russia had generated more than 3 billion viewers in total globally. This has resulted in 7.7million fans travelling to Russia (figure 1) to watch the matches which worsens the emissions of greenhouse gases by the aviation industry. It has been reported that the “2018 World Cup was responsible for a staggering 2.16 million tonnes of carbon emissions”.

Figure 1: Crowd in one of the stadium during the 2018 World Cup

Changes have to be made as it is increasingly recognised that “Modern football is unsustainable.” with the way it has been progressing. Events such as champion leagues and World Cup brings about similar effects when compared to the Olympics as shared in the previous posts.

With such a huge fan base, football have the potential to make a positive change.

There are some clubs that are serious about their carbon footprint such as the Forest Green Rovers F.C. where they are the world’s greenest football club and they are carbon neutral as well. Some of their efforts include having an organic pitch where they are maintained by recycled waters and electric mowers. Additionally, their kits are made of renewable materials such as bean waste and plastic bottles. There are also several other teams stepping up on their effort to combat climate change such as Arsenal and Southampton.

However, despite some changes that has been made, more ought to be done. Recently, the champions league has announced that they will be expanding the number of group games from 96 to 180 effective from 2024-25. This would mean that more fans will be commuting to watch those matches which requires more logistics and thus further worsens the impact of pollution.

At the end of the day, are the changes made within football for green or for greed?

Formula 1 racing is deemed one of the more polluted sports for the environment. In 2019, F1 has reported having released 256 551 tonnes of carbon dioxide with logistics accounting for 45% of emissions while the F1 cars themselves contributed to only 0.7% of the emissions. Besides the sport itself contributing to the pollution, fans also play a big part in contributing to the pollution within the microenvironment. In a season there are 23 races and in 2021, there are a total of 2.69 million fans that attended the races. Knowing the implications it has on the environment alongside the cutting down of greenhouse gases emissions worldwide to combat the climate crisis, F1 has released a sustainability strategy report to tackle environmental issues.

In 2019, F1 has declared that the sport aims to be net carbon zero by 2030. This indicates that all the operations, events, logistics and race cars strive for net-zero carbon emissions. This is a huge step forward knowing that the climate crisis is a serious problem and F1 aims to strive for a positive change in their approach towards their sport and the environment. Figure 1 shows their roadmap to achieving sustainability, emphasising the use of technology in some of their approaches.

Figure 1: F1 roadmap in achieving sustainability

Their goals are ambitious where in just 3 years time, all their races will be qualified as a sustainable spectacle. Additionally, being aware of the large fan base it has, it also accounts the methods in how fans commute to the race in an attempt to reduce emissions.

Despite their efforts, I find that perhaps it may be tedious to quantify the pollution from various sources. For instance, how are they going to measure the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from their fans from all over the world? What are some of the indirect effect that F1 can bring about to the environment? However,  despite some possible faults we can expect, we ought to recognize their efforts in trying to be a much more sustainable sport.

Lastly, this makes me think about how much do sports feed into our selfish desire of watching them simply for entertainment purposes while harming the environment knowingly or unknowingly?