Air Quality Outside the Border

When reading the New York Times this morning, I found myself becoming worked up about an article on the front page concerning Beijing's air pollution control strategies during the Olympic Games. Jim Yardley notes that despite an increased amount of air control measures, the country's air quality is still far below where it needs to be for Olympic athletes to breathe safely during the games. Despite the reduction of traffic by two-million vehicles each day, and the closing of many large factories, "local pollution ratings have exceeded the national standard for acceptable air since last Thursday." Looking at this from a human rights standpoint, I find myself entirely frustrated. The fact that these huge measures have had little impact on the air quality in Beijing means that the environment there is of such a low quality that it is almost unlivable. Furthermore, the only reason the air quality is being controlled now is because of the Olympics. What of the millions of people that live there, forced to breathe the polluted air every moment of their lives? The band-aids that environmental forces have tried to apply are obviously not working, even in the short-term, for the Olympics. Thus, we need to find real, life-tested solutions to this severe health and quality-of-life issue, both for the Olympic athletes, but more, for the citizens of Beijing. What do donors think about this proposition- and can we even begin to work toward environmental change in a country that is not our own? I'd be interested to hear what some policy-makers propose!

Dana Variano