The London 2012 Olympic Games: Green or Greenwashed?

On my long trip back from Madrid to Kuala Lumpur, I was required to transit through London, where all the television programmes were set on the Olympic Games. As I patiently waited for the boarding call, I observed a roomful of eyes intently focused on the flatscreen TVs installed in the vicinity of the boarding gates, watching in live broadcast a part of this major international sporting event held every four years, and in which more than 200 nations participate.

Seeing the awed look in their eyes, I was reminded of where I was – the city that is currently hosting the 2012 Olympic Games. I imagined many other spectators around the world watching the same event at home, in bars, on the street, in their cars, and through their smart devices. And there I was, located just a taxi drive away from where it was all taking place. 

I was also reminded of how the organizers of the Olympic Games this year have claimed that it is aiming to be “the most sustainable” Olympics to date. According to its official website, the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) worked in partnership with BioRegional and the WWF to establish the concept “Towards a One Planet Olympics”. 

Under the principles of this concept, the London 2012 Sustainability Plan was established. Around five sustainability themes - climate change, waste, biodiversity, inclusion and healthy living, were structured to provide the framework for delivering what they defined as “truly sustainable Games”. This strategy for sustainability is said to have been integrated into the construction, staging and post-Games phases. LOCOG has also received support and guidance from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) in its efforts to align the Sustainability Plan with London’s long-term strategy for a greener city. 

Some of you may be wondering, as I was, what does this Sustainability Plan entail and what would make the Games this year so “sustainable”? 

Something I found interesting is that it is the first Olympic Games to measure its carbon footprint over the entire project term. In addition, the Olympic Park was built on a once-contaminated industrial land, in which over 98% of waste during its construction phase was recycled with a goal to recycle the same amount in its demolition phase. This move, along with using food waste at the Games for compost, will be implemented through its strategic Zero Waste Games Vision with a “Zero Waste to landfill” target. 

Other than that, Fish and Chips and other seafood dishes will be served with sustainably-sourced fish. This means that they will come from fishery suppliers that harvest at a sustainable rate, so as not to deplete the world’s supply of fish. The organizers are also encouraging visitors to walk, cycle, and use public transportation to travel around the city, with $15.5 million spent on upgrading urban walkways and bike paths. An estimated 8,000 bikes are available for rent around the city through London’s Barclays Bike Hire program, while BMW is sponsoring about 200 electric vehicles as fleets and installing charging points around the city. 

More greenery in the location around the Olympic Stadium have been added, while over 3,000 trees were planted in London and more than 15 tons of waste removed from the city’s parks and waterways. And that’s not even half of it. According to official sources, there are further planned strategies for sustainability that have been implemented and are underway. 

London 2012 Olympic Park

While it seems like all is good and green in London town, there are on the other hand, aspects of the Olympic Games that have caused many to question the true sustainability “status” of the Games, with active groups from the community taking to the streets to protest the greenwashing of the Olympics. This has been due to several factors, including the choice of corporate sponsors of the Games such as Dow Chemicals, British Petroleum and mining giant Rio Tinto – large multinational corporations that have held extremely controversial reputations as a result of their involvement in major issues concerning negative environmental and social impacts caused by the corporations’ business activities. 

Bhopal Protest Against Dow Sponsorship
Source: http://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk

In addition, the development of the Olympic site on a land that used to be contaminated has been a cause for concern as a hundred tonnes of radioactive waste was dumped nearby this site decades ago. This means that any development on the site risks unearthing the radioactive waste. Some experts claimed that the waste has been moved to a safer site. According to an article by the Guardian, an independent nuclear analyst, John Large, stated: “The Olympic site's hurried and unplanned development may have resulted in a great deal of public harm to the local communities remaining around the site. Overall, there is some doubt about the applicability and validity of the radiological risk analysis undertaken for the future legacy use.”

After evaluating its original report/vision, Towards a One Planet Olympics, BioRegional and WWF produced a new shorter report that was published on the eve of the Games - Towards a One Planet Olympics revisited: How well will the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games live up to the sustainability promises made in the bid? This new report seeks to answer questions such as “How far is London 2012 toward delivering a One Planet Olympics?” and “How many of the promises made in Towards a One Planet Olympics have been met or appear to be on track?”.

Renewable energy was one of the key elements in the centre of the plan for how to meet the energy targets. However, the report states that “The failure to meet the renewable energy targets set out in the bid is disappointing. Not only did this leave a significant ‘hole’ in London 2012’s carbon reduction strategy, partially addressed through ad hoc remediation, it also sent out an unfortunate signal regarding the difficulties of incorporating renewable solutions in UK projects.” The report also highlighted the failure to build wind turbines in the park, which was the main renewable energy use target.

Amidst the ongoing debates and speculations on the “greenness” of the 2012 Olympics and whether it is indeed the “most sustainable” Games ever, I am in the opinion that the London 2012 Olympic Games has at the very least managed to make that essential step in educating and creating awareness on issues regarding sustainable development. This event is making efforts to inculcate the culture of energy-efficient, zero-waste, low-carbon, tree-planting lifestyles and best practices among the people. At the very best, it could reach most of the targets set in its Sustainability Plan and succeed in leaving a great legacy of the London 2012 Olympics. Its vision, “to use the power of the Games to inspire change”, has indeed the capability to inspire other organizations to put into practice the lessons reflected and could very well become the benchmark of hosting future international events. With regard to the list of sponsors, however, I am baffled at the fact that the organizers were willing to overlook the bad track record of what many consider to be some of the most irresponsible corporations with regard to sustainability issues.

Back at Heathrow Airport, the television spectators I witnessed seemed unflinched and undisturbed by the controversy surrounding the sustainability themes of this large-scale event. It would seem that the spirit of the Olympics had overtaken the people and so perhaps many of them were focused on the Games itself, eagerly watching to follow who (or what country) will win the next gold medal. 

To read the brochure on London 2012 Zero-Waste Events Protocol, click here.

Click below to watch a CNN coverage on the green side of the London 2012 Olympic Park.