One of the most galling aspects of the London bid campaign was the rush of support from establishment environmentalists and political ecologists, predicated on a statement underpinning Olympic development proposals of a low and renewable energy principle, intensive recycling of waste, low emissions, and 'sustainable' procurement. Jonathan Porritt, the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (BTCV), Groundwork, the London Wildlife Trust, and the BioRegional Development Group have all pinned their colours to the Olympic mast in the hope of grabbing chunks of Olympic funding.

Critics have branded the carbon neutral Games "a dangerous myth" (Chris Church, by email), and point to planning and development process as instrumental in the production of environmental and social inequalities. Church charges the development process as lacking public accountability and demands the incorporation of environmental justice as a definitive paradigm within the development and Legacy arrangements. He also demands allotment areas within the public green space and areas for wildlife with restricted human access.

Concerns remain over the 'embedded' energy of such events and the vast facilities servicing spectators; habitat (including ancient woodland), landscape and settlements are all at risk from ongoing airport expansion (This is Local London, November 22, 2002). Last year, Luton Airport authorities announced plans for a replacement runway and a new terminal to be completed in time for the 2012 Olympics (Evening Standard, October 25, 2005). Heathrow is in the process of building a fifth terminal and hoping for a new runway in 2010 (UK-Airport-News.info). The Department for Transport has also conceded (White Paper and Civil Aviation Bill, December 16, 2003) one new runway at Stansted for 2011/2012. All this in the context of regional airport traffic growing massively as a result of budget flights (UK-Airport-News.info).

Far from being the world's first carbon-neutral Games, the 2012 Olympics has been siphoning off monies intended to combat carbon emissions. Construct 2012 report (May 25, 2006) that "[p]lans for a £6 million revolving fund for investment in renewables and energy efficiency were [abandoned] by the London Climate Change Agency, part-financed by the LDA", earlier in the year, "due to funding pressure from the Olympics". The website notes that London will not come close to meeting its 2010 target for zero-carbon development. Darren Johnson, leader of the GLA's Green group also raised the prospect of a reduction of funding and staff to support other green initiatives as a direct result of the Olympic project, and criticised designs for the Aquatics Centre for failing to incorporate renewable energy sources into the initial proposals. It is not known to Games Monitor whether designs for the other stadia and facilities have considered this criteria.

The 'bigger and better' mentality that currently drives International Olympic Committee (IOC) decisions means that capitalist growth is one of the main measuring sticks for success of an Olympics. Contrary to the supposed spirit of the Olympic Games, the idea of some of the less wealthy countries ever hosting it becomes more and more remote. This in turn reinforces the ridiculous situation where no Olympics has ever been held in Africa or South America, while London alone is coming up for its third turn as host.
Ola Onatade, writer and cultural commentator

This essay is part of the Games Monitor briefing papers available for download from our Media Centre page.