BP, EDF and images of London 2012

Whilst we celebrate the talent and dedication of all the athletes at London 2012, let us not forget that there are major multinational companies profiting from their association with London 2012.

They abuse the human rights of their workers and their customers (Adidas, G4S), they pollute the local environment to the detriment of the physical and economic health of local communities (Rio Tinto, BP), and they choose not to accept responsibility for the crimes that they have committed (Dow). 




Produced by five organisations, London Late, offers a sense of dry realism beyond the corporate bluster. Grab a copy if you can, or download and read from the link above. 

Micro drones and a techriminal justice system

Wormwood Scrubs, Holloway and Strangeways (now Manchester). Here they go. Is it really so strange to think that these institutions may become extinct?

According to The Guardian, The US Defence Advanced Research Project Agency's 'Nano Hummingbird', as seen above, has inspired the MoD's Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) “to stimulate new lines of thought”. DSTL sent out research proposals last year for micro and nano unmanned aircraft systems that “operate inside buildings and within deep urban canyons”.

Whilst the priorities still seem militaristic, almost 5 years ago, The Telegraph reported that insect sized drones had been seen at anti-war protests in Washington and New York. A similar sighting was reported in 2004. 

We know that the US Defence Department has been funding research projects to create “cyborg moths”. These moths can be controlled remotely via computer chips that were implanted into moth pupae. In 2006, Flight were given exclusive access to CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia, where they saw a model of a drone that had been on display since 2003 in its museum. 

The UK police have been using drone technology for some time, with the first arrest using a drone reported over 2 years ago. But it is the use of micro drones and what they offer in terms of surveillance that is interesting UK police forces; freedom of information requests have recently been submitted to the police forces of Greater Manchester and West Midlands. It will be worth keeping an eye on their replies to the two requests numbered 3. 

As G4S expand their criminal justice remit from prisons to police stations, it is worth bearing in mind what impact this might have on a future UK criminal justice system. Given their financial and political muscle (and an inability to provide sufficient security staff), it may prove too attractive a proposition not to look at drones as a long-term solution for keeping an eye on suspects. They already use drone technology in Madagascar. 

Drone fly...or is it? (c) SidPix

If micro drones are to become a norm in the surveillance of suspects, will they also become a norm in the monitoring of detainees? And if the act of guarding a prisoner can be done remotely by a micro drones, then need this take place within what we now see as a prison setting? Will we see an expansion of house arrests and a gradual phasing out of state Victorian prisons, with private homes becoming public detention centres, ? 


Speculation on my part? In the first chapter of 1984, George Orwell wrote,

“In the far distance a helicopter skimmed down between the roofs, hovered for an instant like a bluebottle, and dashed away again with a curving flight”. "It was the police patrol, snooping into people's windows..." 

The technology was barely nascent at the time of his words. Right now, the technology is in place. And it will continue to improve. With public sector cuts and a rolling back of the state, the political and economic will is certainly in place. 

But perhaps most importantly for the criminal justice system, we currently associate drones with terrorism. And without wishing to sound all 'Team America', terrorists are bad people – for a wider discussion of terrorism, feel free to start here. 

If we accept, as we currently do, that those on the receiving end of military drones are criminals, then we are only a step away from assuming anyone in a drone's sight is a criminal. Charged, tried and sentenced by the state and its partners, this is a criminal justice system which presumes guilt over innocence. The technology may well have its benefits, but a techriminal justice system reliant on micro drones is a real concern. 

Good night. Don't let the bed bugs... 

BP and EDF? London 2012 sustainability partners? How?

This article was published on The Ecologist last week. 

Oil spill in Gulf of Mexico April 29th view (c) NASA Goddard Photo and Video

Unlike other commercial partners, LOCOG was solely responsible for selecting the likes of BP and EDF. Chosen between July 2007 and November 2009, as part of the finalising of the sustainability plan, each of these companies had prior (and present); see BP and the Texas City refinery disaster and EDF appropriating Ecotricity's green Union flag, and so might seem unlikely sustainability bedfellows.


The 2012 Olympics' sustainability plan is based around 5 themes; climate change, waste, biodiversity, inclusion and healthy living. Add in The Olympic and Paralympic Values of respect, excellence, friendship, courage, determination, inspiration and equality, and I would venture this choice of sustainability partners might seem even more unexpected. So I contacted LOCOG for an interview. After lengthy deliberation, they declined this request,  rejected a further invitation to respond to written questions, and instead sent me the following statement: 

“Without the private investment by our sponsors, the staging of the Games simply wouldn’t be possible. Our sustainability strategy and policies were clearly set out before our sponsors signed up and we work with companies to comply with those standards. Some companies have chosen to connect themselves with that element of our programme as a Sustainability Partner”. 

“By working in partnership with all our stakeholders, from NGO’s such as WWF and BioRegional to our commercial sponsors, we are setting new standards and continuously improving our sustainability performance".

Zzzzzzz...oh, thanks LOCOG.


The Commission for a Sustainable London 2012 (CSL) oversee the provision of sustainability for London 2012, yet was not involved in selecting the sustainability partners. In an interview, CSL's Chair, Shaun McCarthy explained, “assurance bodies, by their nature, can not be involved in management decisions. It would be a fundamental conflict of interests”. He added, “our concern is about setting the standards and requirements for delivery of the sustainability standards of the programme, and then the process by which those standards are delivered, and we would comment on those”.


But how can an organisation overseeing sustainability - in this instance CSL - set standards without being involved in the process? And what happens when sustainability partners fail to deliver sustainability? What sanctions might they face?


Shaun McCarthy told me there aren’t really any sanctions, other than CSL being able to “embarrass them publicly” because of the nature of CSL’s work. He admits that since LOCOG is by its nature a temporary organisation, there can not be any kind of sanction around repeat business with companies losing out in future bids. He continued, “the other thing that is difficult is a sponsor that's putting in cash and value in kind, or a sponsor that's just contributing value in kind in terms of brand recognition, well, what do you do, because actually the cash is flowing the other way”.

Carrying a torch (c) comedy_nose

Yet CSL is not completely toothless. When EDF failed to deliver their low carbon torch, CSL made a point of embarrassing them. Their latest report, 'In sight of the finishing line,' notes “The promise of a low-carbon torch was made in 2007 so the excuse of “we ran out of time” is not acceptable”. 


Is it even a genuine excuse? EDF are not shy of duplicity (see above). An independent organisation with clout might have considered EDF's history during the selection process for sustainability partners.


The same report goes on to say “The Commission is disappointed that LOCOG and EDF Energy have failed in this objective as whilst the carbon contribution of this initiative may have been relatively small, the power of the message across the globe would have been highly significant”. 


I would ask why should the power of the message be more significant than the carbon reduction, no matter how small?


Elsewhere, CSL has written “The Commission is disappointed that there will not be the widespread use of real-time energy monitoring and display as this could have supplemented their (EDF's) Games-time sustainability messaging through providing public confidence in the sustainability of the Games”. 


Taken together, these statements appear to me to indicate that real sustainability is less important than the public perception of sustainability.


This matters. BP are responsible for providing the fuel for the fleet of official London 2012 vehicles. The company has been advertising its alleged use of sustainable fuel under the banner “Providing advanced biofuels for London 2012”. But as the UK Tar Sands Network point out, “A closer look at BP's claims here reveals over 99% of the fleet will in fact be using convention fossil fuel. Furthermore, of BP's three advanced biofuel projects, two should really be considered 'first generation' rather than advanced”.


Given the reality of the fuel used, and that first generation biofuels have a bad reputation for driving climate change, BP seem to be greenwashing their sustainability commitment. And CSL and LOCOG appear to be letting them get away with it - no mention is made of BP's predominant use of fossil fuel or first generation fuels in 'In sight of the finishing line'. It will be interesting to see what CSL have to say about this in their next annual report due next month.


To be fair, CSL's position is difficult. They receive 30% of their funding through LOCOG, and so are part funded by the companies they are supposed to be keeping an eye on. The scope for providing independent sustainability assurance is therefore somewhat compromised. Shaun McCarthy says: “I think the IOC does have responsibility to pick up some of these issues that can't be dealt with by a temporary organisation”. This sounds like a reasonable idea, but could also be susceptible to the same financial (corporate) ambitions.


We accept that there is a need for corporate finance in funding the Games, but this should not detract from delivering sustainability. Just how BP and EDF were chosen as sustainability partners remains a mystery. The choice of future sustainability partners should not be considered from a financial angle alone. A company's sustainability history should be paramount when selecting future partners.


A global organisation, endorsed by, but independent of, the IOC, with a remit to oversee sustainability from start to finish, might be the best solution for future sustainable Games.