The sponsors' Olympics

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

These Olympic games were supposed to be the "greenest" so far. At least that is what the organisers promised...

"Participation is what matters!" The father of the Olympic movement, Pierre de Coubertin may have never said those words exactly, but they are considered one of the core Olympic principles today. "Sustainable development has always been at the core of the entire preparation of these Olympic games" - that was what the organisation committee of the London Olympics assured the public. But it turns out not exactly true.

Of course it is true that the Olympics turned the East End of London from a uncomely industrial area into a green Olympic park. 2 thousand trees and 300 thousand bushes were planted in the place of the old and abandoned factory buildings, 2 million tons of dead soil was processed and cleaned... The use of the sports facilities is guaranteed for years ahead, the organisers claim. And this prompted the chairman of the special Commission for a Sustainable London 2012, Shaun McCarthy to boast that "These Olympic games are undoubtedly the most sustainable in history". The claim is that the London Olympics are "greener" than Sydney, and much more "sustainable" than Barcelona. The latter becoming the most worn-out and misused term of the decade, I would say.

Except... it remains a mystery how do we reconcile sustainable development with the presence of corporations like Coca-Cola, the oil giant BP, the mining giant Rio Tinto, and the chemical company Dow Chemical. And this is just a tiny part of the list of generous sponsors that the International Olympic Committee has signed long-term contracts with, worth hundreds of millions of pounds. For example, Dow Chemical provided the funds for the construction of the sliding roof of the Olympic stadium in London, and was granted the right to put their logo among those of the other sponsors of the Olympics. Which in turn angered the environmentalists and human rights advocates. They accuse the IOC that it has not vetted its sponsors too well, before claiming it would be organising the "greenest" Olympics. That is the problem. Otherwise, how could we explain the fact that at the very top of the list of sponsors we can see the name of a company which was involved in one of the greatest environmental catastrophes in recorded history?

I am talking about the town of Bhopal in India. In 1984 near the pesticide factory (property of the US company Union Carbide), over 40 tons of methyl-isocianate were released, immediately killing 8 thousand people, and another 15 thousand dying later from the poisoning. The industrial accident caused chronic diseases in more than 100 thousand people, many of them suffering brain damages and other body malfunctions, or losing their sight. Meanwhile, Union Carbide had passed into the hands of Dow Chemicals.

The hardest thing to swallow is that the organisers of the Olympics and the British government itself have essentially taken the side of Dow Chemical, who denies any responsibility, as Union Carbide had been bought by Dow Chemical 16 years after the incident. While this argument may have made some sense in other circumstances, the fact is that Dow Chemical inherited all the assets, connections, staff, and activities of Union Carbide. It even pursued UC's interests at the subsequent lawsuits against the Indian government, and eventually reached an agreement in 1989 that the Indian government would stop filing more claims for compensations on behalf of the victims of the catastrophe. So Dow Chemical is not completely divorced from the Bhopal issue. And the Olympics organisers must have known this very well.

Furthermore, it recently surfaced that Dow Chemical had used Stratfor to spy on the activists involved in the case of the Bhopal disaster. Of course Wikileaks (who made the revelation) was soon subject of severe criticism from Stratfor for their whistleblowing, and the very fact of Dow Chemical's illegal actions was drowned somewhere amidst all the backs and forths, the issue finding no conclusive end. The company continues to deny any responsibility to this very day.

The former chairman of the Sustainability Committee at the Olympic games, Meredith Alexander was also appalled, and this was the reason for her resignation. She said she did not accept the IOC's explanation that there were no other sponsors. Amnesty International adds that "What's frustrating about it is when responding to inquiries of this or that company, the organizations simply take the standpoint of Dow Chemical, they say, we don't have anything to do with it, we didn't buy the company until 16 years after the accident". End of story.

The Charter of the Olympic Movement rests upon the principles of honesty and solidarity. At least on paper. But obviously for the IOC, funding the Olympics with money that stinks of chemical poison, is more important than observing the very principles it is supposed to uphold.

Comments

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

My skepticism over the Olympics isn't rested in hypocrisy. Rather its because It's promised economic benefits never pay off, and there's rampant corruption in the selection process, among other things.

However, since we're still talking about an event that costs a staggering amount of money that isn't likely to be recouped anyway, where would you suggest that these wasted funds should be sucked from, increasingly, to offset the loss of corporate sponsorship?

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

I am in no way arguing against sponsorship of such expensive events. I am arguing against outright, blatant hypocrisy, which is very easy to detect and expose in this age of totally and easily accessible information. The organisers claim one thing and then do the exact opposite. This is what I am having a problem with.

I am of the opinion that Olympics should not be so posh and gargantuan, so expensive, and not even involving professional athletes. That was not the initial idea in the first place, and indeed for a time it was the reality of the Olympics. But not for long. I am aware that this is a too romantic idea to ever come true again.

I am far from the thought that the Olympics could ever again be smaller, cheaper, and not involving all those huge amounts of money, commercialism and striving for achievements at any cost, no matter the means, that has turned most sports into a business, or what many now call a farce. Although it does not mean I would stop dreaming of such games.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Once more, the British prove that the old fable about the British double tongue is true to the very last word.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

[cite source]

I've never heard that one...

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

It's folk lore, buddy.

See how nicely I got away from citations? :-P

mutters

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

Clever Bulgars

*shakes crop*

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidious_Albion

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

But isn't this kind of like offsets?

"Look, we contributed X to the greenest games in the universe!"

Marketing may work for Coke, people drink it. But Dow Chemicals? "Oh yeah, gonna go get some Scrubbing Bubbles now, they're really cool!"

Meh.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

Maybe they are trying to redeem themselves for past sins? They should only have said so! =)

[factotum666.livejournal.com]

The olympic games cost in excess of a 10 billion dollars. Each athlete gets a 2 or 3 oz medal. There are about 100 gold medals. Seriously how cheap can they be not to give out solid gold medals? 300 oz at 1500 per oz and you are looking at all of 1 half million dollars. That is not even a rounding error on the cost of the olympics. But then you would be ignoring the first rule of the olympics. How much can we screw the athletes while pretending to honor them?

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

As cynical as I can be about the Olympics, I'm not going to go along with the idea that the athletes' priority in winning the medal is the monetary value of the precious metal in the awards.

[factotum666.livejournal.com]

I did not mean to imply that the athletes were motivated by the value of the metal in the money. I know that it is symbolic. But given the relative cost of the metal compared to the cost of the show, it just seems cheap on the part of the party givers to give out fake prizes. I mean if you are going to do that, why not give out paper certificates with gold, silver or bronze stars on them? Or how about nicely engraved certificats of achievement?

A gold plated silver metal is FAKE!

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

Gold medals contain just 1% gold.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/how-much-gold-is-in-an-olympic-gold-medal/

=)

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

The medals are for display purposes. Encouraging people to melt them down for the precious minerals they contain somewhat defeats the purpose.

I think some athletes make big bucks on their endorsements & sponsorships. That may be where they gain the most in terms of their business model.

[factotum666.livejournal.com]

Given the degree to which athletes at this level are able to monitize their skills, I would be surprised if there was any evidence that any but a very few, if any, would melt their medals. Really, they would only get a few thousands of dollars, something that they get for endorsing diapers. My complaint is that the current practice it makes the medals phony, cheap, and in some fundamental sense, dishonest.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

What irritates me is there is more public outcry over gays being denied entry into the Boy Scouts than there is on 40 tons of methyl-isocianate being released resulting in thousands of casualties.

Our priorities are very strange.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

Both issues are important.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

I would encourage environmentalists and human rights advocates to sponsor the Olympics themselves. This would eliminate the need for corporate sponsors and provide much needed publicity for these worthy causes. Until then, I think it's important to recognize the positive side to the contributions that corporations make to public events like the Olympics.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

I fail to understand what was unclear about this post. Nowhere did I make an argument against the involvement of corporations in the sponsorship of the Olympic games. The sole issue I have with this case is the hypocrisy of the Olympic organisers. These are important nuances that can do or undo a discussion, and sadly I have seen at least a couple of commenters ignore the nuance.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

You may not like the companies that sponsored the Olympics, and environmentalists and human rights advocates maybe be angry, but I don't see how that makes the organizers hypocritical. Have they ever publicly committed to refusing sponsorship deals with Coca Cola, BP, Rio Tinto, Dow Chemical or other companies?

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

You may not like the companies that sponsored the Olympics

...is some good progress from...

eliminate the need for corporate sponsors

I thank you for beginning to understand what my point really is.

I don't see how that makes the organizers hypocritical

I do not agree. I repeat:

the organisers of London 2012 have promised these Games will be the most environmentally friendly ever (source (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19145759))

Then they invited a company that had done its best to shut the mouths of the victims of one of the biggest environmental disasters in history. And when called out on it, they doubled down and said they would not quit this company's sponsorship, end of story.

If you promise one thing, and then do the exact opposite, this is called hypocrisy. It is as simple as that, no matter how hard we try to twist it.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

The issue most germane to the question of sustainability would, it seems to me, be whether or not Dow's contribution, the sliding roof of the Olympic stadium in London, was a sustainable project. If the construction methods and the life cycle environment impact of the roof can be considered , relative to the alternatives, an environmentally responsible option, then the London Olympic Committee has satisfied the requirement.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

So if BP built a stadium roof in Rio and became a Rio 2016 sponsor, and the Rio Olympic committee said they were the greenest Olympics ever, and when asked why is BP their sponsor, and responded that it's none of their concern and BP had never done anything wrong... everything would be OK, right? Even after the Gulf spill?

Is this some kind of Jedi mind trick?

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

The merit of a claim by the Rio Olympic Committee that their Games are the greenest ever can be measured by:
a. the extent to which their Games are green; and
b. the extent to which previous Games were green, i.e. more green or less green.
Neither of the above is in any way affected by the Gulf Spill.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

By openly embracing a relationship with a sponsor which has proven itself to be involved (and attempted to cover up, or at least water down) an environmental disaster caused by one of its constituents, the IOC is effectively condoning such practices, which directly conflicts with their self-proclaimed "pursuit of green policies".

That you choose to narrowly focus on the meaning of the term "greenEST", as opposed to doing a minor effort to understand what this statement actually means to represent, you are trying to obscure the core issue into semantic quibbles - I suspect, for a lack of a better argument.

This is similar to what Dow Chemical actually did, when they did their best to not fall over backwards and twist into pretzels when called out on their policy of shutting the mouths of the people who were essentially trying to assert their right of compensation.