In our first Annual Review in 2007 we identified a flaw in the ODA sustainability strategy and recommended that they develop a policy for environmentally sensitive materials such as refrigerants in cooling systems. This recommendation was accepted but the ODA failed to act on it in time for design contracts to be let. Had they done, so much of the cost of re-design could have been avoided.

When the issue of the cooling system in the Aquatic Centre was discussed at Olympic Board, the ODA offered the case presented by Kirsten – that this was a very expensive way to mitigate a small amount of greenhouse gas. We do not deny this, but we encouraged the Olympic Board to consider the wider consequences. London 2012 promised to set new standards of sustainability. Major corporations such as Sainsbury’s and Coca Cola are investing heavily to remove HFCs. There is general acknowledgement that HFCs are outdated technology and they are already being phased out from common uses such as domestic refrigeration and car air conditioning systems. We advised the Olympic Board that London 2012 would be failing in this objective if this situation was not corrected. Having set such high ambitions, we believed that the ODA and other delivery bodies must set an example for others to follow.

The Olympic Board accepted our advice and instructed the ODA to replace the cooling medium and to find savings from the project to offset any additional cost. The net cost to the public purse was zero.

£1million to save the carbon equivalent of an average UK family household doesn’t seem like a use of public money worth shouting about.

As with all decisions on sustainability we have to seek those opportunities which deliver real value for money rather than throwing hard earned cash at appeasing a politcal agenda.