Global Warming? Nope, Climate Change

In hopes of finding some information for MollySue's comment about Italians paying nearly $8 per gallon recently, I started researching the nature of the industry in Italy. So far I haven't found an answer to her inquiry. I have come across some other interesting information however.

In a New York Times interview published in November 2006, Paolo Scaroni , the chief executive of Eni of Italy (one of the world's largest oil companies) spoke candidly (rare for a Big Oil executive) about the industry and spoke openly about his opinion on oil prices and the American consumer. In Scaroni's opinion, American consumer's have the strongest effect on the rising oil prices and the increasing consumption. A statement I believe that most of us wouldn't dare disagree with due to the fact that we (American's in general) seem accustomed to a certain way of life and often appear unwilling to reduce our consumption. Two of Eni's chief executives comments I couldn't so quickly accept, were his denial that prices are too high and denial that the Big Oil companies are making as much profit as the general public assumes them to be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/07/business/07interview.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

If the oil giants aren't making as much profit as we think, why are profits significantly rising with each passing year? According to CNN Money, in 2007 "ExxonMobil, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, is within striking distance of setting an all-time profit record - again." The previous record was from 2006. CNN reported expected annual earnings for ExxonMobil for 2007 are a whopping $39 billion - or about $106 million a day, $4.4 million an hour and $73,000 a second.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/23/news/companies/exxon_profits/index.htm?cnn=yes

The February 27, 2008 publication of International Herald Tribune countered what Paolo Scaroni had stated a year earlier. Based on numbers released by the Energy Department, and analyzed by industry experts, US consumption (more than any other country relying on petroleum as a main means for energy) has considerably slowed. The spike in oil prices "could not come at a worse time for the economy. The effect of high oil prices today could be the difference between having a recession and not having a recession," said Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard University economist.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/27/business/26gasweb.php?page=1

Where are all these profits going? To research renewable energy resources in preparation for the foreseen oil crisis? To mitigate the effects of oil pollution on the environment? To find solutions to Global Warming?

Probably not.

According to a press release found on ExxonMobil's official website, Global Warming, termed Climate Change, is a "complex area of scientific study" and however important the subject was, the release reminded consumers to keep "in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world." What are they saying? That energy and it's convenience should be valued over the health of the planet? The press release went on to state that in the future ExxonMobil would continue to do it's part in the research to reduce the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases on the Climate, but only when the efforts fit into the organizations policy options. Some of the factors for analyzing options were listed in the statment including:

• consider priorities of developing world


• minimize complexity and administrative costs

Does it really sound like they intend to sacrifice some of their enormous profits on Climate Change research? Why do Big Oil companies use the term Climate Change? The term sounds less menacing to me. Sounds "greener", don't you think?

A Game of Follow the Leader

I read an article today that dared ask the question "Is Greenwashing Good for you?" The author described Greenwashing as a corporate "bandwagon" of sorts. Something that many major company's Advertising and Public Relations Professionals participated in, including Home Depot, Walmart, Chevron, and Ford. So, everyone is doing it? Remember what our parents used to tell us when we were children, "Just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't make it right."

The article agreed that this form of "disinformation" could be seen as "polishing up the public image of big polluters or convincing people that an environmental problem is being solved by industry when it isn't", then went on to argue that it could be seen as positive because, "huge corporate ad campaigns help cultivate a green-conscious public that doesn't stop at voting with their dollars but also votes its greenness at the ballot box, we have a better chance of moving sustainable policies forward."

http://www.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2007/05/25/is-greenwashing-good-for-you

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the idea of environmentally conscious companies doing their part to contribute to the overall public awareness. Based on the definition this particular article gave for greenwashing (siting the Oxford English Dictionary as the source),"Disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image", I would have to disagree with the idea that this type of dishonest advertising could really ever benefit society.

The "...Greenwashing...Good..." article referenced a national print ad for Shell Oil that made the claim, “We use our waste CO2 to grow flowers”. Hmmm... I am intrigued. I have to know more.

A quick Google search brought up thousands of documents siting this specific advertisement. I wasn't surprised to learn that the ad was quickly banned from the newspapers it was ran in. Advertising "watchdogs", such as the National Advertising Division (part of the Better Business Bureau) and the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK, said the ad and it's "environmental claims were likely to mislead readers".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21659526/

The response from Shell representatives was surprising. They stated the ad wasn't meant to mislead audiences about their waste or contribution to the environmental problems at hand, but instead a "creative and striking way of drawing attention to the problem of waste disposal."

Creative? I wonder if this was one of the "good" effects the other article was referring to.

"Greenwashing" Wizzes

It definitely didn't take me long to decide which controversial turn to first take my blog. A significant portion of my eight week coverage of the Big Oil Industry will contain my comparisons of green advertisements and press releases by various industry giants to that of other environmentally conscious organizations.

What is greenwashing? The U.S.-based watchdog group CorpWatch defines greenwashing as "the phenomena of socially and environmentally destructive corporations, attempting to preserve and expand their markets or power by posing as friends of the environment." This definition was shaped by by the group's focus on corporate behaviour and the rise of corporate green advertising. CorpWatch, along with other environmental coalitions (such as saveourenvironment.org and oilwatchdog.org), will be a main source for my research as their primary focus is to educate the public on how corporations actions affect the environment.

http://www.corpwatch.org/

On the Chevron website (http://chevron.com/), the company boasts about it's involvement and financial support for a Texas biodiesel producer. It is my opinion, the company's PR experts wanted to make sure that every energy reporter and much of the public knew about Chevron's dazzling green commitment.

On May 29, Chevron issued a press release about the plant's opening, preening over its commitment: "Chevron's investment is a tangible manifestation of the company's strategy to invest in renewable energy technologies," said Donald Paul, vice president and chief technology officer, Chevron. "Biofuels are playing an increasingly important role in diversifying our nation's energy portfolio. With growing demand, the nation needs all the sources of energy to contribute to supply. Our involvement with BioSelect Galveston will allow us to apply our world-class capabilities in transportation fuel manufacturing and distribution while expanding our knowledge and experience in large-scale biofuels production."

http://www.chevron.com/news/press/Release/?id=2007-05-29b

Only a few short months following this release, Chevron pulled out of the project and cut all funding to the biofuel research. Did the Big Oil company have true interest in the research? Or was the involvement just an excuse to look better as it turned its back? Lawsuits were filed against Chevron accusing the company of "fraud and misrepresenting its financial commitment to the plant". According to the Galveston Daily News ("Texas" Oldest Newspaper'), "Standard Renewable Energy Group and BioSelect Fuels, two members of a partnership that in December filed the lawsuit, stand by their claims that Chevron abandoned the Galveston Bay Biodiesel plant...The partnership accuses Chevron of using its participation in the project to convince shareholders, customers and financial analysts 'it was farsighted enough to invest in alternative fuels.' "

http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=8833a31c1210163f