To BP or Not to BP?

Mr. Green is busy on his world-wide publicity tour for his new book. In the meantime, here's a Mr. Green classic column from May 2007.

Hey Mr. Green,
If BP is your "best" choice for gasoline brands, you must have your head in the oil sands. Its high-risk industrial operations in Texas City killed 15 workers and injured 180 in 2005. Does BP contribute to Sierra? --Konrad in Park Ridge, Illinois

Hey Konrad,
I'm well aware of this inexcusable slaughter of petroleum workers, which was mentioned--along with plenty of other black marks on the company's record--in the Sierra report ("Pick Your Poison") that put BP in the "top of the barrel" category. That's why I said picking a better oil company was about as dicey as dancing with Vice President Dick Cheney on an oil slick.

These are huge and complex companies, and a large number of factors informed our analysis. Yes, more than a dozen BP employees died in that Texas City incident, but many people have been--or will be--killed because of global warming, as it causes the spread of tropical diseases and increases the intensity of storms. In contrast to BP, which has long acknowledged that something has to be done about global warming, ExxonMobil refused to even admit that climate change was happening until this February. Before that, Exxon had been very active--and successful--in debunking global warming, thereby forcing a delay in doing anything about it.

It's downright grisly and depressing to try and weigh the fatalities, pollution, and other ills caused by one petroleum provider against another's. Which is why we need to greatly step up the development of less homicidal and less ecocidal forms of energy.

Environmentally,
Mr. Green

Comments

[Dave]

I don't dispute the facts cited, but the phrase "debunking global warming" is horrifying coming from anyone other than an energy company flunky or white house PR flak. You cannot de-bunk something that is not bunk, aka bullpoop, to begin with.

I'd be surprised if you didn't agree that global warming is not bullpoop, not bad science, not fictional and, therefore, not bunk. What Exxon worked so hard at, and so successfully, thanks to white house greed, was discrediting the "theory", which is about as theoretical as gravity, and much easier to understand. Though still beyond the grasp of mental giants like our President, apparently.

[Ernie]

Basically what he's saying is that picking the greenest of oil companies is like picking the least greedy of the fortune 500, or the least evil of mass murderers.

"Green" and "oil company" are basically mutually exclusive terms, until someday an oil company stops selling oil entirely for some kind of non-polluting energy source. In which case they won't be an oil company anymore.

Of course, if you're so worried about where you buy your oil and oil by-products, perhaps you should ah, stop driving?