It's Good to be Green These Days, but It's a Tricky Area for Chemical Companies
WHEN BRITISH oil giant BP attempted to reinvent itself with the "Beyond Petroleum" rebranding back in 2000, most of the other oil majors were still doing their best to cast doubts on whether or not global warming was a reality.
Times change. A quick scan of oil company web sites can give the impression that these firms have all but turned their backs on their core business and are well on the way to replacing oil with cleaner energy. Virtually all are eager to trumpet investment in solar, wind, or geothermal power sources.
If further proof is needed that eco-credentials are climbing ever-higher on the agenda, even US group ExxonMobil, long regarded as the unrepentant villain of the peace by the green lobby, has grudgingly accepted that climate change is on the agenda for good, and is certainly well equipped with the appropriate slogans. "Provide energy. Protect the environment. A dual challenge for all of us." says Exxon's website.
Mahi Sideridou is managing director of Greenpeace, Europe. "The rhetoric has changed significantly over the last decade," she says. "We went from oil companies refusing to accept that climate change was real, to their websites championing the need for investing in clean and renewable energy sources."
BP spokesman David Nicholas cites activity in solar power, onshore wind turbines, biofuels, and carbon capture and storage as areas where the company is investigating opportunities to, as Nicholas puts it, "enhance energy security and diversity."
Nicholas quotes a figure of $1.5bn allocated to the nonfossil-fuel arm of BP's operations during 2008, an amount corroborated by Greenpeace, who remain unimpressed nonetheless. The NGO points out that, significant though the amount might appear, it equates to less than 7% of BP's total investment for the year, with the rest going to the company's oil, gas and chemical business.
Last year, Greenpeace visited BP headquarters and attempted to present group CEO Tony Hayward with an "emerald paintbrush" award, for the year's worst greenwash. Slogans like "from the earth to the sun, and everything in between" drew particular criticism. Environmental campaigners feel the fine words are an uneasy fit while BP continues in its determination to invest in much-criticized ventures like Canadian oil sands. The extraction techniques necessary at the ironically named Sunrise field produce up to three times as much carbon as conventional oil operations, according to campaigners.
In the US, Chevron is running its "I will," series of advertisements in Washington, D.C. Houston, Texas and California. A continuation of the "Power of Human Energy" campaign of around a year ago, pictures of smiling, happy faces are accompanied with phrases like "I will leave the car at home more," and "I will finally get a programmable thermostat."
MIXED EMOTIONS
Washington-based Greenpeace research director Kert Davies has mixed feelings about the advertising. "The notion is basically an austerity campaign. If we had put it out a couple of years ago we'd have been ridiculed for it," he says. "But I love it on one level because it's basic energy education. The problem comes when the rhetoric doesn't match the reality. They're still selling a product which, when used as directed, is a major problem."
But Chevron does invest in alternative energy programs. Chevron Energy Solutions, the subsidiary that focuses on environmental issues, projects spending of around $2.5bn between 2007 and this year, with investment going into solar power, geothermal energy and biofuels. Again, critics point to the company's 2007 profits of $18.7bn and say it's not enough.
Davies has spent the last few years running Greenpeace's Exxon Secrets website, aimed at drawing attention to the company's funding of organizations opposed to the accepted thinking on climate change. Despite Exxon's public change of heart, the funding continues, Davies claims.
EXXON IS NO JOLLY GREEN GIANT
Exxon has less to say about clean energy than some of the other oil companies, despite the slogans. ABC news claims the company spent only 1% of its 2007 profits on alternative energy. Instead, the company makes much of its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from its operations. The claim that Exxon's 2007 emissions were reduced by 5m tonnes from 2006 levels is good news, but even the 2007 emissions remain at a sizeable 141m tonnes in total.
Davies is unimpressed, claiming that Exxon's activities are more to do with becoming more efficient and reducing costs than embracing environmentally responsible behavior. "That's not being green - that's being smarter," he says. "It's the same with any industry, it just makes business sense."
Netherlands-based climate campaigner Joris Thijssen is also frustrated by the comparatively low levels of investment. "I have contact with renewables people in [Anglo-Dutch group] Shell and other oil companies, and these people really want to make renewables happen. They're really busy coming up with business cases to get more money, but compared to their oil brothers and sisters it's very small."
"Shell have invested in an offshore windmill park in the Netherlands, and I'm glad it's happening, but in comparison, there are billions going into oil exploration and their plans for the tar sands in Canada, and that's devastating for the climate."
"Oil companies are keeping a watching brief. They know that at some point we have to move away from oil. They keep track of what's happening and will jump in at the right moment, but at the moment they're just making too much money. They don't have a big incentive to move away from oil just yet."
Total's Jean-Michel Gires, executive vice president for sustainable development, agrees, and is unapologetic. "We're an oil and gas company more than anything else", he says. Total, like its competitors, apportions some of its research and development spending to alternative energy sources, mainly solar and biofuels. Gires, however, feels that NGOs are unrealistically impatient about the pace at which change is possible.
"It's a very nice dream, but economics drives the whole arena," he says. Their view for the time being has no economic justification. We have to say, "sorry, but we don't think your dream is feasible."
Sideridou thinks there is hope, but remains cautious, and wary of greenwash. "The mood is shifting. There is broader recognition of wind, solar and geothermal energy, which were thought of as marginal in the past. The fact that these big, successful companies recognize these renewable energy sources means that something dramatic is changing."
Sideridou is well aware that to satisfy the lobbyists, oil companies would have to, quite simply, stop what they're doing. "It's a radical demand - to phase out the investment in dirty energy sources like oil, and to replace that with full investment in renewables and energy efficiency." Sideridou knows that change of that kind of significance is not likely to come any time soon, no matter how many pictures of waving wheat fields feature on oil company websites.
"Public awareness of climate change is now a major issue. Big companies are good at tapping into this public mood and responding to it. I'm not belittling the investment the oil companies are making. I think it's a useful first step, but there is a disconnect, which some people might call hypocrisy, between what they're claiming and what they're actually doing. What we would like to see is that the actions match the rhetoric."
Times change. A quick scan of oil company web sites can give the impression that these firms have all but turned their backs on their core business and are well on the way to replacing oil with cleaner energy. Virtually all are eager to trumpet investment in solar, wind, or geothermal power sources.
If further proof is needed that eco-credentials are climbing ever-higher on the agenda, even US group ExxonMobil, long regarded as the unrepentant villain of the peace by the green lobby, has grudgingly accepted that climate change is on the agenda for good, and is certainly well equipped with the appropriate slogans. "Provide energy. Protect the environment. A dual challenge for all of us." says Exxon's website.
Mahi Sideridou is managing director of Greenpeace, Europe. "The rhetoric has changed significantly over the last decade," she says. "We went from oil companies refusing to accept that climate change was real, to their websites championing the need for investing in clean and renewable energy sources."
BP spokesman David Nicholas cites activity in solar power, onshore wind turbines, biofuels, and carbon capture and storage as areas where the company is investigating opportunities to, as Nicholas puts it, "enhance energy security and diversity."
Nicholas quotes a figure of $1.5bn allocated to the nonfossil-fuel arm of BP's operations during 2008, an amount corroborated by Greenpeace, who remain unimpressed nonetheless. The NGO points out that, significant though the amount might appear, it equates to less than 7% of BP's total investment for the year, with the rest going to the company's oil, gas and chemical business.
Last year, Greenpeace visited BP headquarters and attempted to present group CEO Tony Hayward with an "emerald paintbrush" award, for the year's worst greenwash. Slogans like "from the earth to the sun, and everything in between" drew particular criticism. Environmental campaigners feel the fine words are an uneasy fit while BP continues in its determination to invest in much-criticized ventures like Canadian oil sands. The extraction techniques necessary at the ironically named Sunrise field produce up to three times as much carbon as conventional oil operations, according to campaigners.
In the US, Chevron is running its "I will," series of advertisements in Washington, D.C. Houston, Texas and California. A continuation of the "Power of Human Energy" campaign of around a year ago, pictures of smiling, happy faces are accompanied with phrases like "I will leave the car at home more," and "I will finally get a programmable thermostat."
MIXED EMOTIONS
Washington-based Greenpeace research director Kert Davies has mixed feelings about the advertising. "The notion is basically an austerity campaign. If we had put it out a couple of years ago we'd have been ridiculed for it," he says. "But I love it on one level because it's basic energy education. The problem comes when the rhetoric doesn't match the reality. They're still selling a product which, when used as directed, is a major problem."
But Chevron does invest in alternative energy programs. Chevron Energy Solutions, the subsidiary that focuses on environmental issues, projects spending of around $2.5bn between 2007 and this year, with investment going into solar power, geothermal energy and biofuels. Again, critics point to the company's 2007 profits of $18.7bn and say it's not enough.
Davies has spent the last few years running Greenpeace's Exxon Secrets website, aimed at drawing attention to the company's funding of organizations opposed to the accepted thinking on climate change. Despite Exxon's public change of heart, the funding continues, Davies claims.
EXXON IS NO JOLLY GREEN GIANT
Exxon has less to say about clean energy than some of the other oil companies, despite the slogans. ABC news claims the company spent only 1% of its 2007 profits on alternative energy. Instead, the company makes much of its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from its operations. The claim that Exxon's 2007 emissions were reduced by 5m tonnes from 2006 levels is good news, but even the 2007 emissions remain at a sizeable 141m tonnes in total.
Davies is unimpressed, claiming that Exxon's activities are more to do with becoming more efficient and reducing costs than embracing environmentally responsible behavior. "That's not being green - that's being smarter," he says. "It's the same with any industry, it just makes business sense."
Netherlands-based climate campaigner Joris Thijssen is also frustrated by the comparatively low levels of investment. "I have contact with renewables people in [Anglo-Dutch group] Shell and other oil companies, and these people really want to make renewables happen. They're really busy coming up with business cases to get more money, but compared to their oil brothers and sisters it's very small."
"Shell have invested in an offshore windmill park in the Netherlands, and I'm glad it's happening, but in comparison, there are billions going into oil exploration and their plans for the tar sands in Canada, and that's devastating for the climate."
"Oil companies are keeping a watching brief. They know that at some point we have to move away from oil. They keep track of what's happening and will jump in at the right moment, but at the moment they're just making too much money. They don't have a big incentive to move away from oil just yet."
Total's Jean-Michel Gires, executive vice president for sustainable development, agrees, and is unapologetic. "We're an oil and gas company more than anything else", he says. Total, like its competitors, apportions some of its research and development spending to alternative energy sources, mainly solar and biofuels. Gires, however, feels that NGOs are unrealistically impatient about the pace at which change is possible.
"It's a very nice dream, but economics drives the whole arena," he says. Their view for the time being has no economic justification. We have to say, "sorry, but we don't think your dream is feasible."
Sideridou thinks there is hope, but remains cautious, and wary of greenwash. "The mood is shifting. There is broader recognition of wind, solar and geothermal energy, which were thought of as marginal in the past. The fact that these big, successful companies recognize these renewable energy sources means that something dramatic is changing."
Sideridou is well aware that to satisfy the lobbyists, oil companies would have to, quite simply, stop what they're doing. "It's a radical demand - to phase out the investment in dirty energy sources like oil, and to replace that with full investment in renewables and energy efficiency." Sideridou knows that change of that kind of significance is not likely to come any time soon, no matter how many pictures of waving wheat fields feature on oil company websites.
"Public awareness of climate change is now a major issue. Big companies are good at tapping into this public mood and responding to it. I'm not belittling the investment the oil companies are making. I think it's a useful first step, but there is a disconnect, which some people might call hypocrisy, between what they're claiming and what they're actually doing. What we would like to see is that the actions match the rhetoric."
by David Ord/London (source: www.ICIS.com)
