Archive for the ‘bp’ Category

Reconciling your dependence on fossil fuels with your concern for the environment just became a little easier thanks to Greenopia.

The Green directory and rating website just released their oil company ranking guide.  While no one can argue that it’s better to avoid using oil if you can, while your waiting for the Tesla to come down in price, you can at least consult the guide and spend your dollars with companies that are acting more responsibly when it comes to the environment.

Even though it may not appear that way, your choice at the pump can make a difference to the environment. That’s because there are significant differences in the impact that oil companies have, from carbon footprint for extraction, to hazardous waste produced to water used. To rate these ten companies, Greenopia used a six-part analysis method, which included greenhouse gas emissions and oil spill efficiency.

“Fossil fuels are pretty much at the top of any environmentalist’s black list,” said Doug Mazeffa, director of research for Greenopia. “But until alternative-fuel coalesces into large-scale market availability, cars are a vast and current fact of life and they are powered by refined crude oil. Our Greenopia consumers had a strong desire to learn where they should be buying gasoline.”

According to the guide, BP ranks as the overall greenest oil company for it’s past investments of oil profits into alternative-fuel research. The company also scored high for the transparency, breadth and accuracy of its environmental reporting. On balance, it’s also true that BP has been scaling back its once heralded commitment to renewable energy, ever since its top leadership changed back in 2007. The New York Times and others are not bullish on BP’s interest in working with an eager Obama administration to provide a more diverse mix of energy supplies.

However, there aren’t a lot of other choices when it comes to big oil. Going further down Greenopia’s list are Sunoco and Shell, ranked #2 and #3, respectively. The world’s largest oil company, the massively profitable Exxon Mobil, ranked 6th.

Check out the rest of the Top Ten in the report — and find out where Hess, Citgo, Chevron and others rank!

Ayana Meade is a Contributing Writer and Editorial/Production Associate for Greenopia

In a telling blow to the coal industry’s beloved red herring, so called “clean coal technology,” yet another research and development project has been canceled.Last week State officials in New York decided that spending over $1.6 billion on a completely speculative “clean coal” project in the Town of Tonawanda, near Buffalo, was environmentally irresponsible, according to a report relayed by The New York League of Conservation Voters.

Furthermore, the “clean coal” project would have required $175 million to $250 million in taxpayer subsidies every single year for up to 20 years. Supposedly, this unproven technology would somehow “capture the carbon dioxide that the facility generates, liquefy it and store it in geological formations more than a mile underground, where it would be expected to stay for thousands of years.” That sounds a lot like science fiction. Clearly the public’s money is better spent investing in reliable alternative energy solutions like solar, geothermal, wind and nuclear.

Despite the coal industry’s massive advertising efforts, it appears that governments are waking up to the reality that “clean coal” financing is a waste. Last January, the U.S. Department of Energy finally pulled the plug on the Bush administration’s flagship energy project, the FutureGen “clean coal” plant in Illinois, after costs ballooned by the billions. If you are interested in a more in-depth recap of the project’s failure, check out NRDC’s Switchboard blog.

Although “clean coal” is often spun as the industry solution to greenhouse gas emissions, even big oil is dropping out of actually funding “clean coal” projects. The Beyond Petroleum people at BP decided last May to cancel their own $2 billion dollar “clean coal” project in Australia.

It’s time for some fair and balanced reporting by the media and a call for an end to the media presentation of “clean coal” as a viable and affordable energy option or even possibility, because we all know the dirty little truth - no “clean coal” plant exists. It’s time someone steps up to the plate to persuade the public to stop believing in the virtues of “healthy cigarettes” and “clean coal”.

By Grant Draper at The Element Agency in New York

Don Millar, President of The Element Agency, has a story about green marketing running in The Vancouver Sun.  It’s definitely worth a read, especially if you are concerned about the legitimacy of your new sustainability initiative.  Below is an excerpt:

Ever been greenwashed?     You probably have, and you probably don’t know it.      If you are one of the many consumers who have a casual preference for environmentally-friendly products - we call you “light greens” in marketing - you’ve probably fallen for some claims that are more walk than talk.

As the move to green has picked up speed, so have claims that can’t be backed up or are misleading. It’s called greenwashing.

Take BP: the third-largest oil company in the world. Once British Petroleum, in 2000 they rebranded ‘Beyond Petroleum’ with a new age fuzzy sun logo. They spent $200 million on a worldwide advertising blitz and won a truckload of industry awards.  

But today BP is the new bête noire of the sustainability movement because they hit two of the major signs of a greenwash…

To continue reading Don’s article, click here.

By Stefan Deeran at The Element Agency in New York

The dead duck controversy has reached new heights. Prime Minister Harper is (ahem) wading in; North American ENGOs using the issue to (ahem) clip the wings of the dumbstruck Alberta oil sand trade mission in Washington, DC; and even bloggers and columnists are (ahem) taking flight on the issue.

You really know the issue has touched a nerve in the zeitgeist when the bizarre world of 9/11 ‘truthers’ uses it to make a lame point.

There are two things worth pointing out: 500 isn’t a whole lot of ducks in the grand scheme of things; but what exactly is going on up there that a duck lands in a pond and just dies?

It isn’t a tragedy that ducks landed in this pond it’s a tragedy ponds like this exist. I think that is why this story has legs.

By Robert Anton at The Element Agency in Vancouver

As a recent editorial in the UK’s Times summed it up, the energy battles of tomorrow are Big Oil vs Bad Oil. Not only are Shell and Exxon Mobil’s record profits of $27 and $40 billion “obscene,” as described by Tony Woodley of Unite, the UK’s largest trade union. The underlying issue is where these firms have decided to use their solid financial footing to invest–Alberta’s tar sands.

Suddenly the green claims of energy firms seem especially hollow. Mining bitumen from the tar sands requires three times as much energy as conventional oil and wastes tons of water. The bitumen industry is already Canada’s top contributor to greenhouse gases.

As oil companies aggressively move into the tar sands, they quickly lose their green cache. When BP recently re-branded itself as “Beyond Petroleum,” we were supposed to assume this meant renewable energy like wind and solar, not synthetic oil. BP once claimed they would never invest in Alberta, so their $1.5 billion dollar investment in the tar sands now has Greenpeace rallying against, in their usual understated way, “the biggest environmental crimes in history.”

The bitumen backlash will only grow as oil companies increase their investments and community groups and politicians use the web to connect in the fight against it. The Natural Resources Defense Fund’s campaign against airlines that use tar sand fuel is but one example of an emerging and escalating trend.

By Don Millar, President of The Element Agency in Vancouver.

Since 2000 British Petroleum has been rebranded with the tagline “Beyond Petroleum.”  The company is now represented at gas stations around the world by a green and yellow sunburst.  BP was the first oil company to publicly admit global warming was real in 1997 and has touted the billions they have been pouring into alternative fuel sources ever since.

The firm now ranks as the most accountable and transparent corporation in the world, according to Accountability-21, a CSR consultancy based in the United Kingdom.   BP has  joined many multi-stakeholder initiatives like the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and the US Climate Action Partnership.  The company has also famously reached out to moderate environmental groups like The National Wildlife Federation.

To most people in the green community, however, BP might as well have been rebranded “BS.” The firm’s every move seems to fail in meeting their new eco-expectations.   In 2007, when BP decided to invest in Canada’s nasty tar sands, retracting on a statement that they would not, the greenwashing charges continued.

But was the campaign worth it?  According to a case study in this week’s Ad Week, surprisingly yes.  Despite relentless greenwashing charges, BP has convinced its customers that it is greener than the rest.  And that has helped the firm’s revenues rise by almost $90 billion since the campaign began.

By Stefan Deeran at The Element Agency in New York