BP greenwashing preceded monumental Gulf disaster
Local to Global News
 
 Connect 
Sign up now!

BP greenwashing preceded monumental Gulf disaster

Morgan City : MS : USA | May 11, 2010 at 9:08 AM PDT
15 2
Views: 3,010
 

The oil that is currently spewing directly from a BP well in the Gulf of Mexico is vastly more toxic than oil spilled in previous tanker-leaked oil disasters. However, BP has historically spun its corporate image to convince the consuming public that it prioritizes ecological interests. That practice --termed "greenwashing" -involves making misleading claims about the environmental benefits of a product or company. But the Gulf disaster brings ecological toxicity to unprecedented levels.

Radio Netherlands reports that the environmental disaster in the Gulf is unprecedented, not only for the volume of oil being released but also because this oil contains substances that are normally removed from oil in tanker transport. The Gulf leak contains PAKs, substances similar to the black smut found on barbeques that are carcinogenic and dissolve in water. The leaking oil also contains lethal "volatile substances like toluene and benzene that kill fish, plankton and mussels."

The report calls it "a disaster the like of which has never been seen before." The monumental ecological disaster in the Gulf, unprecedented in human history, flows in the wake of BP greenwashing and even as a greenwashing by-product.

In July of 2000 British Petroleum launched a high-profile, $200 million public relations ad campaign portraying the company as environmentally-friendly. It introduced a new slogan, "Beyond Petroleum," and changed its traditional logo to a new green and yellow flower-like sunburst.

"BP is still trying to greenwash its image. Its Web pages are filled with bogus statements, like "We try to work in ways that will benefit the communities and habitats where we do business -- and earn the world's respect," says Anne Landmann on PRWatch.org.

So when, on December 22, 2008, Greenpeace announced the first winner of their new annual Emerald Paintbrush award "for greenwashing above and beyond the call of duty," they awarded it to BP.

Perhaps the first disaster was swallowing BP's public relations spin.

___________

ABOUT THE VIDEOS

Video #1: Greenpeace awards BP its Emerald Paintbrush award in 2008, recording the moment in this mini mocumentary. BP is underwhelmed at the distinction.

Video #2: Satire of a BP public relations commercial, believed to originally have aired on the CBC show This Hour Has 22 Minutes. It illustrates the public relations twists that "whitewash" environmentally questionable companies, painting them as "green."

Back
1 of 3
Next
"Mockumentary" shows Greenpeace designating BP winner of award for greenwashing.

BorderExplorer is based in Davenport, Iowa, United States of America, and is an Anchor for Allvoices.
Report Credibility
 
 
  • Clear
  • Share:
  • Share
  • Clear
  • Clear
  • Clear
  • Clear
 
 
Advertisement
 
Posted By DelilahStarling Delilah Jean Williams | about 2 years ago
Billie, thanks for this report. Every day this disaster keeps getting worse while they try to find mud to throw against the wall hoping it will stick. They have no clean up contingency plans for this, because they arrogantly claimed that it could never happen.
Reply By BorderExplorer BorderExplorer | about 2 years ago
The effects will linger for years, changing life in this hemisphere. Thanks for reading and your supportive comment, Delilah!
Posted By DavaCastillo Dava Castillo | about 2 years ago
Thank you for the report Billie. You would think the public would realize that the oil and mining industry want to paint themselves as partners with ecology when in actuality they are manipulating public opinion for their own selfish profits.

The last mining and oil disaster were preventable and no amount of spin can change that.
Reply By BorderExplorer BorderExplorer | about 2 years ago
Coal is another major offender in the greenwashing arena, a211423. "Clean coal"? I don't think so! Thanks for your observation.
Posted By rondon rondon | about 2 years ago
a big spill deserves a huge fine..and Bp should be held fully liable for this massive oil mess!
Reply By BorderExplorer BorderExplorer | about 2 years ago
May justice prevail! Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this, rondon.
Posted By birdpond Cathy Taibbi | about 2 years ago
Billie, you are becoming quite the environmental watchdog and reporter. Kudos on this revealing report.

I agree BP needs to be held accountable and penalized to the fullest extent of the law. The ramifications of this disaster will be felt for generations.

Well done, Billie, and thank you!
Reply By BorderExplorer BorderExplorer | about 2 years ago
Cathy, I sincerely appreciate your encouragement because you're one of the finest environmental writers I know. Thanks for your support on this article. Life in our hemisphere has changed with this accident.
Posted By DavaCastillo Dava Castillo | about 2 years ago
There is a federal cap on oil spill damages.

Here is some further information.

WASHINGTON – BP's top lobbyist says the company does not view a $75 million federal cap on economic damages for oil spills as a limit to its obligations to people along the Gulf Coast.

David Nagel, head of the company's Washington office, said BP has so far paid $3.5 million in damage claims beyond cleanup costs. He said the company has received 4,700 claims so far and paid on 295 of them.

A federal law caps liability to $75 million for economic damages beyond direct cleanup costs. Nagel, speaking to reporters ahead of Senate hearings Tuesday, said the limit is not "an effective cap in terms of what we're spending." But he declined to say whether BP would lobby against efforts to increase the cap to $10 billion.

To me, this is the reason to keep reporting on this, so the public does not lose the fervor over this spill when it comes time for their congress people to vote to increase the cap. Increasing the cap should encourage the oil industry to better regulate itself to prevent disasters, and with separating the regulatory body into two entities can also hopefully increase the efficacy of the federal Minerals Managment Service. Oversight responsibilities would be separate from leases and collection of federal royalties. Accountability of auditors in the specific areas, such as collecting royalties, is better supervised and can prevent agents from accepting bribes and conducting illegal activites.
Reply By BorderExplorer BorderExplorer | about 2 years ago
This is important information for the public to know. Thank you very much for educating all of us, myself included, with this information and your observation, a211423!
Posted By nathanielinbrazil Nathaniel Hines | about 2 years ago
Thanks Billie. Another insightful piece. On the downlow, I worked as a lawyer for BP for many years. The logo is called a Helios - maybe you knew that. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. My sister-in-law is a bigwig for OHSA in DC. She would always bust my chops about the company because BP is considered the biggest violator of OSHA regulations AND the most fined.
Reply By BorderExplorer BorderExplorer | about 2 years ago
Nate, you just wrote the most interesting comment that I think I've ever seen. Thanks for sharing that info!
Posted By Coarsegold Coarsegold | about 2 years ago
I saw a news report recently suggesting that BP was given a pass by a regulatory agency regarding using a secondary shut-down system for this oil well, which seems to be the standard operating procedure for deep water wells. If true, then BP should pay the full price to clean up this mess . . . and the head of the regulatory agency should be fired.

And,in response to a211423, of course the oil and mining industries want to make a selfish profit. Try running a company without a profit. Rational self-interest (selfishness) dictates that. Of course, that doesn't mean that those industries shouldn't be closely watched. This is where I believe government has a legitimate power.

Also, Billie, anyone with average intelligence knows that there is no such thing a "clean" coal. But try running this nation without the power provided by burning coal. We live electrically, mainly by burning coal and oil. Further, you can't fly an airplane with solar power and even electric cars have to get their electrical charge off the grid, which is mostly powered by coal.
Posted By DavaCastillo Dava Castillo | about 2 years ago
Coarsegold

I am not saying a company should run without profit. But when a $500,000. dollar acoustic remote switch was not installed as an additonal safety measure to close the valve on the oil well should other methods fail because it costs too much and the federal government did not make it mandatory, this is defined as "selfish profit."
Posted By BorderExplorer BorderExplorer | about 2 years ago
Coarsegold, thanks for affirming that I have at least average intelligence (LOL!). I understand that BP told the Senate that they'd pay anything they were legally required to pay. Very reassuring (ahem). Regarding your final point, I endorse "reducing" although that is not a popular stance and counters prevailing attitudes. We need energy to operate, but rather than constantly expanding our energy needs, I think we need to be moving in the opposite direction. Thanks for expressing your point of view. It is interesting to get to know you and your perspective.
Posted By DavaCastillo Dava Castillo | about 2 years ago
Billie

Thank you for citing that BP stated they would pay anything they were "legally required to pay." This is quite telling about their limited views of responsibility. If anything this bears witness to the need for strict government regulations because they clearly will not volunteer anything beyond what is required.
Advertisement
 

News Stories

 

Images

 >
 

Related People

Report Your News Got a similar story?
Add it to the network!

Or add related content to this report

 
Tap_logo_330_103

Sitemap


Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use Agreement and Privacy Policy.

© Allvoices, Inc 2008-2012. All rights reserved.