by Paul K. Driessen
Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services
March 2003

WASHINGTON, DC, March 2003 ¾ For two years, BP’s marketing spinmeisters concocted ads proclaiming that the world’s second biggest hydrocarbon producer had gone “Beyond Petroleum.” One proudly announced: “Solar, natural gas, hydrogen, wind. And oh yes, oil. It’s a start.” Another hoped people wouldn’t gag on the line, “We believe in alternative energy. Like solar cappuccino.”

Many people were surprised that a huge oil company was so committed to alternative energy technologies. They needn’t have been.

Yes, BP (formerly British Petroleum) spent some $200 million on its “Great Beyondo” image enhancement campaign. But that’s the same amount it spent over a SIX-year period on the renewable energy technologies that were the centerpiece for its slick marketing ploy. It’s also a measly 0.2% of the $91 billion it spent to buy Arco and Amoco back in the 1990s.

Things really got interesting after BP had milked the renewable energy hype for all it was worth. In February, the company announced it was spending $6.75 billion for a 50% controlling interest in rich Russian oil prospects – and another $20 billion over the next five years exploring these and other new fields. BP was going Back to Petroleum – and hopefully Bigger Profits – after it was forced to lower its oil and gas production estimates three times in 2002; the company’s return on capital sank below that of archrivals ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch/Shell; and investors expressed their displeasure by dumping BP stock.

Then in June, CEO Lord John Browne confessed to executives attending the 2003 World Gas Conference that the world won’t really be heading to an alternative energy future for at least 20 more years. Until then, “hydrocarbons will not just remain the most important source of energy – they will actually become more important.”

In fact, continued Browne, all the renewable energy produced across the entire planet, excluding hydroelectric power, “would barely meet” Tokyo’s needs. BP’s own cumulative global wind and solar output, he might have added, is barely enough to keep the lights burning in Boise, Idaho. And a single new 555-megawatt gas-fired generating plant in California produces more electricity in a year than do all the state’s 13,000 wind turbines.

Moreover, the gas-fired plant occupies about ten acres. The giant 200-foot-tall “eco-friendly” windmills dominate half a million once-scenic acres, and kill thousands of raptors and other birds every year. Current photovoltaic technology is just as habitat hungry.

Then what’s with all this “greenwashing” – this “Beyond Petroleum” disinformation that BP is using to promote an environmentally responsible public image? To a large degree, it reflects the company’s deep involvement in a “sustainable development” and “corporate social responsibility” movement that’s all the rage among ideological environmentalists, UN and European Union bureaucrats, and corporations that hope to reap big bucks from new regulations governing the use of energy, resources and just about everything else.

The terms sound appealing. But eco-activists have defined what is sustainable or responsible to focus on conjectural problems and theoretical needs of future generations of affluent Western societies – and ignore real, immediate, life-and-death needs of people who struggle daily just to survive.

Over a billion people still rely on firewood and animal manure for fuel. Millions of women and children die every year from lung diseases caused by indoor air pollution from cooking fires. Hydroelectric and fossil fuel projects could provide electricity for families, water purification and economic development. But radical greens oppose these projects and say the world’s rural poor should be content forever with little solar panels on their huts.

Malaria kills another 2 million people a year, and drains billions from their countries’ economies and health care systems. Spraying tiny amounts of DDT on the insides of homes safely repels mosquitoes, eliminates their urge to bite, exterminates any that land on walls, and reduces malaria deaths by 80% or more. But activist pressure, coercive treaties, and threats of trade and economic sanctions drastically limit its use, and millions continue to die unnecessarily.

Biotechnology could reduce malnutrition and starvation, by enabling farmers to grow more food on less land, using fewer pesticides. But Greenpeace and EU zealots battle every biotech initiative and threaten to sanction any nation that ignores their edicts.

Truly moral and responsible policies would focus on sustaining people’s lives, and giving them hope for a better future. Perhaps BP’s next campaign will go “Beyond Propaganda,” challenge the radicals’ callous attitudes, and emphasize people instead of profits.