Bad Energy
As my television becomes cluttered with the recent explosion of warm and fuzzy ads from oil companies telling me how much they want to give me a big “green” hug, or corporate energy subsidiaries hawking revolutionary new technologies that will allow me to continue to consume all I want without fucking over a polar bear or paying $10 for cheerios, I can’t help but hear jackals scratching at the door.
The implication of their PR is that we are supposed to trust these corporations to work for our collective benefit, yet these are the same energy companies that ripped out the trolley tracks in many American cities (like DC) so that we would be more automobile/oil dependent, gave us the electric car 10 years ago as a PR move only to pull them off the road (they were lease-only) when they threatened to become popular (enough to threaten oil companies), and for decades have paid-off Congress in a successful effort to prohibit the creation of a sensible energy policy that emphasizes research and development of alternative energy and implementation of smart city and transportation planning. Currently, Exxon/Mobil continues to deny the urgency of global warming, funds front groups/think tanks that mislead the public about global warming, and wages "green" PR campaigns that do more for their green image than green issues. And I’m still supposed to believe that energy corporations are going to work for our collective best interests?
I understand the mind of the capitalist jackal. I’ve watched him hunt, seen him casually tear the needs of cooperation from the body of economic Darwinism limb by limb in order to fight competitively over its bones in a savage lust for profit at all costs. It’s a bloody mess to watch, but in doing so you realize the folly of trusting them, or ever turning your back on them.
Exxon/Mobil can pay for a million commercials about empowering science and math teachers and even replace their board with the Care Bears. I still wouldn’t trust them. Then again, if they paid for my political campaign, maybe I would change my mind.
Speaking of the devil, as I typed that last sentence, I watched a commercial claiming that Exxon/Mobil is trying to cure Malaria.
7 comments:
Aren't those ads just another example of the infamous straw man argument? Oil companies: "excuse us while we destroy ecosystems because we are teaching your son how to become a super scientist!" The connection between clean energy and the education of the next generation is only so narrowly connected by the fact that the next generation will be given an even greater crisis by the laziness and apathy of the donors to science.
I wonder what the response would be to an electronic petition that demands the return of the electric car? No one trusts or gives credence to the chain letter strategy, but maybe if there were an online database where individuals could electronically sign their name, maybe a copy of that list could be forwarded to Congress and GM/Ford alike? With that list in Congress' hands, it proves public support for energy alternatives and the tax credits that make them initially feasible. I just hope that the car companies don't turn such a petition into a hit list.
VIVA LE ELECTRIC CAR!
The ExxonMobil malaria spot can seen here. It looks like the company is a "partner" in a large public-private coalition started by the UN, UNICEF, WHO, and the World Bank, and which now includes the International Red Cross, academic specialists, Médecins sans frontières, and drug companies, among many others. Public health isn't my field but it seems like a good effort.
The development catchphrase for this sort of stuff is "corporate social responsibility." I knew I didn't like it once I heard NGO types start throwing it around as an acronym, as in "let's search for funding for a CSR program in Sri Lanka." But, that's my reactionary side again. There's an actual debate to be had, and it's been going on over at the Creative Capitalism blog since June. It long ago got too thoughtful, nuanced, and detailed for me to follow in my spare time, but it goes far beyond "CSR" faddishness to address some deep questions about the relation between markets, activists, states, and community organizations in improving the lot of the poorest citizens. And, of particular interest to me, there have been some debates over what accountability in such efforts ought to look like.
Anyway, several of the debaters agree with you that corporate "philanthropy" isn't really altruistic, and in some cases is downright problematic. Companies are responding to consumer demand (perhaps spurred by activists, such as 'fair trade' coffee) or government threats. Here's Richard Posner's nuanced take, for example:
There are, moreover, examples of so-called corporate philanthropy that are not only profit maximizing (which is fine), but also quite possibly pernicious, which is not fine. A current example is the oil companies’ pretense to be “green” by sponsoring research on clean fuels. These claims are intended to rebuff calls for effective public regulation of carbon emissions. It is perfectly rational for the oil companies to try to fend off such regulation, and opposition to regulation is often in the public interest because regulation is often bad. In this case, it seems to me that regulation would be good. But that is a detail. The point is that the greening of the oil companies has absolutely nothing to do with philanthropy.
Tricky stuff. Anyway, you don't have to be anti-capitalist to believe that oil companies, or any company, shouldn't be trusted to look out for our best interests. For that matter, neither should government. That's part of what organization and activism is about: accountability, of power-holders everywhere. (Another part is of forming new power centers, apart from corporations and the state. It's called community.)
So, ExxonMobil is one partner among many in fighting malaria. Good for them (or not?). But it obviously shouldn't distract us from core issues, such as their disproportionate and secretive role in influencing energy policy.
Ever since BP changed their logo to green and yellow, I've vowed to only buy gas (for the occasional rental car or zipcar) from them. Am I a sucker?
The rest of the time, I bike, ride transit and walk. The best way to show the oil companies that you think they're full of shit is to not buy their products.
Craig -- Don't worry, the oil companies may or may not be out to destroy the electric car but General Motors is here to save it.
The Atlantic recently had a very good story about General Motors' effort to develop an affordable, reliable electric car with decent range. They're betting huge on it, according to the story.
Additionally, a federal judge just ruled that a lawsuit against ExxonMobil alleging human rights violations committed by the company in Aceh can be heard in a US court. The suit was filed by eleven villagers from Aceh who say that Exxon hired military units of the Indonesian military to provide "security" for their operations in Aceh. The military units regularly perpetrated human rights abuses against local villagers including murder, rape, torture, destruction of property and other abuses. According to some estimates, ExxonMobil has extracted some $40 billion from its operations in Aceh.
More electric car stuff! Wired published a lengthy article yesterday about a proposed economic model for electric vehicles: profit off the electricity, not the vehicle. The project has $200+ million in funding and will be fielding a test of 50 cars and more than 1000 recharge stations in Israel within a year. The Danes are also interested.
There's an unexpected, constructive tie-in with wind energy:
For DONG, Denmark's largest utility, Better Place offers an opportunity to solve one of its biggest problems: the economies of wind power. DONG makes a higher portion of energy from wind—18 percent—than any other power company in the world. Danish politicians want to see that figure doubled, which is good and green but completely impractical: Some days the wind blows, and some days it doesn't. Banking wind energy is expensive and inefficient—DONG would have to buy fields of batteries. Rather than lose it, the company ends up giving away excess power to Germany and Sweden. So when DONG CEO Anders Eldrup met with Agassi, he immediately saw that Better Place would not only appeal to his countrymen's environmental leanings, but the cars would also be a cheap, distributed way to store excess wind power.
Admittedly, the whole venture is evil because some of the principals met at the World Economic Forum, but I digress.
Unfortunately, without some strong regulatory incentives, it's hard to see how even an "affordable" (~$20,000) electric car will be able to compete with the likes of the conventionally-powered Tata Nano.
Even more unfortunately, I don't like cars--electric or not--in cities at all, but it's hard to see how even cities committed to alternative and public transit can massively reduce their numbers without some seriously unpopular mandates. Congestion pricing and limiting parking can help but people still love traveling by private vehicle, hence the massive number of cabs and other cars in Manhattan and central London. Clearly, the answer involves being open about our love of transgressive sexual acts.
There's an insightful commentary on "CSR" and corporate philathropy in today's Daily Star (Bangladesh):
One definition that seems to be gaining credence is that CSR is the practice of a corporation internalising the externalities it creates through its business practices. In layman terms, CSR means corporations taking responsibilities for their actions and doing something about improving them.
With that in mind, it is important to differentiate CSR from corporate philanthropy or charitable work that is unrelated to the corporation's business. CSR is not the same as the work done by a corporation's foundation arm. CSR involves a conscious effort by the corporation to essentially operate differently to change its practices to improve their impact on society, or to actively seek to ameliorate any negative impacts they may have.
In Bangladesh I noticed that the philanthropic work of corporations was being labeled as CSR. Mislabeling philanthropic work as CSR does little to improve unsavoury business practices of a corporation. As a matter of fact, such mislabeling may give corporations a green light to behave as they wish without regard to their impact on society and then try to whitewash their bad behaviour by merely making a donation to an unrelated cause.
Post a Comment