RSS Feed Menu“Will you join us?” It’s a strange question when not coming from a Hare Krishna. Asked by an oil company beckoning travelers to become more energy efficient to combat global warming, this query is a strange but welcome sign of the times. (Although some global warming doubters among us may still see it as a cultish invitation.)
A recent trip into the D.C. Metro (subway) found me surrounded by profound faces stating, “I will at least consider a hybrid” and “I will commute more with others” and “I will leave the car at home more.” While not intuitively obvious how this promotes Chevron gasoline, the cynical among us (i.e. me 98% of the time) will see this as a brilliant PR ploy. The company knows that most of those commuting on Washington’s mass transit still have a car back at their house. If Chevron can become known as the “good” oil guys, the guilt of their customers will be assuaged and a few folks might even cross the street to avoid the “bad” Exxon station. (You have one little environmental catastrophe in the 80s and some people just can’t seem to move on.)
Of course Exxon is fighting back by putting its scientists on TV to show how all those record profits lead to fabulous scientific breakthroughs. BP turns to the “man on the street” with the “It’s a start” campaign highlighting their alternative energy programs. One could almost forget that energy companies were funding “what, me worry” groups just a few short years ago. Perhaps that is the point.
Yet, we should not merely get lost in the green-washing nature of these ad blitzes. Companies change strategies because they see where the market is going. When their market, namely everyone with a car, began to feel more peeved than assured by the climate change denial shtick, the profit maximizing companies shifted course. And even cynical me will allow that a few at the top may have truly become convinced that converting gigatons of carbon from an underground liquid to atmospheric CO2 has a downside.
Fifteen years ago (ouch) as an undergrad at Texas A&M, I took a newly offered class called Environmental Marketing. It turned out to sound more interesting than it actually was in practice, but it gave me one lasting memory.
Charged with investigating the contemporary use of enviro-advertising, my group-project team swung for the fences. Chevron had recently introduced a tepid (but groundbreaking) campaign highlighting their donation of old pipe to serve as habitat for some endangered critter (I think it was even a fox—insert your own sly comment here). The tag line was, “Do people really [do some amazingly unselfish thing just so some dumb animal can have a home]? People do.” Fade to Chevron logo.
Having seen one energy oligarch dip its toe into the green waters, we thought we’d call up another and see if they’d be jumping in soon too. Eventually we got through to the marketing department of a petro-giant in Houston. We excitedly asked whether they had any plans to use green themes.
I don’t know if you can technically hear a blank stare, but it was clearly communicated. Finally, a middle aged male voice slowly and incredulously told this group of naïve 20-somethings the hard facts of life: “No. We’re an oil company.”
My inner cynic wisely keeps me from fully giving my heart to the gas station that really cares. But, approaching middle age myself, the un-prophetic words of a weary corporate bureaucrat remind me that companies and political parties can change for the better.
R.E. Munn // Feb 10, 2009 at 3:51 am
John Murdock is too vested in his own intellectual pursuits to be viewed as a dispassionate commentator on the “green” issue. He has accepted, hook, line and sinker, the arguments and science put forth by the sky is falling crowd. He demonstrates, just as they do, the aggravating tendency to assimilate each and every scientific observation into the global warming construct, without regard to how poorly it fits. Having done this as a professional for so long, he has lost the ability to recognize the forest in the trees.
Stewardship // Feb 10, 2009 at 7:23 am
Climate change skeptics are so wrapped up in self-interest that they fail to recognize the huge upside of “combatting climate change.” First, America sits on just 3% of the world’s oil reserves; we consume more than 26% of world oil production. Reducing our reliance on foreign oil will keep more dollars here, circulating in our own economy. Second, moving to a clean and renewable energy industry will create thousands of jobs and create vast new amounts of wealth for investors. Third, it will make our air and water cleaner and create a healthier nation for future generations (minimizing future healthcare costs). And, last, we stop subsidizing countries that support terrorism by not buying foreign oil directly (and, indirectly, the spot price of oil drops because of the huge decrease in demand–so whoever those countries sell oil to, it will be at less profitable prices).
A conservative’s number one job is to consider the lives of future generations. That is contrary to some talking heads and sponsored skeptics who are most concerned about the next quarter’s earnings announcements and their stock portfolios.
Great post Mr. Murdock!
sinz54 // Feb 11, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Stewardship: Among the GOP base, there is a myth circulating that America”really” has far more oil than the Middle East (!!!), if the environmentalists and liberals would just get out of the way. I have heard that stated by many in the GOP base, many times, on Townhall.com and elsewhere. When I’ve tried to reply that the U.S. actually has just 3% of the world’s oil reserves, it just falls on deaf ears. I don’t know where they are getting their misinformation from–they never cite any sources. Perhaps they are thinking of oil shale and tar sands. But 80% of that is in Canada, not the U.S.
John Murdock // Feb 11, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Mr. Munn. Feel free to elaborate about how I in this piece, “demonstrate . . . the aggravating tendency to assimilate each and every scientific observation into the global warming construct, without regard to how poorly it fits.” Perhaps you are falling victim to the serial commenter’s disease of making a pet point no matter how poorly it fits with the original. (?)
And as a side note, I am a recent “convert” to global warming . . . having once drank from the cornicopianism of Julian Simon before eventually returning to conservatism and a skeptical science-based approach. I wish the evidence didn’t support global warming, but I’m hopeful because (as the piece indicated) even some of the strongest holdouts can change their tunes.