If there’s one thing business will never resist its a nice fat subsidy.

And why should they if we’re dumb enough to give them one.

and they lost business, which went to other comapnies, who undercut them, by using cheap labour. It didn’t solve anything.

http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=7041&contentId=7046652

Indeed. I wonder if any of the oil companies already have significant investments in bio fuels, electric cars, wind farms etc or if the green energy of the future will be provided by an army of benevolent hippies generating electricicity from their smallholdings entirely for the good of the planet and with no thought at all to making super profit from the trillions in subsidy from world governments

So you are saying there aren’t any benefits to oil – The motor car, the aerpolane, plastic, rubber etc have had no beneficial impact ?

some idiot stood up and said that we should put aside the people who died on the BP rig, and instead consider the benefits society has derived from the oil.

We shouldn’t put deaths “aside”, but of course we should consider the benefits of oil and how much we rely on it.

“To be honest if you have a society in which wealth is produced through oil, you are always going to find that money and wealth ending up in culture: if you don’t you have a probelm and if you don’t want to have a society where wealth is produced through oil, then you need to show how you can live without oil.”

Lots of people (perhaps even a majority) accept the argument for reducing our reliance on oil, and promoting alternative energy sources. That has energy security arguments in its favour, as well as climate change and broader environmental advantages.

The problem is how you achieve that aim without expecting people to radically change their lifestyle, or expectation of continued economic progress. It’s not impossible, but it’s hardly an easy sell either is it?

I doubt many people accept the argument that you have to stigmatize or demonize oil companies as part of the process: they should be seen as part of the solution, NOT as part of the problem.

“I make it a point not to criticise left-wing direct action groups.”

Irrespective of what they do? How very right-on (not to say undiscriminating) of you. Hope there aren’t too many hostages to fortune there Sunny!

Good grief, you know perfectly well that we make such tradeoffs all the time.

We “put aside” deaths on the road in order to be able to drive reasonably fast, rather than cut the speed limit to 10mph, and so on.

Where there has been negligence, whether on the rig or the road, that should be and generally is punished.

BP shareholders have certainly been punished. I also believe there should be greater personal liability for the company directors.

Fair enough to say that the liability gets transferred with the sale – but in that case, why the hell would you think that applied to the sale of UC to Dow, but not the sale of UCIL to McLeod Russel?

Dow Jones is an entirely different company: an information company which owns the Wall Street Journal and was recently bought by Murdoch.

Now I realise that you don’t like Murdoch much but protesting against him for Bhopal is a bit much.

Two possibilities:

1) Those “direct action” protestors are too dim to know the difference.

2) Sunny is…..or it could just be a mistake of course.

The campaigns against Nike, Gap and other clothes companies forced them to adopt better labour practices.

Yes. But there’s a massive difference between fashion, where you can either make your product ethically or unethically (and so consumers can choose whether to buy ethically produced products), and oil or tobacco, where *just by being a company that makes oil or tobacco* you’re doing serious harm.

A pressure campaign isn’t going to make BP decide to stop being an oil company. And for as long as BP remains an oil company, it’ll be environmentally damaging.

Firstly, not everyone agreed at the time Tobacco companies were evil. Hell, I was at an Institute of Ideas debate a couple of weeks ago and some idiot stood up and said that we should put aside the people who died on the BP rig, and instead consider the benefits society has derived from the oil. Then he went on to say that scientists say (he didn’t reveal who when I asked) that the spill would be cleared up in a couple of years.

Secondly, stigmatisation of companies obviously also works. The campaigns against Nike, Gap and other clothes companies forced them to adopt better labour practices. There are ongoing compaigns against Shell for the reason you outlined above, as against other corporates who destroy local environments and uproot communities (Dow Jones / Bhopal another example).

So the point about stigmatisation of companies stands. Just because this is against BP and not Shell doesn’t mean environmentalists like the latter.

On the safety violations, that’s specifically BP’s US onshore refining business versus other companies’ US onshore refining businesses, not the company as a whole. For example, I suspect that Shell’s operations in Nigeria alone are more unsafe than the entire US oil industry…

Fine if you think it’ll have no impact. I happen to think it will. Even if I didn’t think it would have much impact – I make it a point not to criticise left-wing direct action groups.

For example I call Plane Stupid, Climate Rush etc direct action groups for their actions not whether their action is directly aimed at someone in particular.

The fact that smoking in offices and pubs is illegal and that smoking at a bus stop earns you dagger-stares and will probably be illegal soon, and the fact that you pay six quid in tax when you buy a packet of cigs, *does*.

Yes but the climate to make these things illegal was only created through social stigmatisation. This is why ads are run against drinking and driving to make them socially unacceptable – that has an impact on behaviour.

The only difference between BP and the rest of Big Oil is the location of their latest screw-up…

Well, BP is responsible for far more safety violations but I’ll take that point. It’s not like I have a soft spot for Esso.

I also agree with Charlieman on sponsorship – a lot of it is principal/agent stuff, because marketing managers and CEOs like going to gallery openings, the opera, the Cup Final, etc.

(finally, I recognise you’ve changed the angle to Big Oil generally from BP, but just for clarity – there is *no reason whatsoever* for anyone outside the southeastern US to treat BP any differently from other oil companies. The only difference between BP and the rest of Big Oil is the location of their latest screw-up… )

I cannot understand your response, and not just because of the typo (tripe? trite?). I suppose they just do it because they like pissing off shareholders. The very next sentence I wrote makes more or less the same point (they must think they receive a benefit, or they wouldn’t spend money on it). Did you stop reading before getting to it?

Meanwhile, it’s obvious to you that “stigmatising” oil companies is going to have a real effect and help “wean us off oil”, but it’s not obvious to me. This may be because I am a dimwit, or it may be because I think that of all the things that determine oil consumption, this kind of stuff is a rounding error.

I would argue that the idea of benefit by oil companies (et al) exists but that the reality of benefit does not.

The idea of benefit exists in the minds of marketing managers who like to spend corporate money on the pleasures that they enjoy. Perhaps there’ll be a few bob for a project for underprivileged children as well, one which may even create greater brand exposure, but it isn’t all that important to them.

Real benefits of sponsorship come from increasing/maintaining brand awareness (aka mind share) or mitigating bad feelings about a brand (identifying the company with good things).

For the former, sponsoring an art exhibition is pretty ineffectual; visitors who pay to attend the exhibition don’t notice who sponsored it; corporate guests (ie large energy customers) would prefer a trip to the British Grand Prix or an escorted trip around an alternative energy plant. Something pertinent to the company’s core business or an interesting jolly.

For the latter, assume predominantly the same response. However, corporate branding associated with a popular social programme (eg supermarket promotions that generate school funds) may change consumer behaviour or sentiment.

Above all, assume that when a corporate sponsors an expensive event, it is because a) the marketing managers want to attend the event or b) more senior executives want to take their mates. How many corporate sponsors take their customers to watch St Swithen’s under-11s netball team play in their new shirts?

As the OP clearly states: the oil corporation’s stamp on these hefty cultural institutions buys it a badge of acceptability

It’s quite a simple point.

It was direct action against the Tate and British Museum. It was indirect against BP.

And they took a cab to the venue.

As the OP clearly states: the oil corporation’s stamp on these hefty cultural institutions buys it a badge of acceptability

It’s quite a simple point.