Here is something for oil and gas companies to try as they seek political objectives: criminal behavior.
When, for example, the federal government refuses to make land available for oil and gas leasing in the US, companies might bulldoze away some trees and start to drill.
When federal agencies implement regulations unnecessarily harsh and costly to industry operations, oil and gas companies might sneak employees into regulators' offices and halt the work of government until they get their way.
And when Congress subsidizes nonhydrocarbon fuels with no other hope of competing in the energy market, company workers might climb onto partly built windmills and solar-panel factories to keep them from being finished.
The actions might violate any number of laws. But as long as oil and gas companies believed in what they were doing, the law wouldn't matter.
Right?
Discredited causes
Wrong. The law matters. And people and groups discredit themselves and their causes when they pretend otherwise.
Greenpeace, for example, discredits environmentalism when it flouts the law in pursuit of an extremist political agenda. Too often, however, its dangerous stunts go lightly punished-or not at all.
In the early morning of Aug. 7, Greenpeace activists boarded an equipment-laden barge under tow to BP's Northstar development project on Seal Island off northern Alaska. The barge, with activists aboard, was returned to Barrow, where the North Slope Borough Police Department, according to the Associated Press, arrested seven persons. The occupation lasted 39 hr.
Greenpeace was protesting development of an oil field that a unit of Royal Dutch/Shell discovered in 1983 and appraised with Amerada Hess Corp. but never developed. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. acquired the Shell and Amerada interests in 1995 and now holds 98% of Northstar. Murphy Oil Co. holds the remainder.
The environmentalist group says the development scheme-drilling of 22 total wells from an enlarged gravel island in 39 ft of water with oil and gas pipelines carrying production to shore 6 miles away-threatens the arctic environment. The group also insists that the activity will aggravate global warming by bringing new oil to market.
Greenpeace also wants BP, now advertising its initials stand for "Beyond Petroleum," to spend more than it plans to do on solar power and other renewable energy. And it wants the company to spend less on oil and gas. At BP's annual meeting last April, it won 13% shareholder support for a resolution against the Northstar project. And, because BP managers felt guided by the 83% of the shares voted against the resolution (4% abstained) and proceeded with the work, Greenpeace took matters into its own hands, the law be damned.
Doesn't this say something about the merits of Greenpeace positions on the issues?
Of course it does. The stunts central to Greenpeace's self-romanticizing look increasingly like the acted-out desperation of an extremist agenda founded in prejudicial science. Oil and gas companies should not hesitate to say so.
More particularly, BP should not hesitate to say so. The confrontation with Greenpeace comes as the company tries-with initiatives such as its name change, growing investments in renewable energy, and voluntary cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases-to distinguish itself as an environmental leader. Company managers might feel tempted to seek light treatment of activists claiming to represent environmentalist causes. They might feel tempted to accommodate an organization that subordinates the rule of law to its own certitude on matters about which serious adults can legitimately disagree.
But the soft touch is inappropriate here. BP has to choose between public relations and genuine environmental responsibility. It has suffered a crime. For the sake of its shareholders, customers, and industry, it should support charges against the suspects and punishment of anyone convicted. And it and any other victims should repeat the process the next time Greenpeace breaks the law, which it will.
Rule of law
Greenpeace will of course milk propaganda out of a hard-line stand against its members. But so what? It is not environmentally irresponsible to support the rule of law.
Laws apply no differently to Greenpeace than to oil and gas companies. Civil discourse is as important to environmental responsibility as protection against trespass is to operating safety. The Greenpeace activists need to spend more than a couple of nights in jail. And BP has a responsibility to ensure that they do.
