LAWLESS PROTEST WINS IN EUROPE

Royal Dutch/Shell Group's fiasco over disposal of the Brent field loading spar speaks volumes about environmental debate in Europe. It is, in a word, deplorable. Shell wanted to scuttle the spar in 6,000 ft of water 150 miles west of Scotland. Greenpeace, the environmental group, dramatically resisted the plan and tapped into overwhelming sentiment against the use of oceans as dumps. Shell had studied the matter, concluded that sinking the spar in the deep Atlantic was its best

June 26, 1995

3 min read

Royal Dutch/Shell Group's fiasco over disposal of the Brent field loading spar speaks volumes about environmental debate in Europe. It is, in a word, deplorable.

Shell wanted to scuttle the spar in 6,000 ft of water 150 miles west of Scotland. Greenpeace, the environmental group, dramatically resisted the plan and tapped into overwhelming sentiment against the use of oceans as dumps. Shell had studied the matter, concluded that sinking the spar in the deep Atlantic was its best environmental option, and won a license to proceed from the U.K. government.

SHELL YIELDS

Last week, the oil giant canceled its plans, yielding to Greenpeace incursions, product boycotts, bomb threats, and pressure from several European governments. The move stranded the troubled U.K. government of Prime Minister John Major. Major supported Shell to the end, even turning back a personal appeal from Helmut Kohl, president of Germany, where the environmentalist Green party can swing elections. After Shell relented, the U.K. government voiced justifiable irritation and declared that permission to moor the wayward storage unit along the U.K. coast might not be automatic.

There can be no doubt that Shell was doing what it considered to be environmentally proper. It had facts to support its position, facts that the U.K. government found persuasive. It followed the law.

Greenpeace had wild claims about volumes of oil and toxic substances that would be released into the sea if Shell had its way, claims that Shell easily refuted. The group mainly resorted to rhetoric like this, from a giant portrait of Shell Chairman Cors Herkstroter that it set in front of company headquarters along with a model of the spar: "If Herkstroter has his way, this will be the only shell left in the North Sea."

Unlike Shell, Greenpeace did not follow the law. Several times, Greenpeace activists boarded the spar, twice via helicopter while the unit was en route to the planned disposal site. And the group dispatched two ships to the mission.

Europeans loved the show. Hence the boycotts of Shell products, the bomb scares, the political posturing - all on behalf of thoughtless revulsion toward a practice that, as experience elsewhere shows, presents little environmental risk and can in fact create benefits.

"Marvelous," gushed Swedish Environmental Minister Anna Lindh to Reuters after Shell scrubbed its plans. "This shows that it's worth protesting." Her comment puts the values at issue in context: Lawless protest means more than environmental consequence. Now that Europe has sanctioned illegal means to politically fashionable ends, the oil and gas industry must wonder where Greenpeace terrorists will strike next.

ASSERT THE FACTS

For the sake of itself, its industry, and its supporters in the U.K. government, Shell must not let things end here. More forcefully than it did before, Shell should assert the facts on which it based its decision to sink the spar at sea. If possible, it should submit them to review by some neutral scientific body. Specific conclusions might differ from the company's, but no clear-headed look at the facts, or at experience with sea disposal elsewhere, would support Greenpeace's hyperbole.

Meanwhile, the ease with which Greenpeace stunts so easily sway some governments raises a broader issue: Can environmental issues receive serious debate in Europe? The question merits attention the next time Europe evangelizes pet environmental prescriptions-carbon taxes leap to mind-to the rest of the world.