EDITORIAL The Greenpeace method
Shell U.K. Exploration & Production, British Petroleum, and other oil companies wishing to work in the U.K. offshore have no choice: They must try to reason with Greenpeace. The U.K. government has another option: It can follow the law. So far, to the detriment of everyone but Greenpeace, the government has muffled its prerogative.
When Greenpeace succeeds, the oil and gas industry suffers. So do people in general. So do saner environmental groups.
Extremist position
"Human-made climate change has to be stopped, and meeting eco-limits means placing a limit on fossil fuels," said Chris Rose, deputy executive director, when the group applied last month to operate all acreage offered in the U.K.'s 17th offshore licensing round (OGJ, Mar. 31, 1997, p. 35). The offering includes frontier tracts west of the Shetland Islands and southwest of Britain. "Opening 22,000 sq miles of pristine ocean for new oil development is hardly a limiting exercise," Rose said. "It's madness fueled by greed."
This position is extremist, implying as it does that people should have no effect on a climate destined to change no matter what they do. From so crimped a view of climate change flow drastic prescriptions: limiting fossil fuels, stopping frontier development. To Greenpeace, development doesn't just threaten the environment; it reflects psychological affliction born of moral deficiency.
No compromise. No scientific inquiry into the nature, extent, and causes of climate change. Just no activities that Greenpeace considers improper, all involving people at work.
This is what you get when you reason with Greenpeace. So why try to reason with Greenpeace?
Because Greenpeace has resorted to economic terrorism in the past and gotten away with it. In 1995, the group illegally placed members aboard the Brent spar loading buoy en route to be scuttled in the deep Atlantic. The unpunished stunt worked. The spar now rests in a fjord near Stavanger, costing Shell Expro $32,000/month. By the time the joint venture operator lets contract for alternative disposal at the end of this month, it expects costs since the aborted ditching mission to total $14.4 million.
Now BP Exploration Operating Co. Ltd. is preparing to start production from Foinaven field west of the Shetlands. Greenpeace objects to the work. Should BP worry? After the Brent spar episode, of course it should. Yet when the company gives voice to its concerns, Greenpeace grumps that it's spreading rumors. So goes discourse with Greenpeace.
Companies can only try to reason with Greenpeace and hope for the best. Governments can and should get tough. Law enforcement officials should have thrown a few Greenpeace members in jail for the Brent spar recklessness, or at least made a show out of trying. Their limp response just encourages more such stunts, which is why BP has good reason to worry about its property at Foinaven.
The Department of Trade and Industry showed better resolve when it raised questions about failure of the Greenpeace acreage bid to provide for drilling and production. Earlier, the head of DTI had said applications would be judged "against the background of continuing need for expeditious, thorough, efficient, and safe exploration." That Greenpeace has contrary aims became further evident last week, when the group challenged the 17th round before the European Commission on the basis of environmental documentation.
New support
In helping DTI do its job, oil companies should seek support from a new source: other environmental organizations. Not all such groups are as unreasonable as Greenpeace. But they all suffer by association.
If it doesn't outgrow lawless extremism, environmentalism will lose credibility. Legitimate environmental groups should yearn for a distinction between their aims and the mischief Greenpeace so coyly and effectively wields as a pressure tool. And governments must learn and act upon the difference.