BP's bullshit Solar Power claims

BP are currently running an advertising campaign entitled 'talk stopped long ago' in attempt to, after polluting the world since 1908, to assert its green credentials. One of these billboards runs the hook 'the biggest manufacturer of solar panels in the world', with the campaign tagline across the bottom.

'Wow,' you think when seeing this and the other adverts. BP have been doing a lot to save our planet.

Here's an alternative opinion:

Only in Feb 2007 did BP grant $8 billion over ten years to research alternative fuel sources. $8 billion is less than 3% of the company's revenue in 2006. Over 10 years it will be 0.3% of their revenue.

Further to this, they have owned solar panel company Lucas Energy Systems since 1980, but waited 27 years to grant further research into solar power. How many break-through developments in solar have BP made in that time?

BP was named one of the "ten worst corporations" in both 2001 and 2006 based on its environmental and human rights records. (http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2006/112006/mokhiber.html)

BP started a scheme for car owners to purchase carbon offsets called Target Neutral. By 2007 it was running in a huge number of countries around the world - 2.

In March 2007, BP unveiled its Helios fuel station on Olympic Boulevard in Los Angeles.The station has radical architecture for a fuel station, and is a "living lab" for green technologies. Five months after the launch the solar panels were still nonoperational.

I could go on. But I think that's the point made.

I Am Cyclist

It's been a gap of some 16 years, but I have climbed back on a bike again. Yesterday I went to pick up my new mountain bike and ride it home for the first time - a journey of about 15K.

From one minute being a disdainful driver, owner of the road and producer of carbon, I'm now a pedal-powered greenie, hugging the trees at any opportunity.

Okay, so it's not that drastic but it certainly gives you a new perspective on road-sharing between 4-wheeled and 2-wheeled vehicles. It also gives you a massive appreciation on how hilly the area around you actually is. It also hurts your arse a lot. I feel like I've done a week in the showers in a prison.


Oops. Fuck.

But it did make me wonder as I stood in the mountain bike shop - here I was, a relatively inexperienced person about to spend $600 on a bike I knew nothing about, relying heavily on the sales force of the shop to tell me what is good and what is bad.

I knew nothing of any mountain bike brand names. I had no idea what was good, and what was bad. Would a shop of this quality be stocking bikes that were of 'less quality'? Would they tell me if they did? I had done no research and I was ripe for a plucking. I said...plucking.

So why don't we know anything about the brand names? In a city like Brisbane, where bikes are a valid alternative to petrol-driven travel, few manufacturers spend any time and effort presenting us their brands, or encouraging us to get involved and get out and pedal. We know car brands, we know petrol brands - we even recognise most of the brand names of the sunglasses the cycle shop was selling. But the bike names remain a mystery.

Perhaps there is no money in bikes? Maybe the margins are so small they can't afford to promote themselves? Maybe they spend money actively training and promoting their sales staff, maybe incentivising them for their sales?

I have no answer to this. All I know is I have a nice, bright red something-or-other with two wheels that is going to make my butt and legs scream in pain about twice a week.

Carbonators

I must admit to a bit of confusion about the new advertising campaign from NRMA about the 'Carbonators'. The premise behind the campaign is that if you move your insurance from another supplier to NRMA, they will off-set one tonne of your vehicles emissions for you for free.

On the face of it, that sounds great. Except in my opinion, the whole campaign raises more questions than it asks. Sure, NRMA want people to be engaged with the concept of 'doing your bit for the environment' and they want to make their product eco-friendly, but this is still just car insurance. Its great that we have this secondary feeling of well-being, but the most important thing to anyone hunting car insurance, is that its cheap and it covers you for an accident. All-singing and dancing it doesn't need to be.

The detail that you only get to see if you access the website and click through the right areas and onto two more '?' buttons that aren't very well displayed, is that NRMA will invest in purchasing carbon credits in a number of different ways. One of those is 'sequestration of forests as certified under the NSW Greenhouse Gas Abatement scheme.' I mean, what??

I'm all for campaigns that make you think, but in this case they really should have followed the advice of the word K.I.S.S - keep it simple, stupid. I'm postively disposed to doing something about the environment but I have no idea how much one tonne is, what the NSW Greenhouse Gas Abatement scheme is or exactly how I check that my investment in growing more trees is actually investing in growing more trees. Someone could be charging 3 different customers for the same tree for all I know.

Sure it sounds cynical, and the website and the adverts with the images of 'trusted' Broncos players should develop some faith in you that NRMA can be trusted, but would it be too much to maybe simplify the message a little? Maybe explain to us up-front how much our cars produce in the way of emissions, without us having to go into the website and mess about entering all our details?

Either way, I'm not sold. I've just forked out $4000 to make my house save gallons of water should it ever decide to rain again. Sure I want to help reduce greenhouse gases, but pay more to do so?

Maybe later. Maybe when I've paid for the water tank. Or maybe I'll just pick the cheapest quote. Tough call.