From: eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: Re: Chevron - People Do? (sometimes)
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 16:59:30 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Jul28.005153.25971@eos.arc.nasa.gov> jbm@eos.arc.nasa.gov
(Jeffrey Mulligan) writes:
>Any of you who watch television probably know what I'm talking about:
>those schmaltzy ads where a couple of engineers replace some baby
>bunnies in their nest after the pipeline construction is finished;
>"Do people really go to that much trouble so that baby bunnies blah
>blah blah?" [Fade to Chevron logo] "People Do."
>
>So my question is, do you think this is just a bunch of BS, or is
>Chevron (or any other oil company) actually significantly more
>environmentally responsible that the others?

Answers (some simple others not) to all of these.

They replaced owls.  The "event" took place near Taft (I am
reasonably certain of this).

I would not say that it is strictly BS.
1) A lot of oil company employees are quite sincere about the protection of
the environment.  The oil companies hire biologists (a few) and chemists,
they DO think about oil spills, other kinds of toxic dumping, etc.

But they also hire scads of lawyers (I went to HS with one) and other
professions (geologists [ex-NASA, Jeff], and just roughnecks).

2) BUT the fundamental purpose of a business is to make profits for its
share-holders.  That includes you and me when we invest in banks and
credit institutions that lend money as well as direct holders.
As businesses they are basically conservative thinking organizations
(they are also very large organizations).

In the 1970s, ARCO (Atlantic Richfield of California) and its President
Thorton Bradshaw were typically cited as the most "environmental" of the
oil companies.  They claim such things as pioneering the use of unleaded
fuels, EC-1 gas for LA, and other developments.  Bradshaw is gone.
But was Bradshaw sincere?  I think he probably was, but he did not place
1) before 2).  I could say more.

That's okay.  We figure: "Let the system work to find economic incentives
to less 'polluting' alternatives."  The problem will ultimately be chemistry
and physics.  Right now, our vehicles, our engineering and science are
relatively inefficient, but we are going to come up against the laws of
thermodynamics and economics and politics won't help us there.
The question will become whether or not companies like oils companies or
the car companies invest to buy into competing industries for purposes of
squashing them.  The answer was probably more yes in the past, less so now.
Face it, as the price of Gulf oil goes up and down, there is more short term
incentive to dump solar and wind projects when oil's price goes down.
Our "leaders" and policy makers don't have the kind of long-term perspective
needed.  (A good example is supertankers, but we won't get into that).

I have had my own personal experience with the aforementioned Chevron workers.
I was munching lunch outside Yosemite Park HQ before a meeting as I watched
Chevron workers trying to break up "restore" the soil between the walkways
next to the main Visitor Center.  They were spading the soil, but being
careful not to turn it, then fencing it off.  You can see this fencing to
this day.  Was this of value?  I would doubt it.  It's PR, but you can't
fault the employees.  This might be regarded as a ecological disaster if
this were just done in other parts of the Park.  It was a great opportunity
for them to put their logo up where 4M people a year could see it.

The biggest thing is that we have to get past the cutie version of the
Bambi environment (best portraryed by Walt Disney's older cartoons).
The "I am helping" empire building isn't necessarily what the world needs.

This oil thing also contrasts with "60 Minutes" report on investigations of
whisleblowing last Sunday.

I'll lend you a book, Jeff: In the Wake of the Exxon Valdez by Art Davidson.
It details some of how oil companies work and do PR.  I ran into one of
the people in the book by complete chance in Santa Cruz (one of the most
interesting characters who cleaned the birds).  You might try to contact him.

The oil industry mentality is an interesting one.  There isn't one
mentality, it's not all evil, but it does have some macho aspects about it.
(A client of Dad's made drill bits.)  That mentality is what gets promoted
into the management and leadership of those companies and that is where you
will find the BS problem (not the lower level employees).

Congress is currently investigating these ads (starting with the Dupont
double-hulled oil tanker ads).  I suspect nothing will come of this.
The issue isn't whether or not specific tankers are used.  The issue is
whether this is a smoke screen for bigger problems.  Oil companies are
just another bottom line.

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
  Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Second Favorite email message: Returned mail: Cannot send message for 3 days
A Ref: Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, vol. 1, G. Polya

When I was in Kindergarden, I was so fascinated with off shore oil derricks,
(I made them out of blocks) my teachers transfered me to another teacher
and gave me scads of Chevron literature.  14 years later when I moved to
Santa Barbara, I found myself fighting the off shore oil wells.