Behind Big Oil’s Green Motivations

  • The Maryland Science Center is running a pilot project, renting out a handful of bright green battery powered cars to Baltimore residents and tourists. The cars use a battery that employs a special polymer film developed by Exxon Chemical. (Photo courtesy of the Maryland Science Center)

Some well known oil companies
are very publicly getting behind
alternative energy initiatives.
But are these serious efforts
or just a case of green-washing?
Tamara Keith tries
to get some answers:

Transcript

Some well known oil companies
are very publicly getting behind
alternative energy initiatives.
But are these serious efforts
or just a case of green-washing?
Tamara Keith tries
to get some answers:

The first thing oil giants like Exxon Mobil, BP and Chevron would
like us to know is that they’re not oil companies. They are energy
companies. So, they say, investing in biofuels, solar panels and
geothermal power really isn’t out of character… even if those things
only make up a fraction of their total business.

And I guess that’s how you end up with an electric car that says
“powered by Exxon Mobil” on its bumper.

Reiner: “So, you want to go take a look?”

Keith: “Yeah, sure.”

Vann Reiner is the CEO of the Maryland Science Center.
The center is running a pilot project, renting out a handful of
bright green battery powered cars to Baltimore residents and tourists.

Reiner: “Here’s the gas cap.”

Keith: “It’s an outlet.”
Reiner: “It’s an outlet, that’s right. And you see it’s 110 volt
15 amp – so household current.”

The cars use a battery that employs a special polymer film developed
by Exxon Chemical.

“So, you turn the key the way you normally would.”

(sound of car)

Exxon Mobil said it couldn’t make anyone available to be
interviewed for this story.

Reiner: “Nice job on acceleration.”

Keith: “Thank you.”

So I asked the science center’s Reiner what I wanted to ask
the folks at Exxon Mobil. Why in the world is an oil company
promoting an electric car? Isn’t that like working to put themselves
out of business?

“I see it as a technology company who has made a lot of money
in oil, no getting around that. But what else can you do? And
this is a way to insure their future, in my opinion. But I’m just
delighted that they chose us.”

Exxon Mobil also recently announced a 600-million dollar investment
in algae as a future biofuel – and the company is making sure we all
know about it with with newspaper and television ads.

“And they absorb CO2. So they help solve the greenhouse problem as well.
We’re making a big commitment to finding out just how much algae can help
to meet the fuel demands of the world.”

Still, Exxon Mobil is planning for oil, gas and coal to continue dominating
the world’s energy supply for at least the next 30 years.

Alex Yelland is with Chevron, and he says that’s what his company is projecting, too.

“Renewables is currently around 10 percent of the energy mix, and, in the
coming decades, that’s not expected to change a huge amount but from its
current state it’s relative state, it will grow significantly.”

Over the next 2 years, Yelland says Chevron plans to spend 2-point-7
billion dollars on renewable energy and energy efficiency. But Yelland
insists that kind of investment in energy sources other than oil isn’t
counterintuitive.

“For us, it’s about building a sound business for the future and
understanding where global demand is going and how we can meet that.”

“I think it definitely is smart PR.”

Edward Wu is with Cora Capital Advisors in New York. His firm specializes
in alternative energy investing. He says these companies are worth hundreds
of billions of dollars and, by comparison, their green investments are fairly small.

“They’re not going to replace oil, but I think they’re hoping that
they’ll be somewhat economically viable and at the same time definitely
serve a PR purpose right now.”

But Wu says the sprinkling of investments isn’t just about having something
to talk about in their ads.

“They want to have some biofuels in the mix. They want to have some battery
companies in the mix. They’re essentially dipping their toe in the water to
essentially hedge their bets.”

Because no one will want to be an oil company if, or perhaps we should say when,
oil stops dominating the energy landscape.

For The Environment Report, I’m Tamara Keith.

Related Links

The Candidates on Nuclear Power

  • The two presidential candidates square off on their views about nuclear power (Photo courtesy of the Commission on Presidential Debates)

Both major party candidates for
president are promising a much greener
energy plan than the current administration.
But there are big differences in the ways
each would go about it. In the first part
of our series on shifting the nation’s
energy policy, Julie Grant takes a look
at the candidates’ views on nuclear power:

Thanks to the Public Radio Exchange for providing the audio for this piece.

Transcript

Both major party candidates for
president are promising a much greener
energy plan than the current administration.
But there are big differences in the ways
each would go about it. In the first part
of our series on shifting the nation’s
energy policy, Julie Grant takes a look
at the candidates’ views on nuclear power:

John McCain and Barack Obama both claim to take climate change, and our role in creating it,
seriously. When asked during the second presidential debate about their plans to stem climate
change during their first two years in office, McCain offered ‘straight talk’.

“What’s the best way of fixing it? Nuclear power.”

More nuclear power is the centerpiece of Senator McCain’s energy policy. He’s told audiences
about the power of nuclear to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“Here we have a known, proven energy source that requires exactly zero emissions.”

And he says the 104 nuclear reactors currently operating in the U.S. make a big difference.

“These reactors alone spare the atmosphere from about 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
that would otherwise be released every year. That’s the annual equivalent to nearly all the
emissions of all the cars we drive in America.”

John McCain wants to build 45 new nuclear reactors in the U.S.

Barack Obama, meanwhile, has focused more on renewable energy sources – wind, solar, and
on energy efficiency. But he says he’s not opposed to nuclear power.

“I favor nuclear power as one component of our overall energy mix.”

Senator Obama doesn’t have any plans to build new nuclear power plants. Obama doesn’t think
nuclear is he best option. It’s expensive. And he insists its operation and waste disposal must be
safe.

Senator McCain sees Obama’s use of ‘safe’ as a code word.

“Senator Obama will tell you, as the extreme environmentalists do, that it has to be safe. Look
we’ve sailed navy ships around the world for 60 years with nuclear power plants on them. We
can store and reprocess spent nuclear fuel, senator Obama, no problem.”

But safety and radioactive nuclear waste are still unsettled issues for many people.

Andrew Hoffman is professor of sustainable business at the University of Michigan. If the country
is serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, he says it has to consider nuclear power.
But Hoffman says the issue of radioactive waste has to be resolved.

“And I think this is an area that the government has to step in. We have nuclear waste being
stored at facilities all over the country. That’s just not a smart way to handle this.”

The economics of nuclear are also uncertain. Lots of power companies lost their shirts back in
the 1970s, building nuclear plants.

Travis Miller is a stock analyst with the firm Morningstar.

“The financing costs are extreme. There is quite a bit of risk building new nuclear plants. They
take many years to build, cost billions of dollars to build, and without some kind of backing, I think
there are
Plenty of people in the utility industry who still remember those days when they did get in trouble
with these very expensive, risky project.”

Senator McCain says government subsidies should help build new nuclear power plants. But
Andy Hoffman at the University of Michigan says people and investors will still have concerns.

“The government can just sort of announce, we’re going to support nuclear, but there are other
things that have to come into play to make investments attractive to investors so that they’ll want
to do it.”

Hoffman says the government will have to persuade the American people nuclear power offers
more benefits than problems.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

The Candidates on Renewable Energy

  • Barack Obama and John McCain give their views on renewable energy (Photo courtesy of the Commission on Presidential Debates)

Both major party candidates for
president say the nation’s economy and
national security are closely tied with
its energy policy. But they each have
a different plan to build the market for
alternatives to foreign oil and other
fossil fuels. In the next part of our
series about shifting the nation’s energy
policy, Julie Grant takes a look at the
candidates’ views on renewable power, like
wind and solar:

Thanks to the Public Radio Exchange for providing the audio for this piece.

Transcript

Both major party candidates for
president say the nation’s economy and
national security are closely tied with
its energy policy. But they each have
a different plan to build the market for
alternatives to foreign oil and other
fossil fuels. In the next part of our
series about shifting the nation’s energy
policy, Julie Grant takes a look at the
candidates’ views on renewable power, like
wind and solar:

John McCain and Barack Obama both talk a lot about new
sources of energy on the campaign trail. They see
alternative energy as a way to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil, to stem climate change, and even to boost the
economy.

McCain: “It’s wind, tide, solar, nuclear, offshore drilling.”

Obama: “That’s why I’ve focused on putting resources into
solar, wind, biodiesel, geothermal.”

Every president since Richard Nixon has promised to reduce
America’s dependence on foreign oil – but our imports have
only increased since the 1970s.

So what are each of this season’s contenders proposing?

Obama has been talking about huge investments in clean
technologies and energy efficiency.

“My energy plan will invest 150-billion dollars over the next
ten years to establish a green energy sector that will create
up to five million jobs over the next two decades. Five
million jobs.” (applause)

Obama wants to retrain steel and auto industry workers for
jobs building wind turbines and solar panels.

Wind energy is already contributing energy to the nation’s
electricity supply. Solar isn’t quite there yet. It needs more
research.

Edward McBride is energy and environment correspondent
for The Economist magazine. He says Obama plans direct
government investments in wind, solar, hybrid electric cars,
and making homes and businesses more energy efficient.

“He imagines a situation where the government is much
more heavily involved, not just in providing incentives but
actually in spending money. And therefore presumably the
government is in a position to pick and choose more which
technologies move forward.”

Unlike Obama, Senator McCain doesn’t plan direct
government investment in clean technologies. Instead,
McBride says the McCain is proposing tax credits for those
who do invest in them.

“He wants more broad-based incentives. Rather than
different incentives for solar and wind and so on. He wants
one unifying tax incentive.”

But McCain plans some direct government subsidies – for
nuclear and clean coal.

And although McCain talks about building a green economy
on the campaign trail, he doesn’t always seem convinced
that clean energy will provide the power America needs.

Here’s McCain speaking in New Hampshire last December.

“Most every expert that I know says that if you maximize that
in every possible way the contribution that that would make
given the present state of technology, is very small. It’s not
a large contribution. Even if we gave it the absolute
maximum, wind, solar and tide, etc. The truly clean
technologies don’t work.”

McCain is counting on the investment markets to decide
winners and losers in the renewable energy business.

But the markets don’t usually look long term, at things like
climate change. So both presidential candidates are
planning to put a price on burning fossil fuels, such as oil
and coal, that add to the problems of climate change.

That alone could provide another incentive for clean
competitors.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Tax and Spend? Please Do

As far back as the Boston Tea Party, taxes have stirred passions. In campaign season, the word “tax” is tossed around like a grenade, often prompting politicians to duck and hide. But Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator, Julia King, thinks politicians should stop running from the “Tax-and-Spend” label and instead defend taxes – and the many vital services they fund:

Transcript

As far back as the Boston Tea Party, taxes have stirred passions. In campaign season the
word “tax” is tossed around like a grenade, often prompting politicians to duck and hide.
But Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator, Julia King, thinks politicians should
stop running from the “Tax-and-Spend” label and instead defend taxes – and the many
vital services they fund.


Despite a shaky economy, a looming war, despite rising numbers of uninsured
Americans, somehow there are still politicians who peddle tax cuts as cure alls.


It’s about time we clear something up: When a candidate says, “I’ll lower your taxes,”
he’s put forth only half of an idea. The other half of that idea involves cutting programs
that could be important to many of us.


I recently stood on a Northern Indiana lakeshore and admired a crisp, autumn scene. But
instead of inspiring me the quiet water and the changing landscape filled me with a dull,
nagging worry. I imagined a future without such places – or at least without public
access to them.


Like countless other venues around the country, the Indiana Department of Natural
Resources recently suffered the loss of 8.2 million dollars in permanent budget cuts, cuts
that forced the elimination of arts and cultural programs in state parks, the closing of
some parks, and the “downsizing” of many that stayed open. Still others were turned
over to private operators who increased fees to cover actual costs, making visits now
unaffordable for some people.


Few politicians seem willing to admit that slashing taxes means shrinking public service
and even public safety. Yet this is the time to connect the dots, to thread together rhetoric
and reality. It’s a long list of things that make a society — our society — livable. A
thriving park system is just one piece of the delicate mosaic we call civilization.


Is there ever mismanagement of public funds? Sure, and it deserves attention. But,
seriously, when’s the last time you saw a park naturalist in an Armani suit or behind the
wheel of a Rolls Royce? For the most part, government employees are not whooping it
up on your tax dollars. And never mind Enron – in Indiana the salaries of just 10 of our
highest paid executives could support the entire Indiana Department of Natural
Resources’ general fund. That’s a story that plays out in nearly every state across the
nation.


Right now — in the midst of campaign season — is the time to sort through national and
local priorities. Whether anyone acknowledges it or not, cutting taxes means cutting
away at the fabric of society.


Surely if our nation can find the money and the will to fully fund war and death, we can’t
claim poverty when we’re challenged to enhance life.


Julia King lives and writes in Goshen, Indiana. She comes to us through the Great Lakes
Radio Consortium.

Is Big Money Driving Ethanol Subsidies?

For decades, big political donations have influenced big tax breaks. Lobbyists, backed by money from political action committees, heavily influence the legislative process. In one case a multi-billion dollar program is supposed to help the environment. But… many believe it doesn’t. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports: