Originally Posted by quinney
That is a really disheartening post, not to mention ironic. Atlantic Richfield (which later became a part of BP) bought up numerous solar power patents in the 70's and 80's and stopped developing them. This gave the appearance that they wanted to STOP solar power as an alternative to burning oil.
Appearances are deceiving. BP Solar can trace to Solarex which was a spin off of Comsat Labs which was purchased by Amoco (Standard Oil) sometime in the 80s then BP for $45M in 1999. Amusingly, even then ARCO Solar (Atlantic Richfield) and Solar Power Corporation (Exxon) were it's primary competitors.
All the big oil companies invested heavily in the 70s due to the first energy crisis. All the remaining big oil companies invest heavily now because they know that peak oil is either here or will soon be. They have a corporate interest in investment in alternative energy technology because NONE can allow its competitors to have a lock on the next energy source.
Solarex, despite being #2 producer of solar panels in 1983 lost $10M 1982. They couldn't get more financing. Standard bought them out or they'd have gone out of business anyway.
The economics of solar have prevented widespread adoption, not some vast oil consipiracy. If the US had the same kind of solar incentive program as parts of Europe we'd be making more progress.
Does GP use any of it's alleged lobby or mindshare prowess to do that? No. Instead they're picking dumb fights with Apple on issues of nearly ZERO importance.
If they are trying to develop solar power now, it is part of a corporate greenwashing effort, not a sincere move to reduce carbon in the atmosphere. Do you seriously want to encourage that?
If they are developing solar power now, it is a part of corporate profit generation effort. It sure as hell is sincere if they're sinking $8bn into alternative energy.
Hell yes I want to encourage that. Sir Browne pushed BP hard into alternative energy in his tenure. We'll see how Haward does but it seems unlikely that he'll simple squander BPs position. Given he's a geologist by training, he can understand the science behind global warming and he gave a decent speech when he first started.
Greenpeace is one of the organizations most responsible for raising the consciousness of people about the fragility of Earth's environment. You can deny them credit for anything you want, but without them we would have our heads even deeper in the sand.
BS. Any american alive in the 70s had a good dose of environmental awareness dumped on them back then. I was 5 in 1970 and I still remember the environmental stuff in schools, TV, etc back then. The clean air act was passed in 1970. and it was a decade of environmentalism in the US of which GP was a small part of the larger picture.
The Greenpeace of today is not the Greenpeace of then anyway. I'm with Patrick Moore that calls them political activists vs environmentalists that engage in fear tactics, bad science and bogus even harmful positions on the environment.
"By the mid-1980s, the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism." -- Moore in 2007
GP's position on DDT has lead to thousands if not millions of deaths to malaria in developing countries.
GP's position on GMO and against Golden Rice is based on lies on safety. Their position has been duplicitious in calling for both human testing and opposing field trials.
GP's position against Nuclear energy has also been based on lies and really counterproductive for both reducing carbon emission and for reducing dependence on oil (which, ya know, go hand in hand).
If the human race survives, it will be more because of the efforts of Greenpeace than
because of the efforts of BP.
The human race WILL survive and it will be because of folks that build companies like BP and GMO developers like Potrykus and Syngenta.
Not because of the whackjobs that currently populate GP and other similar eco groups which are IMHO the biggest waste of oxygen on the planet.