Winning the greenwashing race: BP sponsoring the 2012 Olympic games |
Carbon Trade Watch | Monday, 16 April 2012 | |
April 16th marks the 100 day countdown to the start of the Olympics:
100 days for some of the world’s most disreputable corporations – like
Rio Tinto, Dow and BP – to keep using the Olympics as a smokescreen for
environmental and human rights abuses the world over. The list of
Olympic Sponsors reads like a “rogues gallery” of some of the most
controversial corporations in the world. It makes you wonder if they
included “how much pollution, turmoil and displacement has this company
been responsible for?” as one of the selection criteria. If you are in
London, come to the Launch of Greenwash Gold 2012 Campaign where
members of communities impacted by Olympic sponsors all over the world
will be introduced
As the Olympics prepare for the international games in July in London, UK, the organization committees are already under serious criticism for allowing BP, the oil giant, to be the major sponsor and official ‘carbon offset partner’ of this event. As the primary sponsor of the Olympics, BP is offering carbon offsets as a way to “neutralise their transport emissions by buying carbon credits, which support low carbon development projects around the world”.[i] The oil giant will use six projects around the world to supposedly offset the emissions from the games; a tree-planting project in Kenya; wind turbines in New Caledonia; bioenergy from landfill gas in Turkey; methane capture at a dairy farm in the US; a biomass project in Brazil; and biomass energy in China. These projects, which are strategically located one in each continent, are supposed to “absorb” the same amount of greenhouse gases that all the needed airplanes, ships and car transport, food deliveries, the lighting of huge stadiums and more than 5,000 official vehicles which BP will fuel itself.[ii] So don’t worry! We do not need to use less or be responsible of our own emissions. We do not even have to make the most polluting companies accountable for their dirty practices as long as they offer a ‘cheap and easy’ solution that make us think we (and them) are doing enough. As long as somewhere else there is a project taking all the measures needed to absorb the pollution, there should be no problem! Right? Well, not so much. Carbon offsets are often presented as emissions reductions or as a way to be ‘carbon neutral’ however they do not reduce emissions. Pollution continues at one location with the assumption that an ‘equivalent’ emissions saving will happen somewhere else (mostly in the Global South). For corporate polluters, carbon offsets are in general a cheaper option than changing their polluting practices. Moreover, it has become an easy way to create a ‘green’ image used as moral cover. Some of the key problems with ‘offsetting’ are:[iii]
BP’s sponsorship provides however several new opportunities for the company to associate itself with the excitement of the Olympics, as a recent study showed how BP's brand image is benefiting from the sponsorship which it is still grappling to resurrect following the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster in 2010:[iv]
With this context, early this year, several environmental groups sent an open letter to the International Olympic Committee stating that:[viii] “BP’s positive reputation [also] allows its investments in controversial new ‘frontier oil’ projects to go virtually unquestioned by the media, the government and the public. Examples include the recent decision to go into Alberta’s highly carbon-intensive and locally destructive tar sands, despite the calls by local Indigenous communities for no new tar sands extraction projects; and the announcement this month that BP’s Russian partner organisation TNK-BP will accelerate development of five giant oil fields in the pristine and vulnerable Russian Arctic, in a deal said to be worth $12 billion. BP’s business model involves continuing to extract fossil fuels long into the future, playing a central role in ushering in irreversible climate change. In other words, it is one of the least sustainable companies on earth.” On February 23rd, Indymedia reported that hundreds of BP signs across London were targeted by activists protesting against the company’s role as ‘Sustainability Partner’ of the London 2012 Olympic Games. Around the capital, protesters hit petrol stations, advertising hoardings, and BP-sponsored cultural institutions as the Tate museum, disfiguring hundreds of the famous BP ‘sunflower’ logos. One of those taking part in the action, Bridget Peterson, said, “BP has just closed its solar business and is now plunging into highly polluting tar sands, exploring the pristine Arctic and restarting its deepwater drilling operations. These extreme forms of energy extraction are incompatible with stopping climate change, yet BP pursues them greedily while gloatingly advertising itself as ‘Sustainability Partner’.” [ix] The official London 2012 Olympic Games website was faked by protesters on Wednesday 11th of April demanding that BP be dropped as one of the event’s official sponsors.[x] The following day, BP’s Annual General Meeting was once again an uncomfortable experience for the Board, since they were confronted by questions on oil spills, tar sands, Olympic sponsorship and interplanetary escape pods.[xi] April 16th marks the 100 day countdown to the start of the Olympics: 100 days for some of the world’s most disreputable corporations – like Rio Tinto, Dow and BP – to keep using the Olympics as a smokescreen for environmental and human rights abuses the world over. The list of Olympic Sponsors reads like a “rogues gallery” of some of the most controversial corporations in the world. It makes you wonder if they included “how much pollution, turmoil and displacement has this company been responsible for?” as one of the selection criteria. If you are in London, come to the Launch of Greenwash Gold 2012 Campaign where members of communities impacted by Olympic sponsors all over the world will be introduced. [xii]
[i] BP target neutral, http://www.bptargetneutral.com/our-projects/ [ii] Marketing, February 2012, BP's brand image benefits from London 2012 sponsorship, claims research, http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/1117665/BPs-brand-image-benefits-London-2012-sponsorship-claims-research/ [iii] For more information on offsets and the carbon market see: www.carbontradewatch.org [iv] Marketing, February 2012, BP's brand image benefits from London 2012 sponsorship, claims research, http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/1117665/BPs-brand-image-benefits-London-2012-sponsorship-claims-research/ [v] Fuelling the games, www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9036378&contentId=7067213 [vi] The ENDS Report, 23 August 2011, Queries over BP biofuels adverts, http://www.endsreport.com/30154/queries-over-bp-biofuels-adverts [vii] An open letter to the organisers of the London 2012 Olympics (2012), http://www.no-tar-sands.org/campaigns/british-petroleum-bp/bps-sponsorship-of-london-2012-oilympics/letter/ [viii] An open letter to the organisers of the London 2012 Olympics (2012), http://www.no-tar-sands.org/campaigns/british-petroleum-bp/bps-sponsorship-of-london-2012-oilympics/letter/ [ix] http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/02/492855.html [x] Magnay, J, 11 April 2012, London 2012 Olympics: Anti-BP activists carry out sponsor sacking hoax as protests grow, Telegraph, www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/9198561/London-2012-Olympics-Anti-BP-activists-carry-out-sponsor-sacking-hoax-as-protests-grow.html [xi] No Tar Sands Network, April 15 2012, Protesters dragged out of BP AGM after board avoids uncomfortable questions, http://www.no-tar-sands.org/2012/04/protesters-dragged-out-of-bp-agm-after-board-avoids-uncomfortable-questions/ [xii] More information on the event at: http://londonminingnetwork.org/2012/03/launch-of-greenwash-gold-2012-campaign/ |