Future Energy

Three Polls for Sustainability

Source: Signal Environmental

It was a busy summer and some things, like this blog, just couldn't keep up.  But that's not to say I didn't come across lots  I'd like to look back at as I try to get back in the habit of posting again.  Take the three polls I came across in early August (that's when I came across them, not necessarily when they were made public).

Back in June, Pembina Institute released a survey of 5,000 "thought leaders" (whatever the heck a thought leader is - I'm not sure that academics and government middle managers are leading many in their thinking these days).  The survey was conducted by McAllister Opinion Research and was released in advance of the G8/G20 meetings in Huntsville and Toronto, respectively.  Needless to say, with the uproar over fake lakes, $1 billion in security costs and riots in T.O., this survey sank without a trace. 

In the words of the press release ......

"The federal government is out of step with leading thinkers on issues related to sustainability, energy and climate change, according to the results of a groundbreaking survey of more than 5,000 experts and government officials  ....  These results clearly illustrate that leaders within government, academia and the private sector understand the energy and sustainability challenges Canada faces, and have a high level of agreement on how best to tackle them  ....  What Canada still lacks is the political commitment to take sufficient action."

Whats most interesting for me is that 59% of the respondents work in government (and most are in Canada), suggesting a profound disconnect between the Harper government and its civil servants on energy policy, climate change and sustainability.

Shifting direction (but just a bit), Gibbs and Soell, a New York based public affairs firm released their 2010 Sense and Sustainability Study, looking at how 2,600 U.S. consumers and 300 Fortune 1000 executives view the corporate pursuit of sustainability.   Scepticism is the key word Gibbs and Soell use to describe their own study.

Again in the words of the press release ...

Corporate America has embarked on its journey toward sustainability, but still draws public skepticism. Only 29% of executives and 16% of consumers believe that a majority of businesses (“most,” “almost all,” or “all”) are committed to “going green” – defined as “improving the health of the environment by implementing more sustainable business practices, and/or offering environmentally friendly products or services.” Many executives (54%) and consumers (48%) believe only “some” businesses are committed to “going green.”

However, I don't know if I would really define the response as sceptical.  If anything, it may be incredibly optimistic for 29% of executives to believe that "most", "almost all" or "all" U.S. companies are going green.  While the press release says that "Corporate America has embarked on its journey toward sustainability ...", as someone that makes a living helping companies down this particular road I would suggest that the majority of companies display the symptoms (e.g. publishing sustainability reports) but provide only tepid support beyond what the regulations require.

Finally, the last poll, conducted by Harris Poll for the Financial Times, looked at U.S. and European support for greater regulation of oil companies in the aftermath of the BP-Deepwater Horizon disaster.  The poll, released August 12^th, found that support for more regulation ranged from 73% of Britons to 91% of the French (U.S. respondents were in between with 77% of those spoken to favoring more regulatory constraints).

"The findings underline the challenge facing the industry after the accident on April 20 when the Macondo well ruptured, killing 11 workers and spewing 4.9m barrels of oil into the sea. Although the Obama Administration's moratorium on deep-water drilling in the gulf, imposed after the spill, should be lifted earlier than it's November 30th expiry date, the industry is already bracing itself for further regulation and higher costs"

So what does it all mean?

At a minimum, I would say there is a disconnect between industry claims to be "going green", becoming sustainable, etc. and the public that is on the receiving end of the message.  It also shows what bad performance on the part of one or two companies can do to the whole sector, and even all industry.  Looking at Canada and the Pembina/McAllister survey that disconnect extends to include a government and the thought leaders that are in many cases employed by it. 

Its been a tough summer for corporate reputations in the energy sector so it would be interesting to look at similar polls again in six months.

Too Many Oil Spills

Source: solveclimate.com

In April (through July), it was BP's Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico.  Last week, Enbridge's pipeline failed releasing one million gallons of crude into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan.  And in his blog at Solveclimate.com, David Sassoon provides a photolog of the Chinese oil spill at the Yellow Sea port-city of Dalian (see Bare Hands Clean-Up of a Horrible Oil Spill, July 29^th).

These are certainly spills that have captured the horror of press and public across much of the world.  However, a recent report by the Wildlife Federation of America makes the case that as devastating as this small number of spills might be, they are only the tip of the ice-berg.  Bradford Plumer writing in the Vine Blog (The New Republic) (see Oil Spills Everywhere, July 29^th) identified the report - Assault on America: A Decade of Petroleum Company Disaster, Pollution and Profit in which the National Wildlife Federation takes a strong stand.  In fact stronger than I would have expected from this type of NGO.

Major oil spills are really only a small part of the real story. From 2000 to 2010, the oil and gas industry accounted for hundreds of deaths, explosions, fires, seeps, and spills as well as habitat and wildlife destruction in the United States. These disasters demonstrate a pattern of feeding the addiction to oil leaving in their wake sacrifice zones that affect communities, local economies, and our landscapes.

The report provides a Map detailing thousands of petroleum company accidents, spills and other incidents (explosions, fires, etc.) in the U.S. between 2000 and 2010.  The report also highlights five or six of the more significant incidents each year. 

Finally, NWF provides a list of recommendations for ending the industry's history of spills, including:

• eliminate the cap on liability for damages caused by oil and gas disasters
• remove exemptions from the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts for oil and gas development
• implement new monitoring measures
• reform royalty structures for oil and gas leases on federal land
• pass comprehensive climate legislation in the U.S.

(In all NWF provides 13 recommendations.)

Working in the oil and gas industry obviously leaves me somewhat conflicted when I look at a report like this.  On the one hand there is no question that the incidents are unacceptable - in this regard, NWF does a good job of bringing them all together in a way that helps the industry to begin looking at the systemic causes.

On the other hand, an industry as all encompassing as the oil and gas sector and working as it does in some of the most inhospitable environments on earth will have incidents.  We and our economy are dependent on petroleum products; these incidents are the price of such dependency.  (To be fair to the NWF, many of their recommendations relate to decreasing the addiction.)

No doubt the long term answer is to reduce use of petroleum.

However, in the the short term there are several answers:

• Effective regulation that recognizes and acts on the key risks facing the industry.
• Better identification of the risks by the companies developing petroleum.
• Much better design and implementation of risk management systems to ensure that qualified people work safely to develop a volatile resource.
• Real senior management oversight of how their companies are managing the social, safety and environmental risks associated with their activities.

My understanding of NWF is that it is a relative moderate among the NGO's calling for the oil and gas sector to change.  And if they are concerned enough to use the language that appears in this report, its well worth paying attention to what they are saying and what they are trying to say.  So to close, over to NWF:

The total cost of the status quo —– in lives lost and health risks as well as social and environmental degradation —– is far too high. The sooner we move in the direction of meeting our energy needs through cleaner, safer sources.

The negative consequences for our health, our land, our climate and our children’s future are too great to continue to depend on oil to power our economy. Now is the time to put enact laws that favor and encourage safe and clean energy development and remove federal subsidies and tax advantages for oil and gas development. Now is the time to increase mitigation fees. Now is the time to create an oil and gas disaster fund paid for by industry. Now is the time to draw lines around environmentally sensitive areas that are made permanently off limits to oil and gas development.

And now is the time to cap global warming pollution from all oil and gas production —– including every aspect of the uncontrolled extraction and refining processes where methane, carbon dioxide, and other global warming gases are released into the air every day.

The BP Deepwater Horizon spill is truly a tragedy of our time. It should be used to take a closer and more comprehensive look at the full and continuing costs that the oil and gas industry continues to impose on society with its pollution, environmental degradation, habitat destruction, wildlife loss, worker and community endangerment, health effects consequences, and loss of life.