Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
For example, take the common practice of publicly endorsing renewables as the ideal. Fossil fuel com-
panies, particularly oil and gas companies, proudly feature windmills on Web pages and annual reports,
even though these are trivial to their bottom line and wildly uneconomic. This obviously implies that re-
newables are the goal, oil and gas being a temporarily necessary evil.
Another way in which the fossil fuel industry reinforces the moral case against itself is by trying to
sidestep the issue with talk of jobs or economics or patriotism. While these are important issues, it makes
no sense to pursue them via fossil fuels if they are destroying our planet. That's why environmentalists
compellingly respond with arguments such as: Do we want economic growth tied to poison? Do we want
more jobs where the workers are causing harm? Do we want our national identity to continue to be associ-
ated with something we now know is destructive?
There are many, many more forms of conceding the environmentalists' moral case and giving them the
high ground. Here are half a dozen more just to give you a sense of the scope of the problem.
•
Not mentioning the word “oil
” on home pages (this has at times been true of ExxonMobil, Shell,
and Chevron). This implies that you're ashamed of what you do and that your critics are right that
oil is a self-destructive addiction.
• Focusing attention on everything but your core product—community service initiatives, charitable
contributions, et cetera. This implies that you're ashamed of your core product.
• Praising your attackers as “idealistic.” This implies that those who want your destruction are pur-
suing a legitimate ideal.
• Apologizing for your “environmental footprint.” This implies that there's something wrong with
the industrial development that is inherent in energy production.
• Spending most of your time on the defensive. This implies that you don't have something positive
to champion.
•
Criticizing your
opponents primarily for getting their facts wrong without refuting their basic mor-
al argument. This implies that the argument is right but your opponents just need to identify your
evils more precisely.
The industry's position amounts to this: “Our product isn't moral, but it's something that we will need
forsome time as we transition to the ideal fossil fuel-free future.” What you're telling the world is that you
are a necessary evil
.
And because the environmentalists agree that it will take some time to transition to a
fossil fuel-free future, the argument amounts to a debate over an expiration date
.
Environmentalists will
argue that fossil fuels are necessary for a shorter time, and you'll argue that they're necessary for a longer
time, so they'll always sound optimistic and idealistic, and you'll always sound cynical and pessimistic
and self-serving. So long as you concede that your product is a self-destructive addiction, you will not win
hearts and minds—and you will not deserve to.
Inmyexperience,whatevertheaudienceandwhateverthemedium,makingthemoralcaseforthefossil
fuel industry is a game changer. We need you to make that case—for your sake and ours. I believe that if
enough of us work together applying these ideas, the unimaginable is possible. In the future, I see:
