Here’s the question: can we rightfully critique oil companies for their environmental impacts while we continue to fill up on their oil? Does our reliance on their products mean that we have no space to critique the manner in which that production occurs? It’s the type of question I often come up against when writing and reading about corporations. It’s also something that comes up frequently in the comments on posts across Thought Leader and elsewhere. A similar question could be asked of those who protest about the poor labour conditions of those working in the textile industry. I think what makes this type of question so potent is the fact that underlying it is an implicit accusation of hypocrisy that goes something like: how can you whinge about the pollution and devastation when you benefit so handsomely from the production of oil?
It’s a tough nut to crack, and what makes the oil example so unique is the fact that we can’t easily escape our dependence on oil (nor the persistent cries of hypocrisy). Sure we can cut down on how much we drive around, make sure to use car pools, and even decide to drive a hybrid. But even if we each did all three of these, the truth is that our entire way of life is thoroughly dependent on a constant supply of oil: the electricity we use, clothes we wear, food we eat, medicines we rely on, and the way we transport ourselves, our entire social and economic infrastructure is bathed in oil. At present there is just no escaping our use of oil. So does that mean we have no right to criticise the way in which oil is produced?
John Vlismas’ recent post touches on this topic. At one point he creates the image of someone who self-righteously drives past BP in protest over their oil spill, only to fill up at the Shell around the corner. The point is the hypocrisy of such protest: both Shell and BP have equally horrible records when it comes to the resourcing and production of their oil. So protesting against one while continuing to fill up at the other is senseless. And I agree, to a point.
Again I think it comes down to the degree to which we are embedded in a society that functions on oil. As such we have very little choice about, or control over whether or not to use oil and its derivatives. Being a hypocrite means that you practice the very thing you are critical of. So for example, it’s hypocritical to speak out against Nike, only to wear Nike products the next day. What makes this hypocritical is the inconsistency of wearing Nike products where other options are freely available: you could wear fairly traded clothing, or even make your own. But this is not the case with oil. Unlike in the Nike example, there are effectively no other options to oil at this point, and so much of its usage is beyond our control. Even if you stopped driving completely and never flew again, you’d still be heavily reliant on oil — and it’s that lack of choice that I think makes some difference here. It’s the fact that so much of our reliance on oil is beyond our control, and that short of completely removing oneself from society, we have little option but to use oil at this stage.
Obviously berating oil companies from your Hummer on the way to the airport is hypocritical on all accounts. On that level one definitely has a choice about the extent to which you use oil, and one should be held responsible accordingly. That said, I think there is still some room to critique oil companies while continuing to use their products provided:
- You use alternatives where possible, and
- You make a concerted effort to reduce your reliance on fossil fuels.
For as long as we have little choice in whether we use oil or not, I don’t see protests against oil companies as automatically hypocritical. In fact I would argue that one of the things we need to be most vocal about is the fact that we don’t have any other choices here. I am not saying that in every case protesters are beyond reproach for not practising what they preach. Far from it. In most cases environmentalists must follow their imperatives absolutely; hypocrisy is the surest way to undermine a movement. What I am saying is that in this instance specifically, the pervasive and extensive use of oil is such that environmentalists don’t have direct control over whether they rely on oil or not, and as such they are not hypocrites when denouncing oil companies.
To make it worse, derivatives eg chemicals from oil constitute ± 90% of chemicals used worldwide which go into virtually 100% of what we use/buy – food-feed/clothing/paint/building materials/medical supplies/every motorised vechicle moving including planes etc etc etc. So if we weane off oil to fuel our whole way of life ends.
What we can and must do is lobby/fight for decent/environmentially/clean production of everything that is produced – it is possible just cost a bit more at source but not if the whole cost/value chain is calculated.
Brent
Never thought I would say this, but you may have a few points.
Mike – Its really time to stop playing at being Don Quixote.
Here’s one simple fact for you to meditate on : Humans only emit 3% of the worlds carbon di-oxide. We do not cause climate change. We may be some small variable in the equation, but we are not the primary cause.
Here’s another one: Al Gore has made billions setting up his carbon credit business. Carbon credits are probably the biggest scam thrust upon humanity’s collective guilt.
The real issue on the table is our rampant consumerist culture fuelled by an angry beast called capitalism that we cannot stop, which is destroying our natural environment so quickly that we don’t know what to do about it.
Good points
Yes, this argument have been made by various other activists across the board.
The emotional and absolutist rhetoric is fine when attacking the “enemy”, but when it is thrown back to the activist he suddenly has all sorts of rational explanations for why he/she cannot be expected to uphold all the tenants of his/her faith/world view. It all of a sudden gets more complicated.
It is not unique to “greenies”, but they tend to go really overboard with the rhetoric and emotional blackmail.
It is also interesting to look deeper into the profiles of most activists and movements. The green movement in the US for instance is largely white middle class college educated. Very few minorities are represented in the movement. What does this mean?
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1725017,00.html
http://www.alternet.org/story/58613/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_politics#Critique_of_green_policy
Excellent article! You are right in that we don’t have much choice in using oil and oil based products. It has been argued that oil is such a useful substance (it is used in the manufacture of a myriad of products) that we should not be wasting this finite substance as a fuel source. I think we do have a right to advocate the use of alternative fuel sources without being called hypocrites. I suspect the argument of hypocrisy is one of the first and most obvious arguments that fossil fuel supporters (those who benefit financially or lovers of combustion engines or Republicans) would use against greenies. But we do have a right to protest, and to back our protests up by changing our lifestyles where we can so as to find alternatives.
Use a bicycle or ride a horse.
@Robin: Your denialism is out of touch with reality; clearly you don’t understand non-linearity in complex systems. 3% can be a LOT!
I agree on the issue of consumer culture fueled by capitalism though. Without sweeping social changes and shifts in what we value as a species, we’re screwed.
So it’s simple: stop consuming so much and begin to forge community-level grassroots support structures that exist outside of the capitalist economy.
@Robin Grant. Yup, agree totally. Materialism is number one. Girlies like things and boyies like girlies so the rat race rewards with sex those boyies who provide the most thingies. The thingies then go to landfill.
Robin, that seems a little simplistic. Please cite some credible sources.
Greenhouse gasses come from CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and fluorocarbons; and so-called natural emissions are dramatically impacted by (you said it) man’s rampant consumerist culture.
I have no strong opinions on carbon credits and offsets, as I know precious little about that, but Al Gore is only profiting from the huge investments he made in alternative energy years before. That’s called practicing what you preach; and if he was prescient enough to risk his money on (an inevitable shift towards) sustainable, renewable energy, then I only have even more respect for the “ex-future president of the USA.”
After all, he doesn’t set the rates. The Kyoto Protocol and the markets do.
Effectively (right wing smears aside) here’s what Al Gore has done:
Identify problem
Identify solutions
Invest in solutions
Market the solutions
PROFIT!
That’s business 101, really. But with a conscience.
@Robin Grant. The natural carbon cycle in is a very fine balance, and even the relatively small amount of carbon we introduce to the atmosphere is enough to cause the warming that we are seeing.
Thanks, Mike. This is better. Also, Brent’s comments are pertinent.
This article is a bit of a red herring. The hypocrisy charge is usually laid against those greenies who urge people to cut back on their carbon footprint but who then easily exceed the average person’s carbon footprint a thousand times over by jetting off to some exotic island in the south Pacific for a conference on global warming. The pre-eminent hypocrite is Al Gore who lives in a mansion that apparently consumes enough electricity to power a small village. Clearly these types of excesses are easily avoidable.
A vision of a world where energy supply is accessable to everyone, affordable, clean and free of pollution – THE 4th REVOLUTION – Energy Autonomy (theatrical-trailer)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unaY8mgo2S0
.
Glad to note that you are beginning to get it.
@ Robard,
No, not a red herring. I state quite clearly that “I am not saying that in every case protesters are beyond reproach for not practicing what they preach. Far from it. In most cases environmentalists must follow their imperatives absolutely”. The argument I make here applies specifically to this instance – again as I said in the blog.
If what you say about Al Gore is correct, then that would indeed amount to hypocrisy, hands down.
@Mike:
You may have it wrong Mike and my reasoning is that there is no alternative at this stage. All ‘affordable’ vehicles use gasoline and it is therefor as essential as food and water: try rowing to Australia if in doubt. It is still illegal to drive to the cafe in your zero emission, electrical golf cart. Public transport is non-existent in many parts. Incompetent ministers EVERYWHERE appoint incompetent overseers with over-inflated egos who are unable to begin to create a sound philosophical base for a strategy; never mind a strategy per sé. We can not solve our problems with the same thinking that created them. It requires minds that are evolved enough to be able to entertain a thought without immediately accepting it. Minds that can distinguish indoctrination from the facts and that are able to construct a feasible cause-and-effect analysis. Alas, clever minds and not the minds of power-hungry bureaucrats and inherently corrupt big businesspeople in cahoots with those governments – in short: engineers and scientists uninterested in the politics of energy. THEN there will be a solution!