Cool Globes and a Hot Topic

07-2007_Cool_Globes.jpgIf you’ve played along Chicago’s lakefront this summer, then you may have noticed the 124 sculpted, painted globes designed by artists with the intent to inspire and empower the public to take action against global warming. Cool Globes: Hot Ideas for a Cooler Planet dots the lakefront north of the Field Museum and at Navy Pier.

“Cool Globes presents a vast array of solutions with a clear message: We can solve the problem,” the exhibit’s Guidebook reads. “We can stop global warming if we inspire government, corporate, and community leaders to lead the way. But the best way to do this is to engage the public at large to motivate our leaders and to embrace the solutions ourselves.”

Maybe the globes have done that, because the hottest story of summer that has people shrieking foul appears to be the announced expansion of BP’s Northwest Indiana’s Whiting Refinery.

Maybe BP missed the point of the globe they sponsored -- Globe 111, near Navy Pier, on the path just west of N. Streeter Drive, by artist Sandra Bacon, titled, “Walk a Mile in My Shoes.” The guide says that her creation, “conveys collectively our carbon footprints have damaged natural habitat... This meticulous globe emphasizes how every living creature depends on the natural balance of the Earth’s habits.”

For the second day in a row, the Tribune’s lead story was BP’s story. Yesterday, the Tribune pointed out an exemption in BP’s new state water permit that “gives the company until 2012 to meet strict federal limits on mercury discharges.” The article indicates BP puts 2 pounds of mercury into the lake every year. But “under standards adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1995, BP’s annual discharge of the metal should be reduced to 8/100th of a pound.”

Of course, BP’s propaganda Web site related to the Whiting refinery, linked through banner ads found right here on Chicagoist, as well as the New York Times, mentions little of mercury. Their dowloadable PDF fact sheet, “BP - A Responsible Environmental Partner,” states, “We are proud of the accomplishments we’ve made in reducing the impact of our activities on the environment...” Although it appears their interpretation of environmental impact is limited to greenhouse gases, as there is no mention of waste water or landfills.

Addressing the issue of mercury specifically, BP’s says, “There are technical, engineering and environmental challenges. We have more than 750 engineers working on the project, including a group focusing on air and water issues. Our commitment is to use best available control technology to make the environmental impacts as small as possible while providing the additional gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel that the Midwest U.S. needs.”

The tone of BP’s propaganda is balance. Sure there is a slight impact on the environment -- but all within regulations (although that appears to be open to interpretation) -- but think of the jobs created. The BP’s site indicates they will invest $700 million to upgrade refineries in California, Ohio, Texas, and Washington, as well as Indiana. But BP can’t find a way to meet Federal regulations, needing an exemption and a five-year extension? Sure it will bring jobs, but how many more jobs would be produced by funding a solution?

As if BP’s sponsorship of Cool Globes isn’t ironically juicy enough, BP was founded as Stanard Oil Company by John D. Rockefeller, who could be considered the father of philanthropy. Rockefeller believed firmly it was his lot in life to make as much money as possible, and use it wisely to improve humankind. Maybe the corporate execs at BP should sit along the lake, gaze at their Cool Globe, and ponder if they’re acting in the best interest of humankind, or the best interest of their shareholders.

Email This Entry


Comments (15) [rss]

Tim,

We've missed you! So glad you're back!! As always, great article!

Unfortnutely, the law says that corporations must make every decision in the the shareholders' best interest, which means that environmental and other concerns are just thrust aside...

Do you realize that a corporation, by law, enjoys every right and privilege of being an american citizen that you do? Why is that? A corporation has no soul--you do. Why are they held up as equals in the court system, as it relates to an individual? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that corporations can afford a whole team of lawyers that easily can surpass your puny one. Why is this country so skewed towards the interests of big business and corporations? Do you really think that that's what our founding forefathers had in mind? The choice is yours...you can keep perpetuating the status quo, or...you can choose to make a difference. This is supposed to be a government for, by, and of the people--it's about time we started acting like it...

We are morons; we can send people to the moon but can't find an alternative to the combustible engine!

The best interests of the shareholders is a fiduciary responsibility, but not the only responsibility a corporation has. A corporation is subject to the laws of the land, e.g., not in violation of labor, environmental, and trade laws. There is no higher responsibility to shareholders--that is what became the "law" in the 1980s.

As to BP, this is old news that I find a little strange to see here, seeing as Chicagoist was accepting advertising in BP's propaganda campaign last week.

It's a good thing to question BP's motives.

I believe you will find that J.D. Rockefeller Sr. was a hated robber barron and ruthlessly built is company by putting others out of business. It was his son, J.D. Jr. who was charged with the task of rehabilitating the family name via philanthropy.

"BP was founded as Standard Oil Company." Wow, I did not realize that. And I thought BP and Amoco were separate companies that merged in 1998. How silly of me.

Perspective;
How do you figure that?? Sr. was the one that initiated the philanthropists of the family. He walked around giving people money. He single handedly created charities to save the life of countless poor and destitute. Just because he happened to be the richest man ever you will lable him a robber baron?? Nice. Also, it was when he retired his son was put in charge of all the Rockefeller foundations etc...
By your standards Bill Gates is the biggest and most ruthless evil doer of our generation, regardless of how much he gives to charities.

Looks like the BP advertising is back on Chicagoist!

I love the balls on BP to create advertising in response to their getting the environmnetal regulations changed in order to add more pollutants into the lake with this catchphrase, "BP is committed to meeting or exceeding regulations that protect the environment." Unless, of course, we have deemed those regulations to be too stringent.

So, Ferdy: You would deny the right of advertising to corporations?

No, I don't like BP, and I don't buy their bullshit. Still, what's with this anti-free speech tone you are trying to set?

Actually, I'm surprised Chicagoist would be so bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you on this, though it's probably Gothamist that took the ad and doesn't give a rat's ass about what they do to our water supply. I work for some people who wouldn't be so generous as to allow people to try to buy the truth with advertising.

Just because a publication accepts ads does not mean the publication agrees with the company or person placing the ads. Do you really believe that, Ferdy ("...it's probably Gothamist that took the ad and doesn't give a rat's ass about what they do to our water supply.")?

And the people you work for sounds like they don't really believe in free speech, either, though, of course, I could be wrong or not realize the full context.

I give people more credit in being able to see through BS ads. And were I to have a blog or publication, I would be more than happy to accept payment for ads and still write whatever the hell I want. Believe me, it can happen.

Advertising is not protected free speech, and no organization is obligated to take any and all advertising.

I give no one credit for being able to see through B.S. They bought the "New Dawn for America" ads of Ronald Reagan, didn't they?

No one said an organization is obligated to take any and all advertising, Ferdy. I'm just saying there is nothing wrong with taking ads from pretty much anyone. (Yes, pretty much anyone.)

While I am no fan of Reagan, I found your example to be sophomoric and elitist at best. Enough people fell for the bullshit J. Kennedy or Bill Clinton peddled, though that is likely another dicussion.

Advertising does have free speech protections, though, of course, there are limits. If you don't believe me, check out the case law. Drink a lot of coffee, though, before you do.

I guess my biggest problem with your attitude is you seem to prefer some sort of ideological purity. I'd rather throw everything into the mix and let the people decide.

Yes, in fact, I think there are problems with taking any old advertising. It's not harmless. The Camel cartoon is a perfect example of how advertising aimed at children was successful.

Sophomoric and elitist? How so? I don't think I did anything of the sort, so you'll have to explain yourself. We're talking about some sophisticated advertising out of the Reagan camp that neither Clinton nor Kennedy ever matched, especially Kennedy. Perhaps you just were too young to remember it.

I'd like some specifics about the free speech/advertising case law. Probably equal time, not really free speech, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Regardless, I think it behooves every publication to have some standards to show its readers that it's not just grubbing for money. Stand for something, damn it!

Post a comment (Comment Policy)

Tips

About Chicagoist

Chicagoist is a website about Chicago. More

Editor: Marcus Gilmer
Publisher: Gothamist

Contribute

Latest Tip:

where is the chicagoist facebook fan page?
[more]

Latest Photo:

Recent Comments

Subscribe

Use an RSS reader to stay up to date with the latest news and posts from Chicagoist.

All Our RSS