BP is an extreme greenwasher (see “Should you believe anything BP says?“). Its lies to the public, government, and itself have had catastrophic consequences (see The three causes of BP’s Titanic oil disaster: Recklessness, Arrogance, and Hubris).
So naturally, when students in California return to school this fall, they will have a brand new environmental curriculum developed, in part, by BP. Think Progress has the amazing story:
The Sacramento Bee reported today that BP helped California’s public schools form an environmental curriculum to be used by over 6 million public school students (kindergarten through 12th grade) in 1,000 districts. The Bee reports that state officials included BP on a technical team that “was responsible for developing the program’s guiding principles.”
Even before the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe, which BP officials admit was the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, the company had a terrible environmental record: over the past five years, BP paid $373 million in fines to avoid prosecution after admitting to breaking U.S. environmental and safety laws.
The same company involved in forming California’s environmental curriculum also has a long record of dishonest greenwashing. As Lisa Graves, executive director for the Center for Media and Democracy, which monitors “greenwashing” techniques, told the Bee: “I’d hate to see how a section in future textbooks mentioning the BP oil spill will look. “¦ I think it’s very worrisome because their fundamental goal is to profit from energy and not to teach children.”
BP’s dishonesty was on full display during the Gulf disaster, as the company tried to spin the environmental catastrophe that unleashed 206 million gallons of oil into the ocean. Just today, BP released a report deflecting blame for the oil spill onto various other companies. The Wonk Room‘s Brad Johnson has been tracking some of BP’s most egregious statements:
- Five months and one day before its Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, BP’s top Gulf of Mexico official testified its practices were “both safe and protective of the environment.”
- In the immediate aftermath of the explosion, BP officials called the disaster “inconceivable,” “unprecedented,” and completely unforeseeable: “I don’t think anybody foresaw the circumstance that we’re faced with now,” said one spokesman. This was despite the fact that blowouts are unfortunately common in offshore oil drilling.
- Then-CEO Tony Hayward said on May 19 that “the environmental impact of this disaster is likely to be very, very modest.”
- On June 9, Hayward said that a new fund the company set up “will have a significant positive impact on the environment in this region.”
- BP’s new CEO, Robert Dudley, has repeatedly said dispersants the company used in the Gulf were “like dish soap.” The dispersant used, Corexit, is a combination of petroleum distillates, propylene glycol, and dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate which is banned in the United Kingdom.
Nevertheless, California officials defended BP’s involvement in interviews with the Bee, saying that the company’s involvement was “minor” and that it was “important to get all sides of the environmental debate involved in developing the classroom materials.” The problem is that the side BP generally represents is not based in fact.
– This is a TP cross-post.
Related Posts:
- “BP proves Beyond Petroleum was greenwashing, joins “biggest global warming crime ever seen”
- Waxman and Stupak demand BP detail scope of greenwashing campaign
- EXCLUSIVE: Sandra Bullock disowns BP-backed greenwashing campaign
- Exclusive: BP worked with FreedomWorks, Chamber to build phony ‘grassroots’ support for more drilling
- “BP proves Beyond Petroleum was greenwashing, joins “biggest global warming crime ever seen”
- Investors warn Shell and BP over tar sands greenwashing“
- BP stand for “back to petroleum” “” oil giant shuts clean energy HQ, slashes renewables budget up to $900 million this year, dives into tar sands
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Sounds like the California education officials are either green washing or else totally deluding themselves!!
Better Propaganda. If their oil operation were as clean and thorough as their propaganda campaign, we’d have nothing to worry about. (Except the pollution caused when their extracted product is burned in the atmosphere.) Talk about the misapplication of resources!
Energy Secretary chu said BP would save the planet.
Gee, do you think it might be a good idea to actually read the curriculum before suggesting that it is propaganda? Maybe CA shouldn’t have included BP or oil companies for an ethical reason, or maybe we should closely examine the content to ensure it’s accuracy and objectivity, but I fail to see how mere participation by a BP employee on an advisory panel ipso facto taints the entire curriculum. Such guilt by association fallacy is really pretty cheap.
Journalistic standards, remember?
The very existence of California’s environmental curriculum – I believe it’s the first such statewide – is actually a very interesting and unique innovation. That might be worth mentioning. And let me know if you actually find any…oh, I don’t know…evidence of greenwashing.
This is horrifying, and not at all an isolated incident. Weyerhauser sends lesson plans to school districts all over the country, under the banner of “The Learning Tree”, showing how clearcuts are good for you. Other oil and chemical companies also worm into curricula, providing greenwashing videos, etc.
Part of the problem is laziness on the part of school administrators and teachers. They like prepackaged lesson plans, especially since they’re so slick and professional.
As for Turner, #4, it’s absurd for the PR department of a company like BP to provide educational materials about environmental issues. “Balance”? Who do you think you’re kidding?
The National Science Teachers’ Association has issued orders to its members to not show Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. This is an obvious example of industry influence. You should look into this, Joe. Here’s the backstory:
http://www.truth-out.org/article/john-borowski-worlds-largest-science-teachers-organization-awash-denials-0
Mike, I think you’re misinterpreting John Borowski’s claim.
The gist of the matter as I understand it is that, in 2006, the NSTA refused to distribute to its members the 50,000 copies of AIT Laurie David offered to provide. They did this because, their board said, it would constitute endorsement.
According to their own Web pages, the NSTA was willing to announce the availability of the documentary to its membership so that anyone who wished could order a free copy. They say Ms. David backed out of the deal at this point.
Maybe I’m splitting hairs here, and you can argue that the NSTA’s position would have had the practical effect of preventing many members from getting the DVD of AIT.
On the broader question of whether the NSTA leans toward the fossil-fuel industry POV, Borowski makes a good case that they do. I was especially disappointed to find that, in their FAQ on the AIT controversy, they answer the question about their position on global warming by linking to a statement that takes no position on that subject; it only lays out their goals for environmental education.
I looked for the science curriculum document on California’s SBE Web site. It’s a little tricky to find. You have to use the site’s search function. The science document is a 61-page PDF adopted 1998. The next revision was due to be adopted late this year for use by 2012, but that effort has been suspended effective July 2009.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/sc/cf/scitimeline.asp