Commentary
The Gulf Oil Spill: Winners And Losers
- by Greg Menken , May 19, 2010
Winners
- Not-for-profits. Since the spill, many environmental groups have tapped into our fear for the environment to increase exposure, membership, and donations. The National Resource Defense Council's Facebook community has grown by 19% while the Sierra Club has reported record hits to its site.
Whether it's a politician scaring you about the other candidate or a charity hitting you in the face with an image of a starving child, fear motivates. Non-profits rightly incorporate disasters into their communications and marketing strategies to capitalize quickly before the fear dissipates. For example, Oceana's site opens with a petition you can sign to end offshore drilling, followed by the headline "Deepwater Drilling Disaster." With the spill, the organization is likely to generate new revenue and advance its political agenda.
- Cleantech. If ever there were ever a case to be made for increased public and private investment in cleantech, the time is now. Any legitimate source of energy that doesn't come with the risk of polluting the seaboard of half a continent should be extremely compelling, even to skeptics at this point.
From wind to solar to ethanol, cleantech companies across the spectrum should be weighing in on the spill to showcase the promise of a safer energy future. Industry associations should gather their resources to coordinate a sustained and broad marketing campaign taking oil drilling head on to garner public support and generate demand for clean sources of energy.
Losers
- The Obama Administration. Conservative observers have called the spill "Obama's Katrina." I wouldn't go that far but I do believe the Administration made numerous communications errors from the onset. The spill was not seen as a priority for the federal government, which seemed quick to accept BP's initial spill (under)estimates.
"Big Oil" already has a poor public image, so the Administration should have been aggressive in demonstrating that it would not trust BP to assess and contain the damage. I'm a big fan of Ronald Reagan's quip, "Trust, but verify." The Administration missed the opportunity to take a leadership role and get tough with Big Oil, and it has been playing catch up ever since.
- Climate Change Legislation. Despite a revised Senate bill introduced last week by Sens. John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, many believe the bill is dead. The spill fractured a coalition that had been built around the allowance of expanded offshore drilling in exchange for other pro-environmental measures. That coalition has now fallen apart as anti- and pro-drilling interests have grown farther apart.
Environmental groups and many Democrats are calling for a total freeze on deepwater drilling, while industry and Republicans feel that goes too far and shuts off a major source of American energy and jobs. For the bill to succeed, Senate leaders must communicate to their constituents that America will be even worse off if we allow the disaster to further delay a new comprehensive national energy policy.
I've got to say that I really do not condone the twist this article takes. To say that charitable and environmental organizations are winning as a result of the Gulf oil spill because they are receiving more donations can only be the opinion of a capitalist at heart. There are no winners here. Not the government, not the oil tycoons, not the people, not the charities and certainly not the wildlife being choked on our black gold.
And to say that groups like the Sierre Club and the World Wildlife Federation attempt to motivate the public through fear is a vast misunderstanding of the structure and mission of these organizations. When people see an image of an oil covered bird or a starving child, it is not fear that moves us into action, but a far greater emotion. Love is the driving force that encourages people to act in times of great need. Compassion is the principle that social and environmental organizations use to reach the people and to inspire them to make a difference.
Often, when I read the Marketing Green posts it seems to me as if the writer is simply indulging the popularity of green in order to present MediaPost as a balanced entity. It seems to me that it might be important to choose writers who truly believe in the green market place and the power of humanity to make a difference and who allow humanity to enter into their musings.
Now the hard question : are The Oil Sands in turn perceived to be a winner, given the reliability and environmental containment and developing cleantech technology associated with the sector ?
Western producers (and the Chinese, who are on the road to purchasing majority share of the resource)) want to know .
Am I missing something, or shouldn't the losers include the people and wildlife who live (and will surely die) in the affected coastal areas?
What about the economic impact of the affected spill area? Surely the losers include the livelihoods of those working in the hospitality and fishing industries. Not to mention those of us who will have to pony up more at the store for any of the gulf's delicacies. Oil balls anyone?
An interesting article appeared yesterday in the NYDailyNews that said surfactants were more toxic than the oil (and so should not be thrown into the brew) while cleaning oil-soaked birds is pointless because 99% of them will die anyway (off camera).
Obviously the cheapskates should have been inspected and forced to use the proper safeguard device (that would have cost $500K). Neither political party has its priorities straight.
There is not one winner although the top hats will come away with billions in off shore accounts so if that's winning.....
Greg, the top hats are the capitalist CEO's and their court.