Wharfie, here's what I told my boss Hans den Ouden in Belgium [where the world HQ of BP Oil International was for the consumer and industrial sectors]. This was from 1987 to 1989 and our last chat in April 1989 when I left was about it, with him saying BP was heading the way I'd been recommending. I laughed at the idea and made some comment I guess about a glacial pace.
There were a lot more words involved in the idea than this, but in a nutshell, my argument was that BP was in the capital investment business around the oil industry, not simply digging, refining and selling oil. So it didn't really matter what the capital investment was for as long as that investment got the usual good return on investment.
There were various so-called externalities causing community problems at the exhaust pipe, such as SOX, NOX, COX, POX [those being acronyms for carbon oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides and STDs which is an acronym for sexually transmitted diseases and no, I didn't really include that one, it's just there for a little joke].
BP had spent decades, along with others in industry, arguing against pollution controls because they cost a lot of money. My argument was that as long as the argument against the pollution was rational, [and maybe even if it wasn't], if the government forced companies to stop a particular kind of pollution, that was an investment opportunity and another bunch of regulations for the smaller companies and new entrants to try to deal with. BP Oil, being huge and profitable, was able to call on vast amounts of money as required and could hire specialists to deal with the new regulations, fill in the forms etc. The little companies and new entrant competitors were not in a good position to cope, so there would be an advantage to BP and a community benefit [for me too because I breathe air, drink water and like birds and trees].
After a couple of years of arguing the case, Hans thought I was making progress. Sure enough, I was shocked in the late 1990s to see Lord Browne, BP's boss, coming over with exactly my arguments, but without pointing out the problems caused for little companies and new entrants.
Who gets the last laugh?
1..... I do. I really get a kick out of seeing BP Ultimate [a product I was pushing] being used in NZ, and that there is NOT just one grade of petrol [which was the idea before I argued against it = Europe NZ and USA are all multigrade while Europe was going to have Eurograde 95 and ditch the other grades as was NZ]. Plus I got to see my Greenie ideas adopted by BP.
2..... BP shareholders certainly do. Have you seen their share price! Woohoo!!
3..... Goldman Sachs certainly will, managing all that money until the whole stupid thing falls over.
4..... Politicians do. They have grandstanded and enjoyed their usual perks, posing and payments, showing the oil companies who is boss.
5..... The motorist does, because they get better quality products, more bang for their buck and better air to breathe.
6..... The public does because they also get cleaner air to breathe.
Who is the joke on?
1..... The public because they are the ones who pay the bill. They are the ones who buy tickets on buses, in trains, hire taxis, buy the goods transported by the hordes of trucks, vans and cars and when they fill 'er up, they pay too.
2..... The new entrants and competitors who find the rules too hard and the capital costs too high. They can't compete with BP.
3..... The joke is on you.
You probably think the joke is on the oil industry and other polluters. No, it's not. If the cap and trade scam forces the price of CO2 through the roof, the joke will be on the motorists who can't afford to fill their vehicles so they go out of business when BP puts the product prices up. If CO2 cap and trade bankrupts the nation, the joke will also be on the public who can bicycle to work.
With less CO2, there will be reduced crop growth and food prices will go up.
With less CO2 the ice age will return and if people think they have problems with high oil prices, wait until they see what ice does to them.
If you buy the right to produce CO2 and bury it, the joke will be on you because you will be the person who caused the problems and you had to pay for the privilege of causing problems and high costs on motorists and the public.
Since you, your friends and family are the public paying for the expensive fuel and expensive food, bicycling to work to save money, earning not much money because the jobs have moved to other countries and being buried in ice, that means the joke is on you Wharfie.
Cap and trade perhaps makes sense for SOX and lead in petrol where there is a serious actual problem. Where there is no apparent problem as with CO2, it's a daft idea, probably driven by profits to be had from the process with the costs dumped, as usual, on the motorists and J6P.
Mqurice |
