«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»
BP and Chevron Go Virtual and Green
What do Chevron and BP have in common, besides being leading members of Big Oil? Computer games, apparently. Yesterday, the New York Times reported on BP's latest rebranding move—a "collaboration" with Electronic Arts on the video game company's latest version of SimCity, due out November 15th. Unlike previous versions of the popular video game that lets players build their own cities from scratch, this one will include a more "nuanced power generation and pollution simulation" that will "show the trade-offs among three aspects of electrical power: cost, power output and pollution." Translation: BP's colorful, green, and yellow sunburst logo will happily adorn "clean" energy options like solar farms, wind farms, natural gas plants, and even gas stations, while "dirty" energy options like coal will remain BP logo-free!
In September, Chevron and The Economist teamed up for a similar venture. Their online, interactive game, Energyville, allows players to decide how to outfit a city with solar, wind, coal, biomass, hydro, oil, and nuclear power. The catch? If you try to use only renewable energy sources to supply your city, you'll be politely informed you need petroleum. So much for thinking outside the box, huh?
And, of course, it comes as no surprise that these companies' online ventures promote more clean energy than their real counterparts. BP's 2006 annual report indicates the company spent approximately $29 billion on oil exploration and production (an increase of $4 billion from 2005), compared to a meager $8 billion they plan to spend on their alternative energy projects over the next ten years. Game over.
—Michelle Chandra
Comments
"A meager $8 billion"?
That is quite substantial! This is very respectable considering BP is an oil company transitioning to renewable energy. Please give them a little more credit.
"That is quite substantial! This is very respectable considering BP is an oil company transitioning to renewable energy. Please give them a little more credit."
Um, according to the post, that's $8 billion over 10 years -- $0.8 billion per year. Compared to the $29 billion spent on oil exploration and production in 2006 alone, I'd call that meager. (To be specific, that's less than 3% of their oil exploration and production budget. Hardly something to trumpet as a "new clean green direction." Something over 10% might start to impress me. Less than 3%? Naah.)
Posted by: Jim on 10/13/07 at 11:27 PM Respond
ARCHIVE
RECENT COMMENTS
Why Miles Per Gallon Suck (3)
Nancy wrote:
I seem to remember that the "Car Talk" brothers had a simi...
[more]
Farms Kill Frogs (2)
Straight Darwin wrote:
I think that this research shows that it is better to be e...
[more]
Making Fake Stuff Look More Real (2)
Fair Trade wrote:
The people dumb enough to still think it's acceptable to b...
[more]
Snake Sidewinds Energy from the Sea (1)
Fair Trade wrote:
I think it's a big plus that this design is filled with wa...
[more]
Clean Energy Leaps Forward (1)
Patrick wrote:
The exponential growth of green industry investment makes ...
[more]
Forecast for Solar: Cloudy (4)
breezi wrote:
First of all, other countries (e.g.,Germany) are years ahe...
[more]
Everglades Wins Big (10)
breezi wrote:
Lantern Bearer is so right. And, although I know it's ton...
[more]
Scientist on Warming: "We're Toast" (2)
Jill wrote:
Hanson is a false prophet, just like Al Gore who is such a...
[more]
Prescription Drugs Are in our Drinking Water: What to do Now? (5)
Ally wrote:
So drinking water can cause you to finally end up with an ...
[more]
Bush Administration to California: Eff You (2)
treehugger wrote:
Jeez, the things people talk about while out duck hunting....
[more]
RSS
Feed
Movable Type 3.33
Posted by: Erik Phillips on 10/12/07 at 3:39 PM Respond