BP Rewrites its History
BP edited its own environmental record on Wikipedia – Salon.com
Wikipedia editors have accused BP of editing its own page entry to whitewash its environmental impact in the public record. As CNET reported Thursday, “angry Wikipedia editors estimate that BP has rewritten 44 percent of the page about itself, especially about its environmental performance.”
BP edited its own environmental record on Wikipedia – Salon.com
That’s right! British Petroleum has found a new way to make money. They have taken a perfectly legal tax deduction for their losses caused by the oil spill enabling them to evade $10,000,000,000 of taxes.
That’s ten billion dollars the federal government has to get somewhere else. Goodness Gracious, who might the burden of taxes fall on without BP paying its share? I wonder.
Loren Steffy writing for the Houston Chronicle is all over this. Steffy points out that considering these kinds of tax benefits, claiming that corporations pay too much taxes is disingenuous, since very often they pay none at all.
The feds could have figured this into their 20 billion dollar escrow fund but didn’t, so essentially BP is only on the hook for ten billion of it. The rest we pay for.
James Pilant
Professor MacDonald has an interesting post today (It’s dated June 9th.).
Here is an excerpt –
… there’s the fact that a boycott of BP gas stations won’t actually hurt the organization you’re trying to hurt. In practice, “boycotting BP” means boycotting BP-branded retail outlets. And as an editorial in the LA Times pointed out, “BP stations are independently owned, so a boycott hurts individual retailers more than London-based BP.” So, sure, boycott BP stations — that is, if your goal is to hurt a bunch of small businesses already operating on razor-thin profit margins. Put a few minimum-wage gas jockeys and cashiers out of work. The difference simply will not be felt at BP’s head office. (The same naturally goes for vandalism of BP stations, which is both unethical and criminal.)
I wanted to do something to hurt the company’s profits. But MacDonald is quite right. A boycott would be ineffective.
His reasoned argument is better than my emotional response but isn’t that the way it always is, reason defeats emotion if given time?
I can add to his argument, that Loren Steffy of the Houston Chronicle business page has been suggesting in his last three blog posts that British Petroleum is likely to wind up in bankruptcy or acquired by another company. What effect will a boycott have on that situation? None as far as I can tell. Not to mention that the enormous losses arising out of the current disaster are far more economically damaging then anything a boycott could approach. It seems likely that the company will perish on its own.
James Pilant
Chris MacDonald answers that with a barrage of ethical questions designed to inspire creative thinking on the part of the reader.
Here’s a little bit about Mr. MacDonald’s career and qualifications.
I wanted to put up a video of Mr. MacDonald talking about business ethics. However, Chris MacDonald is a common name. After looking at a famous cyclist, a famous Elvis impersonator, the country singer, the graphic designer, and the meteorologist, I decided to concede defeat. However, since I like including videos, I have one for Chris MacDonald the country singer. He is doing This land is your land, this land is my land. As far as I know he has no connection with Chris MacDonald the ethicist.
Jon Talton writes a new post entitled: BP: Not ‘Beyond Petroleum’ but just beyond peak; Market cap blues. It’s magnificent. You should give it your utmost attention.
That’s right folks. According to the Houston Chronicle, a blow out preventer on the rig would half cost an astronomical 1/2 million dollars. Oh the horror! I can see the giant multi national corporation British Petroleum teetering into bankruptcy and, God knows, what do you think?, $300 dollars a barrel for oil and gasoline so precious we have to trade pure gold for it?
A half mil doesn’t even come close to an executive bonus. A half million is chicken feed, chump change, pocket money, etc. and they wouldn’t spend it.
In 2003, the Department of Interior’s Mineral Managements Service reversed a Clinton era decision to require the preventers. All Hail! Hosanna to the free market. We all know that companies confronted by the real world will do what’s best for the public because it’s in their interest.Isn’t that the Friedman doctrine? A perfect world run by perfectly coordinated self interest. Don’t you love it? It works perfectly. In the financial world, in coal mines, with baby cribs and now with off shore drilling we find that impersonal market forces drive the highly intelligent, hard working corporate boardroom elites toward the best possible decisions.
Or it could be such total blithering nonsense that only a self interested business buffoon could take it seriously. Just maybe?
Now, a fairly large proportion of America’s sea coast is being or about to be struck by an oil slick larger than an average European nation. I’m thrilled.
I don’t know if a half million dollar preventer would have averted the crisis, but I do wish someone had tried it.
James Pilant
Pilant's Business Ethics Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.