Who is the one to blame?!

When the public is faced by crises, like environmental disasters, someone will be held responsible. There will always be the desire to find those to blame. Usually there will be one or a select group of companies that everybody will point to, and who will have to take responsibility. This week we have seen that the exact opposite happens when a possible threat of a crises is taken away. Shell has decided to leave the Alaskan Arctic, where they have been looking for oil and gas on the floor of the Chuckchi sea.

            The result of this decision is that there are now several groups that are celebrating not only their decision, but also that they are responsible for Shell leaving the Alaskan Arctic. According to Shell, the decision was based on the fact that the project was too expensive and simply too complicated.

            Shell has always been used to their projects being very costly and facing many obstacles, like corrupt countries, extreme climates, and very difficult working environments. Yet the extreme cold and disappointing results have lead to this project being written off as a failure.

Greenpeace would like to think otherwise. Greenpeace has been leading protests against the dealings of shell in the Artic for a while now. They are now celebrating Shell leaving, and they take the full responsibility. Greenpeace UK executive director John Sauven has said about their victory the following:

“Big oil has sustained an unmitigated defeat. They had a budget of billions, we had a movement of millions. For three years we faced them down, and the people won”.

But Greenpeace is not the only one celebrating. Also the pensionfund ABP is celebrating and claiming responsibility, though not as openly as Greenpeace is. ABP is a large shareholder of Shell, and has openly criticized and rejected the project of Shell. This is of a more economic reason. The project was not certain of financial gain, but came with a big risk of environmental disasters. In the difficult to access area, the cleaning up of a possible environmental disaster would come with too high costs. Shell leaving the Alaskan Arctic is according to ABP a result of their efforts.

Though both Greenpeace as ABP will most likely have had at least some influence on this decision, Shell takes full responsibility. But why would they not. Shell has been solely held responsible for various situations that made them look bad, even though other parties has responsibility too. Why would Shell not take sole responsibility when the situation makes them look good?!

One thing though…rumour has it that the only reason the sweet adorable polarbears are saved is the significant drop in the oil prices, which made the whole project far from profitable. But who will know?

Nine Hemmen