So I have this friend who was offered a job by Schlumberger, a company that provides IT technology for oilfields. He would be analyzing seismic data, looking for a good place to drill oil and so on.
He is also a pretty hardcore liberal and environmentalist. This is his first job, so he is deciding between the advancement of his career and the preservation of his ethics.
I said that if he doesn’t do the job, someone else will. Unfortunately, it turns out that was what Adolf Eichmann said.
So what are the teeming millions’ thoughts on the quandary between idealism and reality.
Who’s to say he can’t do his job and keep his moral values? Like, he could find good places to drill that have a minimal impact on the environment, for example.
I don’t understand the dilemma. Oil is one of the most environmentally friendly fuels we can use. Coal or animal power is far worse, and while natural gas is better it isn’t available in large enough quantities.
What exactly does he see as the conflict between being an environmentalist and working for an oil company? Is the company known for pumping oil onto Baby Seal beach or something?
I think your friend might have developed an oil = bad mindset without ever thinking about why.
Well, as a person who has worked for several environmental companies specifically contracted to oil companies, I’m telling you that not only is it NOT a dilemma, it’s a conscious choice on the parts of oil companies to do their best to protect the environment.
They contract for us to tell them how best to serve the environment. I’ve done things such as write spill contingency plans, and run a database with 5000 responders in the case of oil spill emergencies.
I’ve tramped through woods, at their request, looking for “just in case” items.
I’ve been paid quarterly bonuses equal to a month’s pay for helping them be the most environmentally safe company in their area.
We work for the oil companies (well I don’t now, now I work for the DoD, and other gov’t agencies doing the same thing), in order TO help them protect the environment, to assist them in compliance to the EPA and DOT regulations and to help them in the case of any problems.
Not only is it not a conflict, it’s necessary on their behalf in order for them to make sure their processes have the least environmental impact.
Forget silliness like Steven Segal’s “On Deadly Ground” (a GREAT comedy up on the north slope BTW). That’s not what oil companies are all about. As a general rule, at least here in Alaska, they bend over backward to protect the environment and to remain compliant with regs.
Here in Australia a couple of years ago there was an ad on TV which featured an environmentalists talking about all she had achieved at work = saved this colony of birds, ensured the protection of some old growth forest, uncovered and catalogued tribal grounds. At the end of the ad it was revealed she worked for, I believe a mining company.
I think sometimes people get confused between Environmental Scientist/specialist/tech/management etc (that’s what I do) and someone who is an environmentalIST.
The difference is that the trained professional’s job is to assist companies in environmental compliance and protection. The environmentalIST is person whose politics are such that they want to protect the environment and so on.
They may or may not have formal training in the sampling, field work, Regulatory compliance, characterization, packaging, handling, blah blah blah, that is required to actually go out into the trenches and protect the environment.
I get this all the time. I’m an environmental project manager. When people find out what I do, a lot of times I can tell they’re thinking “bunny/tree hugger”.
No, I’m not the kind that hops onto a green peace boat and organizes protests against oil platforms or whatever.
I’m (along with many, many counterparts in the environmental industry), one of the ones who actually does something PHYSICAL about the problem. I’m the girl out there in the white puffy “Pillbury Doughboy” suit, sampling the drum someone left in the woods, sampling the soil under the drum to find out the extent of contamination if any, and then properly disposing the drum and heading up any further cleanup of the site if necessary.
Likely the lady on your advertisement was in a similar position. One doesn’t have to be “dark green” to be making a difference in environmental protection.
And what better way to effect changes in the way business do business regarding the safety of the environment, than to be right there in their offices telling them “No, you can’t use that product,” or “here is how much you have to clean up and dispose on site ABC” and so on?
Would you rather the mining company just went about their business as usual and the hell with the birds and so on? The fact that they’re willing to hire a professional to make sure that they make the least impact possible on the land they’re mining seems to me, to be a good, not bad thing.
Maybe I’m reading your post wrong but, the fact that she worked for a mining company, rather than floated about on a Green Peace boat, or lobbied congress (or whatever the hell it is environmentalists do) is less effective toward protecting the environment how?
Sorry to have so mislead you. What you are saying was entirely the point of the ad. Of course it was paid for by the mining company to make them look good (and it succeeded in that) but the Environmental Scientist was making the point that she had achieved all this in a short space of time by having the ear of management. Largely one got the impression that the companies plans had to overcome her concerns.
I remember similiar adds run about a year back by Shells exploration arm, and had to do with the steps the enviromentalist had taken to reduce Shells impact in the area, and the benefit that had been gained by the local people as well as the environment.
