D’oh! The ‘Energy Transition’: Learning and Retreat at BP

From MasterResource

By Allen Brooks

“Physical and economic realities must not only be considered but controlling. Wishing and hoping for change is not a successful business strategy, and the past few years have awakened BP management to that reality.”

“Leaning in” is a phrase BP plc CEO Bernard Looney likes to use to describe how his company is embracing the energy transition. BP is transitioning from an “international oil company” to an “international energy company,” according to Looney. This means more renewable energy and less oil and gas. Looney invoked “leaning in” in February 2020 when he introduced new strategic aims for BP to reach “net zero carbon emissions on an absolute basis by 2050 or sooner.” 

The Plan

In Looney’s presentation, “Reimagining energy, reinventing BP,” he said BP needed to reinvent itself as a clean-energy producer because climate change demanded it. The company needed to be part of the solution and no longer part of the problem. Looney said not only did the public demand such a shift but so too did BP investors and employees. Some observers wondered if this would be a redo of the late 1990s failed rebranding of BP as Beyond Petroleum. 

Looney cited his first workday as CEO when he saw the company’s office surrounded by climate activist protestors forcing its closure.  This, to Looney, demonstrated the urgency for the strategic shift.  In his presentation, Looney only vaguely set forth the key aspects of the new plan – less oil and gas and more investment in “growth transition engines” – while promising specifics in the fall.  At the same time, he warned investors and BP pensioners that dividend growth might be at risk given the lower returns of renewable energy investments, but their steadier returns would counter the cyclicality of oil and gas returns. 

As Looney was speaking in mid-February 2020, the pandemic was just emerging and beginning its surge across the globe.  The economic lockdown medicine for fighting Covid nearly destroyed the petroleum industry, making BP’s new business plan a possible winner.  Since then, global economies have reopened and recovered.  With the recovery has come more oil and gas consumption.  Last year, additional oil and gas stimulus came from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which upset world energy markets and created a push for Europe to end reliance on cheap Russian fossil fuels.  Oil, gas, coal, and electricity prices soared across the continent and in the U.K.  Suddenly energy security became the most important consideration, wiping away concerns over affordability and decarbonization. 

Walking Back the Plan

Recently, BP announced its 2022 earnings – record results like every Big Oil competitor.  Overshadowing BP’s earnings and dividend hike announcements was Looney’s modifications to his earlier grand “reinventing” strategy.  In 2020, management set plans to dispose of petroleum assets, reduce capital investment in the petroleum business, step up investment in its GTEs, and cut its future oil production.  A cornerstone of the new plans was reducing oil output by 40 percent from 2019’s level by 2030.  This plan was in sharp contrast with the company’s earlier target to boost oil production by 20 percent between 2018 and 2030. 

When BP reported its earnings on February 7, management announced major adjustments to its “reinventing BP” plan.  Now, BP plans to shrink production by roughly 12 percent by 2025 from 2019’s adjusted output and lower it by 25 percent by 2030 rather than the planned 40 percent cut.  More oil and gas mean more carbon emissions, further tamping down BP’s 2020 expectations. 

BP also plans to increase its capital investment program, adding $8 billion for each of its oil and gas and growth transition engines (GTEs) businesses.  The increased investment will be funded by significantly higher projected cash flows partly from higher oil prices.  BP now sees a 2030 real oil price of $70 a barrel, up from its prior $60 estimate.  The higher oil price forecast means an additional $4-$6 billion of earnings before interest, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) in 2030. 

By boosting capital investment, BP projects its GTEs can generate an additional $1 billion of EBITDA by 2025 and $2 billion by 2030.  The $8 billion in incremental capital committed to oil and gas should add an additional $2 billion to 2025’s EBITDA and $3-$4 billion in 2030.  Note petroleum’s higher return on investment than from its GTEs.  That is at the heart of BP’s energy transition problem. 

Low Returns from Renewables

At the recent introduction of the “BP Energy Outlook,” an audience member posed a question: With oil and gas returns in the 15-20 percent range and renewables at 6-8 percent, can the latter be raised, or do investors need to lower their expectations?  The panel of BP’s chief economist, the head of the International Renewable Energy Agency, and the leader of Columbia University’s energy program did not have an answer.  The question was answered when BP released its earnings – slow the rush into renewable energy while sharing the spoils of higher oil prices through higher dividends and stock buybacks. 

A week before BP’s release, U.K.-based Shell plc reported record earnings while also adjusting its green energy transition plan.  So now, both BP and Shell have decided to slow down and reorient their push into renewable energy.  At the same time, they have increased their commitments to their traditional oil and gas businesses that post consistently higher returns. 

The low returns from renewable energy are well-known.  So well-known that BP’s Looney warned of the potential risk to the company’s dividend growth and its share price from the accelerated investment in renewable energy.  He pledged to protect the dividend, which was later cut due to the financial repercussions of the Covid economic disruption. 

BP’s share price has lagged behind its American counterparts since 2005 when a refinery accident cost the lives of 15 workers and sent the company into a defensive posture.  That accident was followed five years later by the Gulf of Mexico’s Macondo well blowout, unleashing the largest oil spill in U.S. history and jeopardizing the future of BP. 

More telling, however, has been BP’s share performance since the early 2020 industry collapse.  Since then, ExxonMobil’s share price has increased fourfold while BP’s shares have merely doubled.  Shell and French oil company TotalEnergies SE. have posted similar underperformance.  Such results tell us that investors have been less impressed with the strategic response to climate change by the European-based oil giants, which is hurting investor returns.  Until European oil companies develop answers for renewable energy’s low returns, investors will vote with their feet. 


On Bloomberg TV’s London business show the day of BP’s earnings release, the anchors asked: Do you buy the BP pivot?  Buying the pivot could be asking whether investors thought BP was serious about shifting away from its GTEs and recommitting to oil and gas in catering to investor demands.  If so, investors concerned with Environmental, Social, and Governance issues would avoid the stock.  Or should investors buy BP’s stock because future returns would improve given the strategic pivot? 

BP’s share price rose 8 percent on the day of the earnings release and 3.4 percent the next day.  Investors were “buying the pivot” because they saw better capital stewardship and greater earnings and dividends in the future. 

The lesson of the latest Big Oil earnings and business strategy adjustments is that leaning into the “energy transition” means going much slower–or even transitioning back to consumer friendly, taxpayer neutral energies. Energy affordability and reliability from energy density checks magical thinking about renewables. 

Physical and economic realities must not only be considered but controlling. Wishing and hoping for change is not a successful business strategy, and the past few years have awakened BP management to that reality.

4.8 25 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 23, 2023 2:46 am

Oil production has been increasing for the last twenty years.

The world needs ~100 million barrels of the stuff every day.

There’s no energy transition, it’s all expensive window dressing and virtue signalling to the climate zealots.

Reply to  Alpha
February 23, 2023 4:48 am

The good part is that hydrocarbon energy continues to meet our needs, and it is clean and convenient.

My household survived the lowest temperature for the date last night (5F colder than the previous record low of -5F set in 1899). I hardly noticed the cold in my slumber, using a heating blank and it never got below 60F inside anyway due to my thermostat and gas furnace working as designed.

In 1899, coal was the major home heating fuel. It was burned in stoves and fireplaces and there were no electrical appliances. To make matters worse, indoor plumbing largely did not exist.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Scissor
February 23, 2023 9:57 am

A bit of Colorado history :


coal miner strike…

Reply to  Scissor
February 23, 2023 10:53 am

I few years ago I took my dad to the village in Northern Ontario where he was born and raised. His father had operated a coal powered steam crane that unloaded coal freighters into rail cars. The house was still there. Only change was it had electricity now. When he was a kid his father had rigged a homemade windmill on the roof to power a single car battery to use for the one light bulb in the kitchen. Wood stove for heat. One hand pump for water from the river in the kitchen. Not only did they have an outhouse, the house itself sat on Canadian shield rock, so no hole, they had to dump a tray out. The new owner, using it as a cottage wanted to know if there was ever anything better :-). If the climate cult and WEF gets their way, we’ll all revert to that, minus the coal unloading.

Reply to  Scissor
February 23, 2023 1:10 pm

-21 F at my house( -29 C), you are a recipient of true Global warming….caused by decrease in latitude, much more effective than an increase in CO2…
Instead of a degree per 2xCO2, it’s a degree per 150 km closer to the equator….

Last edited 27 days ago by DMacKenzie
Dave Fair
Reply to  Scissor
February 23, 2023 10:39 pm

And there were no Styrofoam-insulated outhouse seats. They really work in Alaskan winters when forced to use outhouses.

Reply to  Scissor
February 24, 2023 8:41 am

To make matters worse, indoor plumbing largely did not exist.”

A friend of mine living just west of Boston lived in a house that his family had for generations.
He was the leader of the local Explorer Post, (older Boy Scouts), when they allowed women to join.

A change that increased the pressure on my friend to “upgrade” his house, so the ladies didn’t have to trundle fifty feet down a dark path to a cold dark outhouse.

Of course, the ladies were thinking indoor toilet plumbing.
The house was already plumbed for fresh water and wired for electricity.

A typical winter morning ritual was for everyone to gather in the kitchen where a large wood/coal stove sat.
The first person into the kitchen would clean out yesterday’s ashes, stack the firewood and build the tinder fire starter in the stove.
Only my friend or his father were allowed to start the fire as responsible adults.

His father would usually just sit at the dining table and ask where his son was.

After starting the fire, my friend would mostly close the stove’s damper, put a large cast iron pan on the burner, throw in a large chunk of fat back. Then everyone would sit around and shiver while waiting for the room and pan to warm up. We usually were more comfortable within 10-15 minutes.

That wood stove heated the whole house and retained enough residual heat overnight to keep the indoor plumbing unfrozen.

My friend finally capitulated and upgraded his house…
He had a new outhouse dug and placed at the end of his porch. Walled in that porch so the ladies could walk under cover to an almost indoor well lit outhouse.
Us guys were expected to use the old outhouse whenever any of the ladies were present.

The ladies didn’t think his house upgrade went far enough. They still complained about freezing and disgust in the outhouse. I guess they were happy that it was lighted, but they never said…

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Alpha
February 23, 2023 5:11 am

There’s a lot of money to be made from The energy Transition whether it exists or not

February 23, 2023 2:46 am

Energy affordability and reliability from energy density checks magical thinking about renewables. 

In the real world that may well be true, but we aren’t dealing with rational thinking where the elites are concerned. In the UK we’re slowly being corralled towards some form of rationing. EVs on the road are still a novelty, and there’s net zero chance of our being able to produce enough electricity for them in large numbers. This isn’t a secret, it’s the elephant in the room. And everybody looks the other way.

They’ve driven up prices by leaving it in the ground – others can do the dirty work, while we bask in the glow of our virtue – and relying increasingly on imports. Is a 5,000% increase per MWh (£9,724.54) a record? The Belgians were far from upset about it.

So, many have gone back to wood and open fires. This, predictably according to the Guardian is a fashion or fad

“Rather than providing heating to homes, they have become middle-class status symbols, which harm the quality of our air, damage the environment and threaten public health.” 

Well, they believe it. But then as I said, we aren’t dealing with rational thinking where the elites are concerned. 

Dave Andrews
Reply to  strativarius
February 23, 2023 8:56 am

A bit of rationality in the UK i newspaper 21st Feb in relation to wood burners. Quotes Prof Ian Hall of Nottingham University

While we know small particles are harmful, the problem is we don’t know which ones, which makes it difficult to pin blame solely on wood burners”

“teasing out what effect the wood burner has is quite tricky. Long term health consequences from efficient modern wood burners may have some health consequences, but in my view they’re likely to be minor in comparison to other exposures”

The reporter bought an air quality meter and found on average it recorded levels of 46.4 micrograms whilst using the wood burner, but usage of deodorant and making a stir fry meal
recorded 998.9 and 842.3 micrograms respectively.

(PS. I think the reporter may have slightly mangled the second .quote but the meaning is still clear)

John Hultquist
Reply to  Dave Andrews
February 23, 2023 9:37 am

“efficient modern wood burners”

I have a wood burning stove with a catalytic combustor (same as a modern auto). Except for a few minutes upon start-up there is very little particles either in the house nor going out the flue. In Central Washington State (temp this a.m. was -14°C) and a 100% electric house a second (or emergency) source of heat is necessary.
I realize this situation is not everywhere possible.

Reply to  Dave Andrews
February 23, 2023 9:56 am

Leftists are convinced that they are entitled to without risk. They also believe that only by turning over everything to complete government control, can this risk free world be achieved.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MarkW
February 23, 2023 7:36 pm

Sounds risky.

Reply to  Dave Andrews
February 23, 2023 11:12 am

What always amazes me is that these “professors” who, I would believe, can be counted on as taking the theory of human evolution as gospel, think that homo sapiens, having used fire for cooking and heating for hundreds of thousands of years, did not evolve to metabolize small (or any size) particulates from smoke.

And yes, my 4th grade teacher DID chastise me repeatedly about “run on” sentences. I just liked this one. It is a sentence AND it is a paragraph.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Drake
February 23, 2023 7:37 pm

Larry Hamlin has you beat, hands down.

February 23, 2023 2:50 am

To me, an oil and gas company embracing Net Zero is just insane. But then anything they do which doesn’t embrace Net Zero will come under insane attack. Maybe the company should say “We’ll produce oil and gas while people want it. When the world gets to Net Zero, or actually long before that, we will go broke. Any investor that doesn’t like that can switch their money into ESG (or stack cash under the mattress). And talking of ESG, am I right in thinking that ESG funds zoomed while initial money poured in, and now they are all tanking? Like, none of them ever made any money?

Lee Riffee
Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 23, 2023 7:23 am

An oil company embracing something other than oil would be like Kentucky Fried Chicken calling themselves “Beyond Chicken”…. So what else would there be, hamburgers? Or worse, veggie fried “chicken”? And outside of petroleum, coal and gas, there really isn’t much to be used for fuel and energy. You can get by perfectly fine in life without eating chicken, but you can’t do much better than a third world lifestyle without fossil fuels.

And the notion that BP picked up the “Beyond Petroleum” moniker because customers demanded it is bunk. No, the guy on the street fueling up his car on the way to work didn’t demand any such thing. Only the environutter activists demanded such. Anyone that eats at KFC isn’t going to demand they make veggie chicken….that kind of demand will only come from animal rights activists who likely don’t eat there anyway!

More Soylent Green!
Reply to  Lee Riffee
February 23, 2023 10:04 am

Did you notive Kentucky Fried Chicken is no more? It’s KFC.

What should BP shareholder care whether they are in the oil business or something else? Should BP turn down opportunities outside the oil business?

Reply to  More Soylent Green!
February 23, 2023 11:15 am

I must agree M S G. Whatever they can do to INCREASE PROFIT is what they should do.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Lee Riffee
February 23, 2023 10:47 pm

This guy actually said he changed strategic direction to do ruinables because a bunch of activists blockaded access to his offices. Read his statement in the posting.

February 23, 2023 3:50 am

Is his name really ‘Looney’? That seems very unfortunate. “Hello, I’m Smith.” “Hello, I’m Looney.”

Reply to  CampsieFellow
February 23, 2023 4:31 am

“Hello, I’m Looney.”

What better qualification could you ask for?

Reply to  CampsieFellow
February 23, 2023 4:54 am

The comedy writes itself.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  CampsieFellow
February 23, 2023 4:59 pm

I admire his ability to get hired as CEO…or anything else.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  CampsieFellow
February 23, 2023 7:41 pm

“Hello. I noticed the slight look of anxiety cross your face just now. Comes with the territory from having a surname like Git.”

H/T Monty Python. (I probably messed up the exact quote)

February 23, 2023 5:44 am

Historically, and even now, BP is an oil company. According to Looney, if things go according to plan it will become a solar/wind energy company in the future. Is that a good business plan? Wouldn’t it make more sense to form a new alternative energy company or buy an existing one than to transition from a fossil fuel business to one that does what, manufacture and install solar panels and wind turbines? Or is there some secret or developing form of energy that can be connected to the electrical grid and managed by BP? Or can BP produce and market products like turbine lubricants or hair dressing?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  nailheadtom
February 23, 2023 7:42 pm

They should invest in Nuclear.

Tom Abbott
February 23, 2023 6:36 am

From the article: “The low returns from renewable energy are well-known.”

And this is despite the taxpayer subsidies paid to these people. Without taxpayer subsidies nobody would be building windmills and solar. There would be no returns.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 23, 2023 11:26 am

Yep. Therefore in the US the elimination of the income tax and institution of The Fair Tax would kill two birds with one stone. Eliminate the massive waste of overhead to process tax returns, defend those in court and to manipulate income/savings for tax avoidance AND eliminate all the current behavior modification due to the influence of the tax code.

EX. Get ride of all manipulation of the “energy” sector and let all sources compete on the basic principles of economics. Wind and solar would be out of business.
Get rid of “higher education” tax subsidies and watch college tuition go DOWN for a change.
The Democrat party would have one less way to abuse the system to attack Republicans. (See recent news articles about Democrat operatives falsely obtaining Republican candidate’s military records.)

Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 24, 2023 5:33 am

Warren Buffett is on record as saying that he invested in Wind and Solar for the state subsidies alone.

Frank from NoVA
February 23, 2023 6:49 am

‘Looney cited his first workday as CEO when he saw the company’s office surrounded by climate activist protestors forcing its closure. This, to Looney, demonstrated the urgency for the strategic shift.’

This tells you all you need to know about the man. What he should have done is tell the authorities that if they can’t grant his employees safe and unimpeded access to their place of work, he will move the company to where other authorities can. Note, this is how Steve Jobs dealt with a local CA government that tried to shake down Apple for ‘free’ WiFi.

Stephen Philbrick
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
February 23, 2023 9:11 am

I agree. Surrendering to a woke mob encourages more mob action. This doesn’t mean you should simply ignore what activists have to say, but insist that they rationally and calmly explain the views and insist that they back them up with facts and logic. Letting uninformed protesters change your strategic plans is a recipe for disaster.

Reply to  Stephen Philbrick
February 23, 2023 10:21 am

And yet that is the M.O. for many, especially politicos.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Yirgach
February 23, 2023 11:27 am

‘Politicos’, like everyone else, give priority to their own self interest, e.g., getting elected, which is why they listen to uninformed protestors. If and when this becomes detrimental to their self interest, they’ll stop doing so. The simple solution is for BP et al, including the voters, to stand up to the mob.

Reply to  Stephen Philbrick
February 23, 2023 10:53 am

insist that they rationally and calmly explain the views and insist that they back them up with facts and logic.

Still waiting to see that happen 🙂

February 23, 2023 6:53 am

You know it’s bad when they only get low returns with renewables when using solar panel equipment from forced labor camps in western China using coal-fired power plants and steel made from coal power in other parts of China, including rebar. Maybe it was the cost of cement that got to them.

February 23, 2023 7:08 am

I think I get it. BP knowingly went in the wrong direction with shareholders in tow with plans the write it off later and resume core business later when the evidence backed them up. Some companies pay fines, court settlements, or write downs from other bad investments–this one was a planned fail for show. Maybe “BP knew”.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
February 23, 2023 7:50 am

I’m not seeing how an expertise in drilling wells translates into an ability to build windmills and solar panels.

Reply to  MarkW
February 23, 2023 9:25 am

story tip

BP found a way to tout green charging (snark) while buying into fueling stations. Either way it’s lower risk than drilling and probably lower returns unless they mark up everything on hapless American consumers like Shell and Total.

BP to buy TravelCenters for $1.3 bln in U.S. fuel retail drive | Reuters

Reply to  ResourceGuy
February 23, 2023 11:31 am

Vertical integration of product production, distribution and retail sales disguised as getting into the EV charging business.

Good PR move.

Reply to  Drake
February 23, 2023 11:41 am

I wonder what high priced green consultant came up with that one or was it in-house with their green spin VP (?).

February 23, 2023 7:43 am

“Looney cited his first workday as CEO when he saw the company’s office surrounded by climate activist protestors forcing its closure. This, to Looney, demonstrated the urgency for the strategic shift.”

This, to a normal person, would demonstrate the urgency to call the police to have the trespassers removed so he could open his office. This, to a person with solid principles, would demonstrate the urgency of showing the people trying to ruin his business that he can’t be emotionally blackmailed by their foot-stamping and breath-holding tantrums. Seriously, is that all it takes to frighten a multi-billion-dollar international business into doing your bidding? If I’d known it was that easy I’d have found some unwashed crisis actors to protest until BP guaranteed me a million-dollar a month stipend.

Dave Fair
Reply to  QODTMWTD
February 23, 2023 10:51 pm

That’s BLMs business plan.

February 23, 2023 8:13 am

“…Now, BP plans to shrink production by roughly 12 percent by 2025 from 2019’s adjusted output and lower it by 25 percent by 2030 rather than the planned 40 percent cut…”

So BP is still going to liquidate the company, just more slowly. Good job. Where do I sign up to invest? /s

Reply to  Fraizer
February 23, 2023 8:38 am

Fraiz….”adjusted output” covers a lot of ground, I read that all as really saying “ we see a supply and production curve for the next 2 years, we’re going to cut our exploration budget, accept higher prices when offered, make lots of bucks, which we will used to buy out juniors who go under if prices are low, whose production will become part of our adjusted relative output, and our goal is max profit while responsibly producing our adjusted share of world oil production.”
So same old big oil company strategy, and some greenie ESG lipstick on it.
Notice the actual aspiration goal of 40% cut back to 25%.

Last edited 27 days ago by DMacKenzie
Coeur de Lion
February 23, 2023 8:19 am

Hasn’t somebody told BP that carbon dioxide’s increase in the atmosphere is unstoppable, harmless and to be welcomed?

February 23, 2023 8:22 am

The irony is that BP closed and jettisoned BP Solar (a merger of Solarex in MD with its UK PV manufacturing firm) about 10-15 years ago before BP’s last “transition” to “green”.

John Hultquist
February 23, 2023 9:26 am

 When British Petroleum acquired other companies – merging with Amoco in 1998, it re-named to
BP Amoco plc. Then in 2001, in response to negative press on British Petroleum’s poor safety standards, the company adopted a green sunburst logo and re-branded itself as BP (“Beyond Petroleum”). {I wonder who came up with the idea?}
Bernard Looney has been with the company for many years but has been the leader and face only since February 2020.

February 23, 2023 9:44 am

Maybe BP can drill footings for offshore wind? and make ERCOT power more expensive

story tip
Biden proposes first offshore wind lease sale in Gulf of Mexico (cnbc.com)

February 23, 2023 9:50 am

They’ll announce their transition to “clean energy” like everyone else that’s done it and drag their feet like everyone else. The goal here is virtue signaling. Nothing more. Their hope is to get the environmentalists off their back so they can continue as usual without distraction and present a “green” picture for advertisement. Fools never learn when they’ve been played.

February 23, 2023 11:04 am

BP has no competitive advantage in renewables like they do in oil/gas. Anybody, and I mean anybody, with land or a roof can set up some solar panels. Anybody or any company with land and some upfront capital can build a wind farm too. It doesn’t take the massive amount of infrastructure and expertise to explore, extract and process oil. So it stands to reason, based on ECON 101 principles, that such endeavors will be far less profitable.

Sell BP.

February 23, 2023 2:34 pm

I know I am being cynical but I really don’t care what CEOs of large corporations have to say. They go where they think the next dollar is, not unlike the oldest profession in the world.

Hatter Eggburn
February 23, 2023 2:43 pm

As Britain and its elites blather about energy transition, their supermarkets have run out of fruit and vegetables. If that was in Moscow they would be high fiving with a hysterical media pogrom. But it’s not. It’s in the U.K. A friend there sent me this today:

Dave Fair
February 23, 2023 10:36 pm

Despite massive subsidies and must-buy mandates ruinable investments lag FFs in profitability. Whoda thunk?

Bill Parsons
February 24, 2023 4:00 pm

A few months back, WUWT featured an editorial writer demanding that greens actually present a sustainable, reasonably priced model of a renewable project to demonstrate that such a thing is feasible. I imagined that such a project, done on a grand scale, say by wiring up a city of 10,000, would capture the world’s attention and be a significan PR stunt, er, coup. It would of course have to be carefully audited for cost, “sustainability”, independence from fossil fuels and reliability over, say five years.

Perhaps BP could lean into: “the first fully renewable proof of concept house / colony / city built without subsidies…” before they venture down that path as a serious division of their mission.

I’m leaning toward a whole city. Maybe BP could outfit one of those empty Chinese “ghost cities” with solar and wind power. Or the ghost town Jerome, Nevada, which was home to 10,000 back in its copper mining heydays but is now sitting more or less empty in the U.S. desert. Some of those shacks are already leaning. Or a neighborhood in anytown. Or they could do worse than emulating Amery Lovins’ home in Snowmass, and maybe by now some of his technologies have become available and affordable to builders in the industry who don’t have the $120 million dollars / year backing of a Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), and its “Carbon War Room”. https://rmi.org/about/office-locations/amory-private-residence/exterior/

Cost is a factor, BP. Are you listening? Prove it – before you lose it for all your investors.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights