Carbon Footprint
6 years later BP used it to 'blame us for their greed'. Perhaps this is true, but if so it's ironical because if it had been successful BP would have lost a ton of revenue.
The Wikipedia article you link to explains how exactly BP
"used it to 'blame us for their greed'":
In 2005, fossil fuel company
BP hired the large advertising campaign
Ogilvy to popularize the idea of
a carbon footprint for individuals. The campaign instructed people to calculate their personal footprints and provided ways for people to "go on a
low-carbon diet".
It's like the fraudulent use of GDP to prove how rich
Americans are! Yes, Musk and Bezos are extremely rich, but that doesn't make Americans living pay-check-to-paycheck any richer.
In the case of BP, what fossil-fuel companies and politicians do to the atmosphere doesn't make people who don't have much choice responsible for global warming.
BP came up with the fraudulent argument that individuals are the ones who make the decisions by demanding gas-guzzling cars and gas stoves when infrastructure was what makes those things the most convenient and often unavoidable solution for them thanks to an infrastructure that the fossil-fuel industry and car manufacturers bribe politicians to build.
BP did indeed blame individual consumers for the calamities caused by the greed of oligarchs.
There's no irony there.
In practice of course they didn't have to worry. Only a few greenies would bother to even calculate their 'carbon footprint', let alone do anything significant to reduce it.
Why would they worry? They were the ones who made the argument!
This was the point of
post 2,658:
Ignoring the systems of inequality that result in a world where many are forced to depend on cheap, unsustainably produced items is bad enough. Going a step further by telling these same people – who cannot afford to buy more expensive, sustainably made products – that they alone must reverse the cycle of consumerism is naive at best and classist at worst.
It's what Stout and Myriad – and sometimes you yourself – never grow tired of repeating:
The actual effect was that the vast majority either ignored it or realized there wasn't much they could do about it - which is exactly the message you are pushing. Whether by accident or design, BP's advertising campaign correctly informed the public of how much an individual in 2005 could affect GHG emissions by 'being the change'.
No, BP's advertising campaign
didn't correctly inform the public of anything. Much like Stout, BP told individual consumers that
they alone because of their interest in living comfortable lives (in the servitude of billionaires) – not BP and the other fossil-fuel companies –
they alone were the cause of global warming. Much the same way that Big Tobacco had been telling smokers that they were sophisticated and discerning connoisseurs of a luxurious stimulant with no adverse effects.
Freedumb!
If the purpose really was to 'blame us for their greed' it failed miserably. However I don't think that was the intention, I think it was just 'green washing'. But was BP
just green washing? In 1999
BP Solar was the largest manufacturer of solar panels in the world. I think they saw the future and were readying themselves to transition away from oil when the time came. Note that North Sea oil production peaked in 1999 and the field is now 90% depleted. BP put their
North Sea business up for sale in July 2026.
No, it didn't
fail miserably. It
succeeded triumphantly. It kept the oil wells running and profits growing while delaying the transition to renewables. Notice that they managed to pump their oil wells almost dry. Notice also that BP didn't just shut them down! Putting them up for sale is the capitalist way of making sure that the remaining 10% won't be left in the ground.
It's how capitalism works – also after a crash: the means of production that are no longer profitable get devalued to the point where they become so cheap that another investor can acquire them and make a profit using them.
Why is BP 'slimming down'? I think they see the writing on the wall. In 2005 consumers didn't have much opportunity to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Today they do, and with high fuel prices due to the wars in Ukraine and Iran they have more incentive to do so.
Of course BP 'sees the writing on the wall.' The fossil-fuel industry has known about this for at least the past 50-60 years.
You again pretend that it's a question of individual consumers and their opportunities. You refuse to see
why those consumers didn't have much opportunity to reduce fossil-fuel consumption in 2005!
Because infrastructure giving them the opportunity to reduce fossil-fuel consumption wasn't built or even planned!
Because infrastructure based on fossil-fuel consuming cars was built instead of electrified public transport and bike lanes.
I'll recommend a series of articles published simultaneously in Danish and English:
post 718 in the thread about the global obesity epidemic. One of
the articles mentions how
cheap bicycle infrastructure is in comparison to motorways:
Denmark is a cycling nation, but our research shows rates are declining – here’s why (TheConversation, Sep 8, 2026)
The annual investment in motorways in Denmark is 4-6 billion DKK (US$580–870m) a year whereas annual state investment in cycling infrastructure is 200-300 million DKK (US$29–44m) a year.
And that is in a country that is famous for (allegedly) promoting bicycling!
There's also this:
Elektrisk bilsalg: Elbiler har kurs mod 90 procent (FDM, Sep 3, 2026)
Andelen af elbiler i det danske bilsalg tog i august endnu et trin opad og ligger nu på 86 pct. FDM forventer, at elbiler vil fylde endnu mere senere i 2026.
Electric car sales: EVs on track to reach 90 percent
The share of electric cars in Danish vehicle sales rose again in August, reaching 86%. FDM expects electric cars to account for an even larger share later in 2026.
And EVs sold to individual consumers (unlike private companies) is 97%.
