Ethics vs. Profit

Thanks to Beep and Dikkii for providing the inspiration. The issue of profit before ethics came up in comments to my previous and it got me thinking.

Bhopal. I probably don’t need to say any more than that, but I will. I certainly don’t need any better example however, they say it’s the worst industrial “accident” in history.

For those of you unfamiliar with the story, Bhopal (India) was host to a chemical plant owned and run by Union Carbide, a wholly owned subsidiary of DOW Chemical Company. An accident occurred there, that could and should have been prevented, that has had a cost in lives, of up to 20,000.

At about 3:30am on the morning of December 3 1984, a holding tank with 43 tonnes of MIC (methyl isocyanate) over heated and exploded, flooding the streets of Bhopal with a deadly heavier than air MIC gas mixture. Approximately 500,000 people were exposed to it in varying degrees. It is thought that up to 3000 people died initially, with the current figure at around 20,000 and still climbing, 23 years later. The ongoing effects such as birth defects, cancer, breathing difficulties, blindness and many more besides, has effected up to 120,000.

A sad indictment, not only on Union Carbide, but on the rest of the human race for not calling them to account. India simply didn’t have the balls, it wanted the resources Union Carbide provided. To everybody else it was someone else’s problem. The “International Medical Commission on Bhopal” was convened in 1993 to respond to it but by then, thousands of lives had already been lost because of it. A sad indictment indeed.

But why was the accident allowed to happen in the first place? Well, it was a simple matter of economics of course. Maintenance and safety to be precise. In order to save money, they’d cut back on maintenance crews, training and safety equipment. Cleaning was neglected because it required bits of the plant to be shut down and expensive parts that should have been replaced weren’t. Consequently, a valve got stuck, water flowed the wrong way into the system and caused serious havoc when it got into and reacted with the MIC in the holding tank. The rest is history, but I’ll just mention that Union Carbide (DOW) fought tooth and nail to avoid paying any compensation, despite the criminality of their neglect. And once they were forced to, they tied it up in funds for as long as they possibly could, adding needlessly to the suffering of thousands.

But if they had been performing the maintenance and spending the money on equipment, training and labour as the plant required, would they still have made a profit? As it turns out, yes. They just wouldn’t have made as much, that’s all, and the shareholders might have been a bit upset at the next AGM, the poor dears.

This issue has been raised over the fossil fuel industries however. Despite the fact that really, we could switch to a cleaner, cheaper and much more abundant fuel that goes by the name of hydrogen tomorrow if we wanted to, we continue to burn various fossil fuels at unprecedented rates. Trouble is that economies revolve around these things, despite the fact that hydrocarbons, whether they’re being burned or mined, cause pollution on a massively destructive scale. If there’s still profit to be made though, it’s not likely that an alternative will be available until the current resources have been raped for every cent of profit they can be raped for, and the planet along with them.

I don’t think there’s much we can do about it either. The only way to stop this mentality of “profit before all else” is by a lack of profit. That means boycotting products, etc. But can we really do that these days? Consider Union Carbide for a moment; I used to work in an injection moulding shop that made plastic car parts. We sold them to Ford and GMH who put them in their cars or sold them as “Genuine Holden Parts” but where did the plastic we used come from? Union Carbide, that’s where. They’re the world leaders in long chain polymer plastics after all. In fact, about 80% of the world’s raw material’s used in the manufacture of plastic goods comes from one of DOW’s subsidiary’s or another, whether it be here in Aus, America or China, so how do you actually manage to boycott them?

Then there’s the DuPont’s, Exxon’s, BHP’s, Mobil’s, etc. Both Dow and DuPont get a lot of their raw materials from Exxon and other oil companies and you’ll need petrol. Where does the steel come from that’s being used as re-enforcing in the footpath your local council built last week? So much for being pissed off about Ok Tedi. And so it goes.

The fact is that the multinationals are so ingrained within our daily lives, in so many of the products and services we use, that we can’t help but contribute to their profit in some way, however small and no matter how we try to avoid it. That means the only tool we have left is the share price and how can the likes of you an I effect that?

Well, I mentioned “Theyesmen” in my comment to Beep previously, but here’s another link to some of the fun they had with DOW. They even managed to announce that DOW was going to compensate Bhopal on national TV and caused DOW’s share price to drop about 20cents for an hour or so until DOW’s damage control machine was able to expose them for the charlatans they are.

It’s all good though. Try the acceptable risks calculator - find out at what point profitability will be threatened by danger to the public - and meet “Gilda, the golden Skeleton in the closet”, the Acceptable Risk mascot (that’s her in the middle with a very real DOW exec posing for a photo…oh dear…:)).

2:50 AM - 17/4/2007 - post comment

Did ya see...

Michael Moore's effort to highlight the behaviour of the culprits in his TV series?

I think he was chasing the Union Carbide folk and he door knocked the retiring President to ask about the poor folk of Bhopal. As you can imagine it went down like the proverbial lead balloon. The offended Americans made comments like "Let bygones be bygones". And "How rude to persue a man in his retirement".

Obviously the comfort of a retired American businessman was far more important than the well being of the victims.

petermcc - 4:56 AM - 17/4/2007

Thanks for the Five Minute Education!

1884? I was 8. I never heard of this until now.
You said "But if they had been performing the maintenance and spending the money on equipment, training and labour as the plant required, would they still have made a profit? As it turns out, yes. They just wouldn’t have made as much, that’s all, and the shareholders might have been a bit upset at the next AGM, the poor dears."
I wonder just how much of that is going on?
On a VERY small scale, our local newspaper cut back on editors. They pay 8$ an hour to any Joe off the street that wants to proofread ads before they get published. Needless to say--I posted an ad with my child care blog address and it was wrong when it went in the morning paper--I paid $96. for the ad and I got zero traffic to my blog the first day it ran so they had to give me a free day.
Now I won't advertise in the paper so it cost them quite a bit more than that.
On a large scale, where safety is concerned--the stakes must be higher! Consumers *must* be informed.
I have no idea how consumers would go about researching something like that.

Sadie Lou - 11:03 PM - 17/4/2007

Moore

Must admit Pete, I'm not a real big Moore fan. Those protesting "crowds" you see in his films? All payed for by Mr. Moore. He's as sensationalist and deceiptful as those he tries to expose sometimes. The Nike "expose" was a prime example. He HAD to pay people to say they were looking for work...

That said however, he makes some valid points sometimes.

When it comes to profit and retired Amercan millionaires who may have been involved in killing people in the interest of profit, "let bygones be bygones" seems to be the order of the day. It's just another reason why the idea of "Americaisation" becomes more and more unpalatable every day.

If we become "just like America", like lil' Johnny likes to say, I'll be moving and taking my family, and taxes, with me...

plonka - 7:39 AM - 18/4/2007

ethics and the economic model

I have some thoughts about this and sometime AFTER my second cup of coffee, they may be more clear to myself and hopefully to others as well.

beepbeepitsme - 9:41 AM - 18/4/2007

Whoa, back up a bit, Plonka.

While I think my record shows that I'm no apologist for big business, I do have to take issue with one statement you made, and that is, "we could switch to a cleaner, cheaper and much more abundant fuel that goes by the name of hydrogen tomorrow if we wanted to." I thought from your previous blog entry on hydrogen that you had shown that this just isn't the case. If it was, venture capitalists would be into it like a rat up a drainpipe.

And as an aside, I saw David Mills on TV who has a venture capitalist on side in the U.S. That is one venture capitalist who is going to lose his money if he thinks that Mills can produce solar power for 24/7/365 within 12 months, if ever. His pilot solar plant in Newcastle hasn't produced 1kw of electricity yet. That's why he's now in the U.S.

snowy - 10:06 AM - 18/4/2007

No worries

Anytime Sadie...:)

"I wonder just how much of that is going on?"

I don't think there's ever been a large company or corporation that hasn't indulged in it at some stage. Shareholders are what's important to these people, not health, safety or a fair go for their workers.

What you've done is easy to do to the small business man that runs the local paper. Doing the same thing where the likes of Union Carbide or Nestle or Sanitarium or Nabisko are concerned is another matter entirely. You'd be surprised just how many pies they keep their fingers in to help make sure they don't suffer when the masses get upset with them.

"the stakes must be higher! Consumers *must* be informed. "

Well that's how you and I see it sure, but if they can't keep their bad behaviour secret, then the right word by the right person in the ear of the right politician will ensure that the consumers are never informed. There's simply no real accountability any more...

plonka - 10:12 AM - 18/4/2007

Hydrogen

I also think I mentioned that "cracking" methane is almost the exact same process as "cracking" oil (bake it inder pressure in a steam environment). At $13 MMtb, it's a whole bunch cheaper than oil. The infrstructure exists, but the money's in oil at the minute, that's all. While the money's there for the oil, don't expect to see hydrogen. The profit won't be anywhere near as much.

What's exiting about technology like the unit CSIRO's come up with is that it takes the production out of the hands of the big boys, if it can be made economically viable. Have a look around Snowy, you can by that unit for about $11,500US. Not cheap enough for you and I yet, but...

We'll see what Millsy manages to come up with.

"24/7/365"

Um, I don't recall Mr. Mills ever saying he can produce solar energy at night Snowy.

plonka - 10:27 AM - 18/4/2007

No, but Millsy did.

On Four Corners a couple of nights ago.

"JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA: Solar is a nice, easy, soft answer. There's this vague idea in the community that solar doesn't cost anything and it can solve the problem. It can't. It can't replace base-load power generation by power stations.

JONATHAN HOLMES: Mills and Khosla aim to prove that wrong. The technology to store heat, and release it later, so that solar stations can produce base-load power, is just around the corner they claim.

DR DAVID MILLS, CHAIRMAN, AUSRA INC.: Turns out this is actually quite easy to do. So we're very active in this. We'll be offering commercial storage systems up to, say, 24 hours within a year.

JONATHAN HOLMES: Up to 24 hours?

DR DAVID MILLS, CHAIRMAN, AUSRA INC.: Hm-hm. "

Anonymous - 10:55 AM - 18/4/2007

Anonymous?

Dunno how that happened, Plonka. It's Snowy of course.

Anonymous - 10:57 AM - 18/4/2007

No worries

Snowy. I have to admit that it makes a nice change to have a server we can log into, but all this timing out and what-have-you is beginning to give me the irrits. They promised me a year ago that we'd have the use of tags (URL's, bold, italics, etc) but that hasn't happened either....

Anyway, back to Millsy. I hadn't seen that one and had never heard him say he could store heat that well. His little mirror idea, using the heat to make steam works though, I've seen the experiment. Perhaps if he could just concentrate on one thing, he might have a chance at making something work...

plonka - 1:11 PM - 18/4/2007

Coffee

You had that second cup yet Beep? :)

plonka - 1:25 PM - 18/4/2007

Skeptics

Skepticism doesn't have to be confined to things like religion. I happen to be a renewable energy skeptic. Too often this is confused with being a renewable energy denier. Not the same thing at all. Renewable energy does have a place in reducing greenhouse gases, but it is not yet capable of replacing fossil fueled energy.

I have no doubt that there are numerous instances of unethical behaviour by the fossil fuel energy providers. My point is that there is also unethical behaviour by some renewable energy advocates who accept government grants on the promise of delivering a renewable energy pie in the sky solution. Too often these people get a free ride in the media because the public wants to believe them. Not all are charlatans, of course, but some are.

I would also question the ethics of politicians who lead the public to believe that renewable energy is a replacement for fossil fueled energy supply at this time. It just isn't.

snowy - 2:06 PM - 18/4/2007

Re: Sceptics

Don't I know it Snowy...:)

Fact is that BP has bowed to pressure and has announced they will begin production of hydrogen in usable quantities. Why? They already have the infrastructure and methane is cheap enough that steam reformation is now viable as a cheaper alternative. When they're asked why they didn't start sooner, they say there was no demand until now. Which of course, is not entirely true. BP is where industry has been getting its hydrogen from for a very long time. Basically, all they're really doing is making it available outside of industry.

So there is a viable alternative Snowy, and I'm pleased to be able to say that it's the one I hung my hopes on from the start. Just because some don't WANT to use it yet, doesn't mean we can't.

Edited by plonka on 18/4/2007 at 1:05 AM

plonka - 3:14 PM - 18/4/2007

From one sceptic to another...

Any link to that, Plonka?

And do you have any thoughts on this?
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/No-silver-bullet-in-alternative-fuels/2007/04/18/1176696897935.html

Edited by snowy on 18/4/2007 at 1:23 AM

snowy - 3:30 PM - 18/4/2007

Here ya go..

Here's a quickie. I'll need to dig around to find the article I was reading the other day, but this one's almost as good. It's another project using natural gas to make hydrogen, then electricity. I hadn't seen this one either...

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=97&contentId=7006978

There's a hell of a lot going on in the field Snowy. It might cost them a bit of their precious profit, but they can most certainly tool up to do it, if they want. That's what I was getting at.

Here's another project they're involved in that uses hydrogen to make ultra low sulphur petrol. We can't let all that oil just sit and do nothing, can we...:)

http://www.praxair.com/praxair.nsf/7a1106cc7ce1c54e85256a9c005accd7/ccce5966ca9e2de7852571ff00559df8?OpenDocument

As to the article, "... big start up costs... ", "bet my house...", "enthusiast technologies", which I see include just about everything *except* hydrogen. Unfortunately I think he's probably right. It will cost to tool up for hydrogen, but that would mean parting with some of that profit. Not likely to happen for many years yet. I'd even bet MY house, but that does not mean it can't be done if we really want it to be done. We don't, pure and simple. When 2 million people march, it will...

I'm not just a sceptic, but a damn fine example of a cynic too..:)

Edited by plonka on 18/4/2007 at 6:24 AM

plonka - 8:22 PM - 18/4/2007

Well, maybe....

That's two companies blowing their own trumpets. I'd like to see an independent assessment of their chances of success. I have to wonder at the cost implications of taking natural gas which is already a fuel, and then using energy to extract another fuel from it.

I think the fuel consultant in the Age article has it right.

I think the question to be asked is not whether it can be done, but whether we are prepared to pay the price for it to be done. Profits are sacrosant, so it will be the end user who pays. Just so long as those two million marchers realise that.


Edited by snowy on 18/4/2007 at 6:37 AM

snowy - 8:42 PM - 18/4/2007

Exactly

"I think the question to be asked is not whether it can be done, but whether we are prepared to pay the price for it to be done. Profits are sacrosanct"

That's exactly what I'm saying Snowy, I just think that profit should be quite a bit less sacrosanct and therefore disagree that the end user need pay. The profits can cover it quite easily which is also the reason why it won't...yet... Not until there's an impetus which will probably need to come in the form of some sort of action or other.

Forgot to mention. You asked about using a fuel to make a fuel. So the second article involved mining a fuel, to make a fuel, to use to make a fuel, the final products being cleaner petrol and diesel. You can't tell me that's efficient...:)

It burns so much hotter than petrol it's ridiculous and 20 million yards a day is a hell of a lot of hydrogen. All they need to do is leave out the last couple of steps...

Edited by plonka on 18/4/2007 at 7:35 AM

plonka - 9:18 PM - 18/4/2007

Ethical $ calculations

G'day Ted.

Your story reminded me of the Ford Pinto - a shameful event in automotive history.

In this story, the executives at Ford were made aware of a fault in the fuel filler whereby if the car was collided with under certain conditions, the car would possibly catch fire, or explode outright.

Ford handed this to an actuary who calculated the odds of bad press and civil lawsuits, and after weighing up the costs, decided that it was in their interests to NOT recall the car and to keep going making the horrible things.

They actually worked out that it woulod be cheaper to pay settlements for deaths than the costs to recall the vehicles sold.

Disgraceful.

dikkii - 12:29 AM - 19/4/2007

" I just think that profit should be quite a bit less sacrosanct and therefore disagree that the end user need pay."

But in this world of good old (unethical) free enterprise, plonka, there is no way that private enterprise is going to accept that. They rule the world, no matter which government is in power.

No, it will be the end user who will pay, so start putting the pennies in the piggy bank, Plonka. You're going to need them. As for me, I'll be stoking the fires somewhere else by that time. That's where sceptics finish up, you know. I'll let you know if they're using hydrogen fuel there. ;o)

snowy - 8:29 AM - 19/4/2007

The Pony

Dikkii: Yep, the Pinto (Pony) was another example of reprehensible behaviour in the name of Profit (capitalised on purpose). Then there's the Mitsubishi truck that shamed them so much in Japan that they didn't sell a single vehicle there for a couple of years.

So for Sadie, there's just a couple more examples of profit before "danger to the public". As Dikkii says, Disgraceful with a capitol "D".

Snowy: I happen to agree with you there as well. Just because I think something should be a certain way (and in my perfect world, corporations would be responsible, NOT reprehensible) doesn't mean that it ever will be. I used to be a born again christian remember...:)

"I'll let you know if they're using hydrogen fuel there. ;o)"

LOL. I bet they do. It burns the hottest after all...:)

Edited by plonka on 18/4/2007 at 9:27 PM

plonka - 11:28 AM - 19/4/2007

This will never do.

Plonka and Snowy agreeing on something. I think I'll move to another blog...

snowy - 3:32 PM - 19/4/2007

See ya...

See ya Snowy we'll miss your wit around here...:)

I know how you feel though and I'm in the process of moving myself.

So stay tuned everybody, I'll let you know where to go once I've got my template and everything all sorted out...:)

plonka - 4:49 PM - 19/4/2007

ethics and the economic model

It is a matter of political ideology. The more conservative in our midst, byt this I mean politicians like Bush and Howard, base their political ideology on an economic model.
<br>
<br>This political ideology basically believes that social problems, cultural problems - any problem you can imagine - can be solved through the ideology of free market capitalism. In other words, it is based on a belief that the business model can solve the problems of poverty, injustice, health, education etc etc. This is why there is a strong push to privatise everything from water services to energy services. It also means that businesses are essentially responsible only to themselves and to their richest shareholders. It also means that there is less ability for public redress towards a government body.
<br>
<br>The government no longer bears the responsibility for actions taken by corporate business, an individual has to resort to appealing to a corporation. The major problem for the individual in this scenario is that whereas they can vote out a politician or a political party if they believe that the policies are wrong; the individual cannot vote out those corporations which may be responsible for their everyday needs - such as food, water, health, housing and energy.
<br>
<br>The business ideology also includes implicity the idea that "if it is good for business it is good for people." What is good for business? Profit. Does it really matter to business if profit comes before people? Obviously not. The glaring examples of Bhopal and James Hardy, are indicative of this.

beepbeepitsme - 12:25 PM - 20/4/2007

Economins and ethics

Thanks Beep, well worth the wait...:)

You're right though. So long as we have this attitude that private is best and "what's good for business is good for the people", as you put it, we'll continue to see horrible acts perpetrated in the name of profit.

Trouble is, as you also point out, that we've allowed our governments to do it to us. They've absolved themselves of responsibility though, so to them it's ok...

P.S. Blognow. See what happened to Beeps post with all the visible tags? You promised me you'd fix that over a year ago. Thanks...

plonka - 4:24 PM - 20/4/2007

Survival

The rich and powerful always have been about convincing the masses that what is best for the rich and powerful, is also best for the masses. And as the rich and powerful have control of the mass media, then it isn't too difficult to convince the masses of the "truth" of this.

So it is that the masses are brainwashed into doing the bidding of the R & P by fighting their wars for them, and accepting that their labour isn't really of much value at all.

The problem to be faced by the R&P is that THEIR survival is also threatened by global warming. This is a whole new world view that the R&P and their political stooges are only now coming to terms with. Self preservation is the only motivator these people understand. Ethics never did come into it. It will only be when they see that profits may have to be sacrificed if they also are to survive that there will be any change in attitude from them.

Forget ethical arguments, Plonka. Start talking survival. That is a word everyone understands. Even the R&P.

snowy - 6:55 PM - 20/4/2007