A Surprising Casualty Of the BP Spill? Enviro Groups

The BP oil spill has had many casualties. Who would have thought one of them would be environmental nonprofits?

Publications including The Washington Post and The Economist have recently written scathing exposes about major eco-organizations—including The Nature Conservancy and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) —who have had a cozy past relationships with BP. In addition to publicly partnering with the beleaguered oil giant, these groups have also at times accepted money from them. The Nature Conservancy, for instance, has collected a cool $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP over the years.

Some enviro group supporters have been outraged by these "deals with the devil," and blogs have taken the mainstream media to task for not sufficiently covering the controversy. But in reality, the issue is more complicated than it seems.

On the one hand, these unusual partnerships have provided an incredibly easy way for "Beyond Petroleum" to legitimize its greenwashed image. While flagrantly disregarding environmental safety, BP was able to tout itself as an eco-friendly oil giant, largely because it had the support of these respected groups. It also stands to reason that by getting in bed with BP, The Nature Conservancy, EDF and others may have pulled some punches.

At the same time, I have a hard time accepting there was total villainy at play. There is, in fact, one very solid reason to foster relationships with major corporations: it can have a huge environmental impact. Progressive environmentalists can buy all the reusable bags and organic produce they want; the fact of the matter is, it won't have nearly the same impact as an executive of a major company who makes a single green decision.

In the case of these partnerships, environmental groups were largely motivated by what has been their top priority in recent years: gettng Congress to pass strong climate change legislation. This is an effort that, frankly, will never see the light of day without the support of big businesses such as BP.

In a rather persuasive defense in Green Biz, an EDF staffer made this point using environmental foe Wal-Mart as an example (the group has also worked with the retail giant).  Referencing the outsize influence the company has on its suppliers, she wrote: "If I can convince one Walmart buyer to 'go green' in his or her purchasing, it has the same impact as convincing the 200 million people who shop at Walmart to do the same thing."

What it may really come down to is the proverbial drawing of the line. I would argue there's a big difference between EDF and The Nature Conservancy in this situation. The former has partnered with BP but has never accepted funds, while the latter has profited from the partnership.

Once money enters the equation, it becomes much easier to imagine compromised values. And of course, hindsight is 20/20. Right now, it seems such compromises were not worth it. But does this mean they never were? Or never are?

Photo credit: NOAA and Georgia Department of Natural Resources