Biodegradability Scam 
Greenpeace International 1992

A case study in oil pollution, a biodegradability scam, "green collar fraud," and sham recycling Mobil Greenwash Snapshot #21 

Mobil Corporation 
CEO: Allen Murray 
Salary: $1,865,000 
HQ: 3225 Gallows Rd. Fairfax, VA 22037 
tel.: 703-849-3000 fax: 703-846-4669 

Major businesses: oil and gas; chemicals; plastics. Mobil, world's 4th largest petroleum company, has operations in 27 countries and derives 68% of its revenue outside the US. Mobil is a member of Responsible Care & signer of the ICC Rotterdam Charter.

"[M]arketing is the part of Mobil's business that's most visible to the public. Most people...see advertising. This presents Mobil's marketers with a unique opportunity to deliver their environmental message--an opportunity they've seized." --Mobil World, 1991 1

Mobil devotes huge amounts of money to market an "environmental message"; its ads in the editorial sections of major US newspapers alone cost hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. These ads typically downplay the destructive impact of Mobil's activities, advocate oil exploration in pristine ecosystems such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, bemoan legislative limits to fossil fuel development and dependency, and extoll the environmental virtues of plastics and Styrofoam. In an extreme example of "image advertising," the ads sometimes stray into areas far from Mobil's business expertise, like a wandering idyll on American summer memories that appeared in The New York Times in August 1992.

Elsewhere, slick company pamphlets tell of Mobil's protection of wildlife habitats, public education on issues like plastics recycling, and environmental grants and awards. Even irrelevant human interest stories, like the one about the Mobil employee in Japan who helped revive his local Little League baseball team by collecting aluminum cans, are not safe from Mobil's green propaganda team. Mobil greenwash is so pervasive and extends to so many issues that we can only scratch the surface in this snapshot.

"Green Collar Fraud": Mobil and the Biodegradability Scam
In 1988, Mobil began advertising its Hefty brand trash bags, made from the plastic resin polyethylene, as biodegradable (that is, capable of being fully metabolized by microorganisms and assimilated into the natural biological cycle in soil and water).2 This claim, which Mobil has never been able to verify scientifically, was an attempt to cash in on public environmental concern, a fact which a company spokesperson acknowledged in 1989:

[Degradable bags] are not an answer to landfill crowding or littering....Degradability is just a marketing tool.... We're talking out of both sides of our mouths because we want to sell bags. I don't think the average consumer even knows what degradability means. Customers don't care if it solves the solid-waste problem. It makes them feel good. 3

Seven states filed lawsuits against Mobil in 1990 for this blatantly cynical marketing scam. Calling Mobil's scam "green collar fraud," New York State Attorney General Robert Abrams summed up the prevailing sentiment:

It is a myth that degradable plastics quickly disappear or provide any benefits to the environment in a landfill, and Mobil knew it. But that didn't stop Mobil from trying to mislead consumers into purchasing products that simply are not good for the environment....Mobil's claims for its trash bags should be thrown into the landfill of rhetoric. 4

By 1991, Mobil had settled with the states, paying a total of $165,000 and agreeing to remove the word degradable from its Hefty bags. In July 1992, Mobil entered into a consent agreement with the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) which prohibited the company from making further unsubstantiated claims about the Hefty bags. One day after Mobil's settlement, the FTC announced national guidelines for defining terms recyclable and biodegradable. Although voluntary, they are the most specific guidelines the US government has issued on what constitutes misleading environmental advertising. 5

However, Mobil's biodegradability scam did not hurt sales. In fact, the company's scam coincided with a dramatic rise in the market price of its chemical products such as polyethylene. This helped boost Mobil's gross revenues by over $1 billion, and net income by $600 million, from 1987 to 1988. Between 1988 and 1990 the company's earnings from this business segment were at a record high. According to Mobil, "Hefty remains one of the top brands in the consumer marketplace." 6

Environmental Effects of Oil
Mobil points proudly to its environmental grants program. Among the most significant, says the company, was the grant for a "landmark study" on global warming. Mobil ignores the oil industry's huge contribution to the problem of global warming and the unsustainability of continued oil exploration and development. (For more on the relationship between oil and global warming, see Greenwash Snapshot #2--Shell.)

Gulf of Mexico
Mobil's 1991 Annual Report illustrates "environmental excellence" with an underwater photograph of fish swimming in blue waters of the Gulf of Mexico, a Mobil "production stronghold." Lurking behind the fish are the legs of an offshore oil rig. Rigs, the company says, "attract and shelter marine life."7 Left out is any mention the threat oil drilling poses to aquatic species, some of which are susceptible to harm from toxic petroleum products at levels as low as 1-100 parts per billion. 8
In the Gulf, Mobil and other oil companies discharge daily 1.5 million barrels of "toxic brine" tainted with chemicals and heavy metals that can concentrate in tissue of marine organisms. Their drilling has generated millions of tons of muds and cuttings that can smother bottom-dwelling life. This degradation, plus that from rigs' air pollution, tanker traffic, and spills, affects not only ocean but coastal ecosystems. In Louisiana's coastal plain and barrier islands, for example, wetland loss is occurring at a rate of 50 square miles per year. 9
Nigeria
For over two decades, seven transnationals have monopolized oil development in Nigeria. Mobil's reserves, which are 2nd only to Shell's, have produced more than 1.5 billion barrels of oil since 1970. Mobil expects to double its current production volume during the next four years with new oil fields off Nigeria's coast.

The result of oil industry's operations, according to Evans Aina, Director of Nigeria's Federal Environmental Protection Agency, has been extensive degradation of the country's land and marine eco- systems. Most of the oil pollution, Aina says, has come from "improper disposal of drilling muds, shipping and terrestrial traffic accidents, tank washing and oil ballast discharges, depot leakage and failure or rupture in oil pipelines." In all, the oil industry in Nigeria has been responsible for at least 2796 spills or re- leases of some 2.1 million barrels of oil between 1976 and 1990.10

California and New York
Like all major oil companies, Mobil has a significant pollution record. The US EPA has named the company a potentially responsible party at 179 Superfund sites. Since the early 1980s Mobil has spent $13 million in Superfund or equivalent state legislation expenses. 11 Nowhere is Mobil's record more dismal than in California, location of the company's largest US oil reserves.

In 1988, Mobil's pipelines in Los Angeles ruptured, spilling 130,000 gallons of oil that contaminated the Los Angeles River and killed hundreds of fish and dozens of birds. According to the LA Department of Transportation this was the sixth such rupture since 1973. After the city charged Mobil with negligent maintenance, the company finally replaced 75 miles of leaking California pipeline in 1990. 12 Mobil's refinery in Torrance, near Los Angeles, has experienced many accidents, spills, and violations. From 1987-1989 four major explosions and several fires at the facility killed two workers and injured fifteen. The Torrance City Council ordered an independent review of the refinery which concluded that extreme carelessness and failure to follow safety guidelines were to blame. Between 1988-1989 Mobil paid $34,000 in Occupational Safety and Health Administration fines for 105 safety violations. 13

Concern over the facility's operation prompted the city of Torrance to sue Mobil in 1989 to establish municipal regulatory authority over the refinery. In particular, city leaders feared an uncontrolled release of highly toxic hydrofluoric acid might cause a "disaster of Bhopal-like proportions."14 Mobil settled the suit by agreeing to stop using hydrofluoric acid if it could not adequately control a release and by hiring a safety consultant.

Mobil paid an $85,000 penalty and $3 million in charges in August 1989 to clean up 2.4 million gallons of gasoline which had leaked from tanks and pipelines under Torrance. The gas contained high levels of benzene and other carcinogenic chemicals. During the fall of 1989 the South Coast Air Quality Management District cited the Torrance refinery as having the region's worst record in air qual ity violations and complaints and banned Mobil from monitoring its own air emissions -- a privilege extended to all other major oil companies in Southern California. 15

In 1990 the California Department of Health (DOH) fined Mobil $66,000 for hazardous waste violations at the Torrance refinery. The previous year the DOH had fined Mobil $125,000, and ordered a $225,000 cleanup, for similar problems at the facility. 16

"Environmental conservation continues to be an important objective in California." --from 1991 Mobil Fact Book (highlight added)17

Mobil's Greenpoint terminal in New York City rivals Torrance for pollution. Although it does not accept complete responsibility, Mobil agreed in 1990 with the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) to clean up what is believed to be the largest oil leak in US history underneath the terminal. For the last 40 years, up to 17 million gallons of oil have been released or spilled over some 52 acres, causing sewer system shutdowns, construction problems, and threats to underlying groundwater. State officials estimate that the cleanup will cost Mobil tens of millions of dollars. 18

Mobil has created other hazards at Greenpoint. In 1988, after a 60,000 gallon leak of gasoline at the terminal, Mobil spent $600, 000 to move pipelines above ground and to build new storage tanks and monitoring wells. In 1990, 50,000 gallons of kerosene leaked from the terminal. Because Mobil failed to report the release, NYSDEC fined the company $500,000, the maximum penalty possible. 19
Mobil agreed in 1988 to purchase eight homes in Jacksonville, NY that had been contaminated by leaking underground gasoline tanks. The homeowners had been exposed to carcinogenic benzene. In 1990, a Mobil pipeline in West Seneca, NY burst and spilled 20,000 gallons of gasoline. Over 300 families had to be temporarily evacuated. 20

Economic Effects
Besides ecological harm, oil development can also create economic havoc. Production in the Gulf of Mexico has injured the tourist trade while commercial fishermen have lost fish as well as fishing grounds. Moreover, boom-and-bust cycles typify oil operations in the Gulf as elsewhere, making stable employment impossible. "Sure," a Gulf worker said after a boom period, "there was lots of money to be made at first, but as soon as the price of oil dropped, the flow of cash dried up and the oil companies moved on....Suddenly, there were no jobs, just pollution." 21

In Nigeria oil spillage has hurt, and in some cases destroyed, activity in other economic sectors. Communities in oil producing areas have long called for compensation from the oil companies for damages and recently their anger has led to violence against industry facilities. 22 Some Nigerians warn that oil, which accounts for 90% of the country's foreign exchange, cannot lead to sustainable development. Economic indicators support this view: between 1984-1992, Nigeria's foreign debt doubled while its per-capita income dropped to the point at which Nigeria now ranks as the world's 20th poorest nation. 23

Punishing the Whistleblowers
In 1990, a New Jersey federal jury awarded $1.375 million in damages to Valcar Bowman, a former Mobil environmental affairs manager. Bowman had alleged that Mobil pressured him to alter environmental audit reports and at one point ordered him to remove incriminating documents about air pollution from the Torrance refinery. After he refused, Mobil fired Bowman based on what he calls a "cost-containment sham" in a year of record company profits. 24

A second former employee, Myron Mehlman, initiated a suit against Mobil in 1990 for wrongful dismissal. Mehlman, who used to be the director of toxicology and manager of the company's environmental health and science laboratories, charges that Mobil fired him in 1989 for calling attention to the dangers of high benzene levels in Mobil gasoline. He also claims that the company incorrectly reported toxicity test results both within Mobil and to outside agencies. Mobil denies the allegations and the case is pending. 25

Plastic Myths
Some of Mobil's most poetic greenwash is about recycling, especially plastics recycling. Consumers of plastic, the target of these ads, should be wary of feeling too pleased about using Mobil plastic products. A Greenpeace investigation found Mobil plastic bags which had been exported all the way to Indonesia for recycling. The plant manager estimates that up to 40% of the plastic exported to his plant for "recycling" from the U.S. and Europe is simply dumped. (For more about the myth of plastics recycling see Greenwash Snapshot #4--Solvay.)

For more information contact Jed Greer (author) or Kenny Bruno, Greenpeace Toxic Trade Campaign, 212-941-0994, extension 205 or 209.

Notes
1. From Mobil World, Special Issue, March 1991. 
2. For more information on biodegradability and plastics see the Greenpeace report Breaking Down the Degradable Plastics Scam, Washington, DC, 1990. 
3. Quoted in ibid, p. 2. 
4. Quoted in 1990 Corporate Profiles, Multinational Monitor (MM), December 1990, p. 14. 
5. See "Mobil, FTC to settle 'environmental' claims for its Hefty trash bags," in the Boston Globe, 28 July 1992; and Keith Schneider, "Guides on Environmental Ad Claims," The New York Times, 29 July 1992. 
6. 1991 Mobil Fact Book, a supplement to the Annual Report, p. 72. 
7. Mobil Annual Report 1991, pp. 10-11. 
8. For more information on the hazards petroleum products pose to the marine environment see Judith Kimmerling with the Natural Resources Defense Council, Amazon Crude, 1991, esp. pp. 65-73. 
9. Greenpeace, The Dinosaur's Path The Exxon Valdez, Oil and National Security, Washington, DC, 1990, p. 9. 
10. Toye Olori, "Nigeria: Petroleum Industry Pollutes the Environment," Inter Press Service International News, 14 February 1992. 
11. Council on Economic Priorities (CEP), Corporate Environment Report: Mobil Oil, New York, 1991. 
12. ibid. 
13. ibid.
14. Quoted in 1989 Corporate Profiles, in Multinational Monitor, December 1989, pp. 12-13. 
15. CEP, op. cit. 
16. CEP, op. cit. 
17. 1991 Mobil Fact Book, p. 26. 
18. CEP, op. cit.; and 1990 Mobil profile in MM. 
19. CEP, op. cit. 
20. CEP, op. cit. 
21. The Dinosaur's Path, p. 9. 
22. Olori, op. cit., and John Owen-Davies, "Oil Workers Find Life is Harsh in Swamps of Nigeria's Outback Outposts: Employees on Niger Delta endure civil unrest, long hours, little recreation, and lack of female companionship," The Los Angeles Times, 12 January 1992. 
23. Jato Thompson, "Coping with the debt burden is a major headache," in African Business, April 1992, p. 19; and Pini Jason, "Why hasn't six years of SAP revived the economy?" in African Business, June 1992, p. 20. 
24. 1990 Mobil profile in MM; and Ken Sternberg, "Mobil faces employee lawsuit," in Chemicalweek, 14 November 1990. 
25. ibid.source: http://www.greenpeace.org/gopher/campaigns/toxics/1992/mobilgw.txt 18mar01
see series of text files: http://www.greenpeace.org/gopher/campaigns/toxics/1992/