BP: Breaking Promises?

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Join us. Right now is Bernard Luna, his VPS CEO. Bernard,
let's walk through what the future there looks like. The
business is doing well and at the same time we're
leaning into the transition and investing in the VP of tomorrow.
Performing while transforming, that's what we call it here. This
is fundamental change, where ahead of the game. I think
this direction is unstoppable. I think it's an enormous opportunity.

(00:24):
We are a good company with good people. I can
assure you it is not greenwashing. Performing while transforming. I
know I sound like a broken record that we're preparing
VP for tomorrow. I think a few people will question
are resolved to do that? Welcome to calling Bullshit the

(00:50):
podcast about purpose washing, the gap between what companies say
they stand for and what they actually do, and what
they would need to change to practice us what they preach.
I'm your host time Ontogue, and I've spent over a
decade helping companies define what they stand for, their purpose
and then help them to use that purpose to drive

(01:11):
transformation throughout their business. Unfortunately, at a lot of organizations today,
there's still a pretty wide gap between word. Indeed, that
gap has a name. We call it bullshit, But, and
this is important, we believe that bullshit is a treatable disease.
So when the BS detector lights up, we're going to

(01:33):
explore things that a company should do to fix it.
In this episode, we're gonna look at oil company BP. Recently,
BP CEO Bernard Looney announced a new purpose to reimagine

(01:54):
energy for people and our planet. We want to help
the world reach net zero and improve people's lives. That's
a pretty big shift for one of the largest current
and historical producers of c O two in the world.
But the interesting thing about this story is it's not

(02:15):
the first time that BP has made a bold claim
about reimagining energy. Is it possible to drive a car
and still have a clean environment. We think so. And
now BP, Amaco Aco and Castrol have come together to
try Beyond Petroleum BP. That's a commercial from way back

(02:39):
in two thousand and one that was part of then
CEO John Brown's bold rebranding of the company, claiming that
the initials BP would henceforth stand not for British Petroleum
but for Beyond Petroleum. To understand just how significant the
idea of beyond petroleum was, we need to take a

(03:01):
quick trip back in time. B P was born in
nineteen o eight as the Anglo Persian Oil Company. The
company first staked claims on oil wells in what is
now Iran. In the decades to follow, b P expanded
their oil operations throughout the Middle East, Africa, Latin America,

(03:22):
Europe and Russia. Along the way, they developed their own
distinct cowboy culture. B P played hard, and they played
for keeps. For instance, a struggle for control of the
company with the government of Iran resulted in the overthrow
of democratically elected President Mosadek in nineteen fifty three. They

(03:45):
also became known as the company that took the biggest
extraction risks and then reaped the biggest financial rewards. As
a result, they left a trail of environmental and safety
catastrophes in their wake. At nine p three a m.
On Saturday, March the eighteenth, the Torry Canyon, one of
the biggest tank as yet built, was turning the sea

(04:07):
purple with a fatal cargo. A massive explosion and fire
erupted at the VP refinery in Texas City, Texas. The
explosion killed fifteen workers and injured one hundred eighty others,
many of them seriously. When CEO John Brown took over
the company in nineteen ninety five, he inherited the biggest

(04:28):
polluter with the worst safety record of the seven largest
oil companies in the world, known as the Super Majors.
But John Brown was a little different from his predecessors
and peers. A visionary in his own way. He saw
the perils of climate change, and he understood the oil
industry's culpability. I believe we've come to an important moment

(04:52):
in our consideration of the environment. We need to go
beyond analysis and to seek solutions and to take action.
It is a moment for change and for rethinking corporate responsibility.
BPS new CEO had become a vocal advocate for clean energy.

(05:17):
He committed to reducing the company's greenhouse gas emissions and
invested in solar power and other alternative energy. Under Brown's watch,
BP also broke ranks and exited the Global Climate Coalition,
an oil industry lobbying group of businesses that opposed action
to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in oil industry terms. BP

(05:40):
had gone renegade. They had a new progressive story, and
they had started to make that story real through bold action,
but bold change in the oil industry makes enemies, in
some cases, really powerful enemies. In two thousand and six,
these enemies began a whisper campaign about John Brown's private life.

(06:05):
Well uh. In two thousand and seven, I was outed
by the Mail on Sunday as gay, and that was
a big shock, I think in the way it was done,
not least to me. The press was relentless and fearing
being outed, Brown lied under oath about his sexuality and

(06:25):
was charged with perjury. On May one, two thousand and seven,
John Brown resigned as CEO. It's sad looking back on
this from had John taken over only a decade later,
being gay wouldn't have even been an issue. After Brown's departure,

(06:46):
the head of oil exploration and Production, Tony Hayward, became
the new CEO. The company divested itself of its alternative
energy holdings and diverted that money to radically experimental deep
water drilling methods, and then on April two thousand and ten,

(07:07):
disaster struck. You have information now that this this rig
has gone under, It has gone onto the surface. Overnight,
a powerful explosion rocked a giant oil rig igniting a
fire and launching a day long search for eleven work
early is a mess today because the winds shifted direction,
blowing this oil, this sludge into the Bayous of southeastern Louisiana.

(07:30):
The explosion was caused by a natural gas blowout a
mile down on the seafloor. The fail safe mechanism designed
to stop the flow malfunctioned, and the equipment needed to
solve the problem was on the other side of the world.
Eleven people died and millions of gallons of oil were
now gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. It was the

(07:53):
worst oil spill in history, and BP was wildly unprepared
to respond and to make matters worse, if you can
imagine that was even possible. BP was actively trying to
play things down and play the victim. Chairman Tony Hayward,
speaking to Britain Sky News, I think the environmental impact

(08:14):
of this disaster is likely to be very modest, and
a week ago this there's no one who wants this
thing over more than I have. You know a lot
my life. Back Crisis managers cringed when they heard that comment.
Any oil company would have suffered in this situation. But
there was a special outrage reserve for BP because they

(08:36):
claimed to be a green energy company and then wound
up as the culprit in the worst environmental disaster in history.
Trust in BP was shattered. In retrospect, I'm guessing the
new CEO, Bernard Looney wishes that John Brown's Beyond Petroleum
plan had been implemented, BP would have had a twenty

(08:59):
year head start on their competitors, all of whom have
recently announced ambitious plans to make their own transitions to
low carbon sustainable energy. Instead, like the rest of big oil,
Looney has to make this transition fast, so folks. That
brings us to the main question. VP is once again

(09:22):
saying that their purpose is to reimagine energy for people
and our planet. Is this finally true or is it
still a bunch of bullshit? Get out your BS detector
and join me as we drove for answers right after
this before you head to the break, we'd love to

(09:44):
hear what you think about the show. Maybe you were
inspired to take action, maybe you disagree with today's bullshit rating.
Either way, we want to hear about it. Leave us
a message at two one two five oh five five
or send a voice memo to CBS podcast at co
collective dot com. You might even be featured on an

(10:05):
upcoming episode Welcome back. To help me get to the
bottom of BP's renude commitment to cleaner energy for people
in the planet, I first spoke with Tyson Slocum, an
expert in the world of petroleum, natural gas, and power markets. Tyson,

(10:32):
welcome to Calling Bullshit. We're very excited to have you
on the show. It's my pleasure to be here. I'd
love it if you could start out by telling us
a little bit about your background and the work that
you do. Yes, I'm the Energy program director at Public Citizen.
Public Citizen is a national consumer advocacy group based in Washington,
d C. I run all of our energy policy related

(10:55):
work and that mainly focuses on the oversight and regulation
of petroleum, natural gas, and electric power markets. Our goal
at Public Citizen is to promote those policies that provide affordable, reliable,
and sustainable energy for working families. Fantastic. I love that.

(11:17):
So let's get into BP. The topic of today is
their energy transition goals and so just a kind of
level set how much c O two is BP putting
into the atmosphere in say an average year, a heck
of a lot. It's difficult to quantify, but they're one
of the largest individual emitters just because the scope of

(11:40):
their operations. They literally have a presence on every single continent.
They have a massive carbon footprint. And then what's what's
important here ties also they are a large historical emitter
because the company has been around for such a long
time that when you look at its entire leg you
see footprint it's even larger, and it's going to be

(12:04):
one of the largest single contributors to climate change. From
a corporate standpoint, and because of climate change, most of
these companies have now announced their plans for so called
energy transition. Your opinion, how serious do you think these
companies are about making that transition. I think they're very

(12:26):
serious about it from a public relations standpoint, But when
you look at the day to day operation and even
look at their capital expenditure plan going forward the next
five years, it is dominated by oil and gas. And
it's important to note here that in BP's own financial results,
they classify their natural gas production activity in with renewables,

(12:52):
so they consider natural gas to be a clean source
of energy when you know it is absolutely not. I
did not realize that that's crazy. Yeah, so so that's
the problem. You know, BP isn't alone here, but BP
is desperately trying to reclassify itself as a clean energy company.

(13:15):
And again tied, this isn't new. I mean it started
twenty years ago when they came up with this advertising
plan to be on petroleum exactly. Yeah. So BP has
been in this process of reinventing itself from a public
relations standpoint for a very long time. But in terms
of its operational standpoint, BP is an oil and gas company. Period. Yeah. So,

(13:41):
within two weeks of taking the reins as CEO at
BP in February of Bernard Luny outlined a whole new
purpose for BP. He says, it is to reimagine energy
for people and our planet. We want to help the
world reach net zero and improve people's lives. And then
down in the details he lays out specific goals for

(14:04):
getting BP to net zero. He calls them aims, which
I find kind of a weasily word. How about commitments, Bernard?
But okay, so he says, our first goal is net
zero operations are aim one is to be net zero
across our entire operations on an absolute basis by or sooner.

(14:29):
This aim relates to Scope one and t G h
G emissions. So first of all, what does that mean?
So that just means the emissions footprint of BP and
its operations, not of how it's fuels are going to
be consumed and therefore add to climate change. And so

(14:50):
you know, just from the very get go, their definitions
of reaching net zero have a massive flaw. Exactly. Okay,
So so just to to school me up, let's move
to their aim to our aim too, is to be
net zero on an absolute basis across the carbon in
our oil and gas production by sooner. This is our

(15:14):
Scope three aim and is on a BP equity share
basis excluding holdings in Rosineft, the Russian company run by
Putin's number two guy, that they just announced they were
going to divest of. But staying with what's on their website,
that Net two goal to be net zero on an
absolute basis across the carbon and our upstream oil and

(15:36):
gas production by sooner. What does that mean? So they're
they're talking about Scope three emissions for their oil and
gas operations, which appears to be more comprehensive. But still
this is a goal by and that isn't really that ambitious.
We're looking at another generation or more of signifigant oil

(16:00):
and gas extraction opportunities for BP, and so in terms
of meaningful action to address the climate crisis, I don't
see the ambition in this, you know, net zero goal
by as being relevant. So you don't think it's enough

(16:21):
and and and the timeline is too long? Is that
sort of your take? Absolutely? And this is this is
the challenge, right. It seems sort of silly for an
oil and gas company, especially one as large as VP,
to be talking about getting to real, meaningful net zero,
whether we're talking about five years or forty years, because

(16:42):
you're going to have to transform the fundamentals of the company.
And I don't see where that is happening yet at BP.
You know, we're talking about sort of nebulous goals far
off in the future. I don't see how those long
term goals are affecting to days operational priorities at BP.

(17:03):
I still see capital being first and foremost allocated to
continued oil and gas development and and that's the big challenge.
And for any large oil major tie there's going to
be a market challenge to doing a real transition to renewables,

(17:24):
for example, because during that transition, let's say BP has
a real meaningful plan which I don't see but just
for conversation purposes to transition off of oil and towards renewables.
The market is just gonna want to see BP split
into separate companies because the market value of a pure

(17:48):
renewable play is going to be dragged down by the
continued operations of oil and gas, which the market is
not going to see as having enough growth. And so
as long as BP remains an integrated company that is
trying to get into renewables while still primarily being an
oil and gas company, those oil and gas operations are

(18:10):
always going to drag on the value of the renewable investments.
And so what you would see from Wall Street is
they would say split up the company. Interestingly, a former CEO,
John Brown, is recently on record saying he thinks that's
a good idea to spin out the renewable energy assets

(18:31):
as a separate company, essentially create BP Future, which is
rapidly growing, less capital intensive, and valued at a premium
by investors, and then by default create BP past, which
is the oil and gas assets, capital intensive, unloved by
the market, and in decline, and then just let the
market decide. What do you think about that? I think

(18:54):
that's how all of these oil and gas companies are
going to have to go. If if you're going to
remain a publicly traded company, off ring shares of the public,
that's the only strategy that makes any sense. And the
fact that BP hasn't done that split yet shows that
their financial and capital commitments to renewables aren't yet meaningful

(19:16):
enough to orchestrate that split. Yeah, Leoney doesn't like the
idea of splitting up. He actually responded to Brown and
he said he wants to use the cash of the
high carbon business to fund the transition. He calls it,
what is it? He's got a catchphrase for it, performing
while transforming. That would be believable if that's what was

(19:39):
actually happening. But when we look at the balance sheet,
BP is still pouring billions of dollars every year from
its earnings on oil and gas operations into more capital
investment for additional oil and gas exploration and production, and
into dividends. Because the way that these oil companies try

(20:00):
and keep their stock price attractive because they're being eclipsed,
all of them by companies like Tesla and renewable energy
companies that just have way more growth potential. The way
that BP markets itself to fund advisors and to other
big institutional investors is the lucrative dividend that they pay

(20:24):
out in cash every quarter, and so a bunch of
the profits from their oil and gas operations are just
going into pumping up their stock price to make it
continually attractive. And so until we see a deviation from
big capital investment in oil and gas and the big

(20:44):
investment in dividends, this is inaccurate. They are not moving
that profit from today's oil and gas operations into tomorrow's renewables.
Sticking with the the aims that they have on their website,
I just want to go through a couple more that,
frankly I just don't understand. Aim three is to cut
the carbon intensity of the products that we sell by

(21:07):
by twenty fifty or sooner. What does carbon intensity? What
does that mean? So this is talking about the relative
carbon emissions for energy resources. So a lot of this
is BP and some of the other majors like Chevron,
and Shell have been increasing their investments into natural gas,

(21:27):
and so the way that they measure it is gas
has a lower carbon intensity than oil. It is not
a clean resource, right, it is a fossil fuel, but
compared to oil, and so a lot of this carbon
intensity talk is really about a shift into natural gas.

(21:47):
And you know, a lot of that is because they
see continued market opportunities for gas in the power generation sector,
in the industrial sector, and in the agricultural sector with
for utilizers and so forth. So again, this is the challenge.
They're using these words that sound like they're doing a
serious pivot into renewables, but it's not. It's just putting

(22:12):
slightly more investment into gas over oil, and they're able
to count that as a lower carbon intensity going forward.
It's not, you know, going to deliver us on a
path to meaningfully addressing the climate crisis, right, Okay, So
Aim four is to produce methane. It says our aim

(22:33):
force to install methane measurement at all of our existing
major oil and gas processing sites, by published the data,
and then drive a fifty reduction in methane intensity of
our operations. So, first of all, why is this important?
What's special about methane. So, methane is a extremely powerful
greenhouse gas. It is many many, many times more powerful

(22:56):
than carbon dioxide. It doesn't last in the atmosphere as
long as c O two, but methane, for the briefer
time that it is in the atmosphere after being released,
is far more potent. And so the Obama administration in
two thousand twelve introduced sweeping requirements and mandates to control

(23:19):
methane emissions from oil and gas operations, and BP and
all the other oil companies successfully fought it off. Now
we've had a change in heart, and really what what
changed was in November, a energy company that is partly
owned by the French government called Energy canceled a major

(23:40):
liquefied natural gas export deal with a US based l
en G exporter because of the lack of any meaningful
methane regulations on US gas production or US gas exports.
And that cancelation of that seven billion dollar deal was
a wake up call for oil and gas producers everywhere

(24:04):
that all of a sudden there was a emphasis on
controlling and measuring the carbon content of natural gas production.
And so we have now seen a total one eight
where BP actually was sending out tweets in support of
Biden administration efforts to revive federal regulation over methane emissions.

(24:30):
And so this is BP trying to get out ahead
of a market trend. Oil companies are uniformly against regulation
unless that regulation can provide market access opportunities, and in
this case, regulating methane emissions and documenting your ability to

(24:50):
limit fugitive emissions is seen as a market opportunity because
you're able to slap a label of clean methane on
your natural gas and make it more desirable for export
and consumption in global markets. So it would have been
great if BP was making this announcement a decade ago.

(25:11):
Another point that they make on the website to help
the world get to net zero is aligning associations. Our
aim is to set new expectations for our relationships with
trade organizations around the globe. In September of September, in

(25:31):
a publication called The Resilience, they point out that VP
still supports eight anti climate lobbying groups as of that date.
And you know that's eighteen months after Bernard Looney took
his job, and they had plenty of time to clean
that up by September. Are you aware of any issues

(25:52):
there and what does that make you think about BP? Absolutely,
this is a huge problem. And just for a second,
let me just talk about trade associations in general, because
it's sort of a fascinating, crazy situation that your listeners
may not be familiar with. So what a trade association.
Let's take the American Patrolum Institute, which is the largest
and probably the most successful trade association lobbying group in

(26:15):
the United States today. It's got an annual budget in
excess of three million dollars a year. And so what
API does is it collects dues from BP and Xon
and all the other companies and allows them all to
actively collaborate on influencing legislation and regulation. So, while oil

(26:39):
companies compete in the marketplace, when it comes to influencing
our politicians and our regulatory structures, they are actively colluding
because they have a shared common interest. And so you're
absolutely right that BPS stated commitment to only joining those

(26:59):
trade associal stations that align with efforts to address the
climate change do not meet reality because they continue to
pay millions and millions of dollars in dues to trade
associations that are actively fighting against climate solutions. Luney has
also made a few subsequent promises after he rolled out

(27:20):
this plan. One of them was in August he said
to investors that VP will reduce oil and gas production
by within a decade, and that was two years ago,
so he's got eight years left, and that they would
stop exploring for oil and gas fields in new countries
in the same time frame. So I guess do you

(27:44):
read from that that he's saying he's prepared to leave
oil in the ground to make this transition work. I
I don't think that he's realistic about those commitments. I mean,
these are non binding commitments. First of all, they're just
public announcements promises, um. So without a binding commitment, the
company can make whatever adjustments and changes it wants. I

(28:07):
don't see this as to be very honest and meaningful commitment.
BP is still committing the vast majority of its capital
investment into exploration and production, and and that tells me
that BP remains an oil and gas company period. One
of the things that we're exploring on this show is

(28:29):
kind of a an evolved version of capitalism, let's call it.
That includes some of the externalities that companies really like
to ignore. So right now, for instance, there are a
lot of externalities that are not priced into a gallon
of gas, the costs of climate change, for instance, right,

(28:50):
and in a way, it keeps the price of a
gallon of gas artificially low. For example, the New York
Core of Engineers is proposing a sea wall that will
cost hundred and nineteen billion dollars to protect the city
from rising sea levels. Is that cost figured into every
barrel of oil today? Not at all. In fact, there

(29:10):
is no federal regulation of carbon emissions from oil and
gas operations, so they're getting a free pass. And you
just summed it up correctly that there are large externalities
with fossil fuel production and consumption that are not reflected
in the market price, and so all of society has

(29:33):
to pick up that tab. Look at the infrastructure bill
that President Biden just signed into law at the end
of last year. It includes eleven billion dollars of taxpayer
money to clean up coal mines. You know, why, why
aren't coal companies doing that? There's also billions of dollars
in there of taxpayer money to plug up old and

(29:55):
abandoned oil and gas wells. Some of those were BP's
old oil and gas wells. So so again, the fossil
fuel companies enjoy today's profit of extracting these fuels without
any of the long term financial obligations that their business causes.
That needs to change. I've read that there are a

(30:17):
number of cities and towns who have actually started to
sue fossil fuel companies to try to recover some of
that money. Have any of these lawsuits succeeded so far.
They're all moving through the federal and state court systems,
and they're using very inventive tort law. You know, tort
is if you sue for damages. I slipped on the

(30:38):
sidewalk in front of your business because you failed to
maintain it, and your failure to maintain that cause me
bodily injury. I am do damages for my pain and suffering.
So this is sort of the same thing. The oil
and gas industry new decades ago that their business was
contributing to climate change, but didn't do anything about it.

(30:59):
And that's the key from a court decision that they
knew that their business was creating these harms and they
did nothing to address them. And we all are suffering
as a result, and I think that's part of the
motivation for a company like BP to try and get
out ahead and to say, listen, we're in favor now

(31:19):
of federal action to regulate these things so that we
can try to get out from these tort lawsuits. And
in fact, there's a plan that's being underwritten by some
of the major oil companies to establish a carbon tax
in the United States, and there's a lot of merit
to that, but when you look at the details of
their proposal, they want the carbon tax in exchange for

(31:41):
two big things, one evisceration of climate regulations over their
business and immunity from tort lawsuits. Very similar, very similar,
very similar to what the gun manufacturers got. That annoying
and shades of the tobacco industry as well. You know,
they deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, and then you know,

(32:05):
finally events catch up with them. You know, from our
perspective on this show, we're looking for companies that are
purpose let These are companies that by and large have
a conscience. They actually are trying to make the world
better and when they see a problem, they try and
solve it. They don't wait for the government to legislate.

(32:26):
And so when VP says they're trying to take on
climate change, our perspective is great, you sound like a
purpose led company, But is their intention pure? Do they
really mean it? And so one of the things we
look for is self regulation by agreeing to a carbon tax,
if they're trying to get out of paying for any
liability for past harm, that does not clear our bar,

(32:50):
at least at this show, like we would call bullshit
on that. So why do you think Looney announced these
goals again in and why should we trust VP this
time around? I think the reason that he's making this
sort of recommitment on a public relations scale is because

(33:10):
now there is a spotlight from large institutional investors, and
these institutional investors have really in just the last couple
of years ratcheted up their pressure on companies to show
them the money in terms of commitments on climate change.
And so for an oil and gas company, that's sort

(33:32):
of hard to do when your business is in fossil fuels.
And so they're seeking to sort of mollify these institutional
investors with a very slick public relations campaign that they're
trying to rebrand BP again and and I don't know
how many times one company can continually rebrand itself as

(33:54):
being beyond petroleum, but that's what they're trying to do here.
It's difficult for them to escape their culture of non
compliance in terms of safety and environmental record, and they're
trying desperately to get back into that decision maker seat
where they are one of the key brokers to try

(34:16):
and navigate a new climate deal, but their reputation has
taken such a big hit. I don't know if if
they're going to be the ones doing it again. What
is the number one action that you think Bernard Luni
should take to actually deliver on their stated purpose to
reimagine energy for people and our planet. First, I would

(34:39):
exit all fossil fuel trade associations, get out of the
American Patrol of Institute and all of the others. Second,
commit to specific legislative climate initiatives. Because all of these
companies can do their unilateral goals on their websites, but
without some sort of buy ending operation through national governments,

(35:04):
we're not going to see the kind of meaningful action
that's required. And so I want to see BP support
climate initiatives without the harmful caveats like it's done on
carbon taxes, where it says we'll support a carbon tax
if we have immunity from prosecution under tort law. I

(35:24):
think Looney needs to commit to a specific time frame
to split off the company. If he's serious about real
aggressive investments in renewables, then he's got to put his
money where his mouth is. And and right now, when
I look at where BPS money is, it's all in
oil and gas. Tyson, is BP a bullshitter, an absolute bullshitter.

(35:50):
So just BP, stop the charade your oil and gas.
Love it? Okay, last question on this show. We have
a tool that we call the BS scale, and it
goes from zero to one, zero being the best, zero
BS being the worst. Total BS. So on a scale

(36:13):
of one two hundred on the B S scale, where
would you rate BP. They've got legitimate investments in clean energy,
it just is minuscule in proportion to their investments in
oil and gas. So I have to give them credit
for some of their genuine pivot. It's just not nearly enough.

(36:34):
So I love it perfect. Tyson Slocum, thank you so
much for being on the show. I really enjoyed it. Absolutely,
my pleasure Okay, folks, it's time to make the call.
Is BP really reimagining energy for people in our planet?
Based on what I've heard so far, we gotta call bullshit?

(36:57):
Even if Luney is serious, and that's questionable at this point,
BP isn't taking some fairly obvious actions that would signal
that seriousness. But remember, bullshit is a treatable condition. All
it takes is action. After the break, I'll be joined
by two experts in the oil business and climate change

(37:19):
to help us explore the actions BP should take to
fix it. Stick with us, Welcome back. New CEO Bernard

(37:42):
Looney is saying a lot of the right things, but
we've now drilled into it and we struck BS. So
what are the actions that Bernard and his leadership team
would have to take to plug this gusher and actually
win back our trust. I've invited two experts have joined
me to propose the concrete actions that BP needs to take.

(38:04):
Jamie hen, Co founder of three fifty dot org and
director of Fossil Free Media, and Duncan McLaren, Research fellow
at Lancaster Environmental Center with an in depth expertise in
climate and energy policy. Jimmie I'd love to start up
by just having you tell our listeners a little bit

(38:25):
about your background and the work that you're doing at
Fossil Free Media. So I started my career in climate
activism as one of the co founders of three fifty
dot org, which grew into one of the largest international
campaigns on climate change, and over the decade of working there,
worked on a lot of different international mobilizations and projects,
often wearing the hat of our communications director, and over

(38:47):
the years, one of the things that I noticed that
we were trying to raise awareness about the climate crisis
and push our governments to act, was that every time
environmental campaigners would try and come out and spur the
world into action, we would face a massive of backlash
from the fossil fuel industry, often in the form of
pr and advertising, and so as I was thinking about
the next stage of my career at the beginning of

(39:10):
I started talking with a few other colleagues and friends
about this idea of seeing if we could set up
a operation that would both provide good communications support for
groups who are taking on the fossil fuel industry, but
also see what we could do to try and throw
a wrench in the gears of big oils propaganda machine,
and so out of that fossil free media and a
campaign that we're running called Clean Creatives were born. And

(39:32):
through both of those efforts we try and help environmental
groups do a better job of communicating to the public
about the energy transition that we need to see, while
also calling out the work that the fossil fuel industry
and their allies are doing to try and pollute the
airwaves just as they pollute the atmosphere. Love that, Professor
Duncan McLaren. Welcome to calling BS. It's a pleasure to

(39:52):
be with you. I'd love to have you tell our
listeners a little bit about your background and your area
of focus in the energy sector. So thanks. Well, I'm
sort of on my second career now. My first was
working for environmental NGOs on a whole range of topics
from sustainable development to corporate accountability, renewables development, and of

(40:15):
course climate targets. But in twenty eleven I gave that
up for family reasons mainly, but embarked on a PhD
looking at geoengineering technologies in the context of the climate
justice debate, and that sort of led me into ten
years of working on particularly carbon removal and more broadly

(40:40):
what I call the problems of technologies of prevarication, the
ones that allow us to believe that we are going
to solve the climate problem in the future with a
new technology rather than by delivering behavior change and lifestyle
change today. That's great, great to have you here, So

(41:01):
let's jump right into some ideas for fixing VP Jamie,
I'm gonna ask you to go first, in two minutes
or less. What's the number one thing that you think
BP should do to win our trust that they really
mean what they say. Well, I think that there's a
few different categories of where we need to see action
from BP, and I'll start with the most obvious, which
is that they need to stop exploring for new oil

(41:22):
and gas and fully begin to wind down their existing
production in line with the Paris Agreement. They've made some
commitments around that, but it's needless to say they're not
yet at the pace, the scale, or really the commitment
that we would need to see if they were serious
about making that transition. So the nuts and bolts of
actually doing the work to stop oil and gas production
that's leading to the carbon going into our atmosphere versus

(41:45):
making yet more pledges and long term targets is really
where we need to see action. But I want to
highlight a couple others in my remaining minute here. First
off is on the lobbying in political front. You know,
we've seen a lot of rhetoric, as you said, from
Bernard Looney and BP about how they want to aid
the energy transition, but as I speak, they continue to
remain members of uh big oil trade associations and front

(42:09):
groups like the American Petroleum Institute, which is the leading
edge of the industry's attack on climate policy here in
the United States, and BP over in Europe continues to
lobby for things like natural gas being included in the
European Unions standards around investments, which is obviously not renewable
energy is it's meant to meet the criteria. So stopping

(42:31):
that lobbying is extremely important. And finally, along with that
goes stopping the sort of greenwashing and advertising that they're
doing that is very clearly meant to mislead the public
into believing that BP is serious about the energy transition
when the vast majority of its investments are still going
into oil and gas. Great, those are all very interesting,
and we will unpack some of those in due course.

(42:52):
Duncan Europe next in two minutes or less? What is
the number one thing or things that Bernard Looney should
do to get vince all of VPS deck orders that
he actually means what he said. PP needs to set absolute,
hard and fast production reduction targets, stop messing around with
intensity targets and scams about which scope of emissions are

(43:16):
going to be covered. Set targets to reduce the amount
of oil and gas they produce, and those targets need
to be matched so that there is reliable, permanent, guaranteed
carbon removal on a ton for ton basis for any
residual production that happens let's say after and probably about

(43:44):
of anything after that would get them in line with
the Paris requirements. Why do I ask for this, Well,
it's centrally about a climate justice case. NET zero is
a great lobal target. It's got a lot of people
converging around it saying we want to do this, but

(44:04):
it's ambiguous. It could mean an awful lot of emissions
matched by an awful lot of removals. Imagine two elephants
sat on a sea saw as we call it a
tita totter, as the Americans call it. That's not very
stable or sustainable. It's likely to break. What we need
is a narrow convergence where there are only a few

(44:27):
residual emissions and equal amount of carbon removal. So two
mice sat on the tita totter. That means. That means
that you have less impacts from the residual emissions and
all the things associated with that, the extraction, the oil spills, etcetera.
These are not just climate impacts when we go digging

(44:52):
for oil and gas, both of those are great. It's
my turn now, I submit this humbly looney need to
do an action that would cause me to suspend my disbelief.
And when I think about it, my skepticism really comes
from two things. Obviously, the fact that we've been here before.
With BP, they talked a huge game about moving in

(45:14):
quotes beyond petroleum and then turned around and created one
of the largest environmental disasters in the history of the
oil business in the Gulf of Mexico. But there's a
second thing that makes me skeptical that really centers around
the expectations of existing shareholders. You know, we have this
financial system where investors are trained to expect quarterly reporting

(45:36):
and positive quarterly results, and they're also trained to punish
c e o s who don't deliver them. And this
obsession with quarterly results is a major impediment to any
CEO who is serious about transforming a company. And so
my idea is that Bernard Luney should announce that PP
is going to discontinue quarterly reporting, and I think he

(45:58):
should say that his rationale for this is that the
only way to create long term shareholder value is to
think and act on behalf of shareholders in the long term.
And there's precedent for this. Paul Polman did it at
Unilever more than ten years ago, and Paul also managed
to deliver outstanding financial results, but those results took time.

(46:21):
And I think that that's what Looney should do is
by himself some time by taking that one action, and
I think that would signal real change at VP. It
would signal that the board is with him on this
transformation journey that he has embarked on. It would set
the stage for a number of additional actions that would
continue to build trust, for example, publicly tracking the progress

(46:44):
that they're making toward the goals that they've put forward,
transparently reporting on problems that they've encountered along the way
without tanking the stock necessarily. So I'll pause there. What
are your thoughts on that or any of the ideas
been moved forward. Well, I think it's interesting that you
brought up investors because I think a lot of what

(47:04):
we've seen out of BP is aimed at a few
different audiences. Right now, marketing and PR is really focused
on the general public, but a lot of what BP
has been doing I think is best understood as trying
to persuade their investors, and not just individual investors, but
large institutional investors like pension funds and others, that they're
simultaneously serious about pursuing climate action while also maintaining their

(47:27):
oil and gas business. VP is trying to do this
awkward dance where it wants to convince it's more green
oriented investors that it's serious about climate while also showing
that it will continue to get high profits from oil
and gas. And so this dance is what I think
we continue to see from big oil majors. Is on
the one hand, trying to market themselves to concerned investors

(47:48):
and regulators in the public as being serious about climate action,
while also turning around to some of their other shareholders saying,
don't worry about all of that. We're still serious about
oil and gas and we're going to drill, baby, drill
until the very last second. He's got a name for it,
performing while transforming, and that just to me, reeks of bullshit. Duncan.

(48:08):
What do you think about it? Yeah, Yeah, to turn
to your suggestion, ty though, of discontinuing quarterly reporting. So
quarterly reports they instill a short term is um in
corporations that goes against all we want to achieve on
the environmental and sustainability front. But at the same time,

(48:29):
it's the over long termism of targets like net zero
by that is allowing the exploitative attitude. We need action
now that cuts in missions dramatically in the next decade
if we're going to be compliant with PARIS. So I

(48:50):
think stopping quarterly reporting could be a component of what
BP should do. They would also clearly need to improve
the nature of a reporting so that it's properly consistent
with the different impacts they're having and to be accountable
to stakeholders outside of the shareholders themselves. Yeah, and and

(49:14):
I heard you both in your ideas essentially say that
the aims that VP has put forward are soft. Even
for instance, net zero by can be achieved in a
lot of different ways. And I don't want to put
words into your mouths, but it's you can do it
by planting a lot of trees and offsetting, or you

(49:35):
can do it by actually not pumping oil out of
the ground. And you are advocating for the ladder rather
than the former. Is that correct. I'm definitely saying that
VP cannot contribute to net zero if it goes on
increasing its production and emissions and believes that it can

(49:56):
offset all of that. So at the moment we in
b people fifty thousand tons of carbon offsets, it was
responsible for around one point six giga tons of emissions.
So you've got to be cutting emissions. You can't just
be offsetting what is left that you might offset in

(50:20):
some way. You have to offset through balancing it with
things that actually remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and
they have to remove carbon permanently or durably. Can you
explain some of those permanent carbon removal technologies? Most of
them are currently quite speculative. There are technologies though, that

(50:45):
use renewable energy to capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
with a chemical agent of some sort. To expose this
chemical agent to the atmosphere, it absorbs some CEO who
You then put it in an enclosed chamber, expose it
to heat or pressure. The CEO two comes off. You

(51:06):
can pipe it off, compress it and inject it underground,
and as long as you do that in somewhere like
a say line aquifer, it will almost certainly stay underground
for thousands of years. Another very permanent form of carbon
removal is called enhanced weathering. Again, you need some renewable energy.

(51:28):
You grind up basalt or other reactive rocks quite finely,
spread it on the land surface, and as the rain
flows through it, it removes or effectively the calm dark
side in the rainwater reacts with the rock goes off
in the runoff, and at least in theory, ends up

(51:49):
in the oceans, where it ends up as carbonate, and
that's where our limestone comes from. So that's that's millions
of years. So there's a lot of these techniques. None
of them are perfect, none of them would be scalable infinitely,
but where scientists are hopeful, let's say that maybe somewhere

(52:11):
between two and five gigatons a year could be removed
using these technologies in the latter half of the century
once once they've been developed. So it sounds like once
again they just need to stop producing oil. I want
to pivot to Jamie. A big part of the BP story,
Jamie relates directly to your thesis at Fossil Free Media

(52:31):
that AD agencies and PR companies are some of big
oils or maybe big carbons, not so secret weapons. How
big a problem is the marketing industry in this equation.
I think it's a huge problem, and I think that
PR and advertising and marketing have been one of the
largest barriers to climate action that just because it's in

(52:53):
such plain sight, we often don't see it. And BP
is a really interesting case study because I think that
of all the oil majors, they have always been the
most attuned to their public image. But it's worth remembering that,
as you mentioned earlier, it was all the way back
in that the previous CEO of BP was making announcements
about how they were going to become a new type

(53:13):
of energy company, and that led to then the rebrand
in two thousand of BP two Beyond Petroleum. Yeah, John Brown,
I mean that was twenty years ago that they made
this beyond Petroleum rebrand. They're not beyond petroleum twenty years later.
And I think that we should take that lens towards
the commitments that they're making today, that maybe there's a

(53:35):
higher degree of seriousness, there's more political pressure, but BP
hasn't shown in the past that it was serious about
any of these claims. There's a fascinating example of this
from the current era, which is actually a leaked presentation
that came out at the beginning of which is right
when Bernard Looney, the new CEO, is taking on BP
and wanted to restructure the company. And the presentation was

(53:58):
done for BP by the ad agency w P P,
which is the world's largest kind of advertising conglomerate. And
this was an effort holding company, and this was an
effort by w PP to kind of bring together some
of its top people and say we're going to kind
of do a first stab at what a new brand,
a new image, a new marketing approach for BP could
look like that they would then use in all the

(54:20):
advertising and all the advertising relationships that they have. And
it's really a fascinating document because it basically walks through
the fact that yes, BPS, you know core businesses oil
and gas, and we're going to be expanding upstream production YadA,
YadA YadA. But also, you know, we need to convince
the public that quote, we get it on climate change, um.

(54:40):
And they run through this incredible series of slides about
how the world changed in because of the global climate
strikes in Grettith Thunberg and everything that had happened, and
BP was wasn't trusted on this important issue of climate
change that the public cared about. So they needed to
do something to signal that they got it on climate change.
It could be part of the energy transition. Of course,

(55:02):
nothing in the presentation was actually about concrete things that
they would do, like stopping gas production. It was all
about the ways that they would remark it themselves. And
so I think it's worth all of us, you know,
being able to see that stuff is what it is,
which is propaganda. It seems clear that the economics of
wind and solar have gotten much much better, very compelling

(55:23):
these days. Isn't there a strong argument for BP just
being a responsible steward for their shareholders money, investing more
money in those technologies and you know, leaving some oil
in the ground. I think the problem is that from
the shareholder perspective, from the workings of contemporary capitalism perspective,

(55:47):
BAPY has these huge assets that are reserves of oil
and gas in the ground, and their corporate valuation reflects
that their ability to pay dividends or if it's that,
and as soon as they start saying, oh, we're going
to leave some of that in the ground, then yes,

(56:07):
they are managing a financial decline. And in a sense
it means that that certainly my challenge to to burn
a Lney to say, set targets for reducing production is
going to be very hard as a businessman for him
to take. I just, yeah, I want to zero in
on this point DU's making because I think it's so critical.

(56:30):
I think the BP and other oil majors want to
convince the public that their key to the energy transition.
The reality of it is that, yes, there is money
to be made in clean energy. Maybe big oil companies
aren't the best suited to do that. You know that
there are clean energy companies that should be doing that,
and I think it raises a question for us, do
you really want BP to be controlling the energy of
the future. This is the company that has for decades

(56:52):
run over communities, violated international human rights laws, billed oil
into the Gulf of Mexico, failed to clean it up,
failed to hate the money that it was owed. I
don't want BP running the clean energy of the future.
I'd much prefer that it's managed publicly, that it's in
smaller cooperatives, and we have that choice right now. To
make that transition into Duncan's point. What we need for

(57:14):
BP they should be held accountable for the damage that
they've gone and the ill begotten profits that they've made
during a period in which we knew, and they knew
from their own science, that every barrel of oil they
dug out of the ground was furthering a planetary catastrophe.
They knew that last quarter when they made record profits.
So why should they and their shareholders who also knew

(57:36):
that and have decided to stick with BP, why should
they be rewarded for that? So, if I may, what
I'd like to emphasize about that is how the dynamic
of oil companies wanting to maintain the value of their reserves,
and oil companies doing political lobbying and marketing to position

(57:58):
themselves as part of the energy transition are both about
the modern face of climate denial. The modern face of
climate denial is about delay. It's to say, oh, yeah,
of course, now we're we're happily accept that climate change
is happening. We understand this is a problem. But if
we move too quickly, then we cause all sorts of

(58:21):
other problems, and those things all converge around them extracting
the most profit from their asset base and continuing to
prolong the climate crisis. I want to ask you both
to suspend your disbelief for a minute, because in this
part of the show, I do want to explore actual ideas,

(58:44):
like if we're going to take them seriously and say, okay,
they really Meanwhile, they're really trying to do this, what
should they do? So so let me run a couple
of ideas past both of you and just get your
get your take. So, first of all, John Brown, the
former CEO of EP who actually initiated the Beyond Petroleum
rebrand and and began what I believe was at the

(59:06):
time a genuine attempt at a transition to being a
sustainable energy company. He recently said that he thinks that
the company should be split into to spin out the
renewable energy assets the company has as a separate company,
essentially create VP Future, which is rapidly growing, less capital

(59:26):
intensive and valued at a premium by investors, and BP
passed the oil assets, which are capital intensive, unloved by
the market and in decline, and then just let the
market decide. So this is a former CEO saying this,
what's your take on that? Yeah, that would be interesting
if PP moved in that direction. The one thing I'd

(59:49):
raise on it as a challenge. I know we're trying
to be a bit more optimistic here, but since Duck
and I are good skeptics, it's okay. Is that the
liability issue. If if BP has known for decades that
their products were causing climate change, like Big Tobacco new
that its product was addictive and causing health impacts, what

(01:00:09):
sort of responsibility do they have to help pay for
the damage that those products have cost. And so when
we talk about BP being able to spin off a company,
you know that's often what companies do to avoid liability.
And so I think the question would be making sure
that um, you know, they're not able to kind of
dodge their social responsibility by creating a dirty version of
their industry and then hiding the assets there. But maybe

(01:00:32):
to embroider the thoughts of what would be p do
if they were admitting some liability, what would be the
sort of investments or spending they should do. And here
I think that the idea of a just transition and
energy transition that actually pays attention to social justice in

(01:00:53):
terms of consumer need and worker need would be helpful.
And you may know there's been extinction rebellion spinoff campaign
in the UK recently called Insulate Britain. Well, I think
that's what BP should do. That they should actually do
the program of retrofitting good insulation in the homes of

(01:01:14):
people in fuel poverty, particularly the homes of people who
are in fuel poverty because of the rising gas prices.
And they should go a step further, of course, which
is go around all those homes and install heat pumps
instead of gas boilers, so that they could then cut
the demand for the product that they've been selling and

(01:01:36):
profiting from the cost of climate change. I mean, that's
a really important point, and I think Duncan raises another
piece of this which is interesting, which is that for
the transition to take place, we also have to deal
with all of the oil and gas infrastructure that currently exists.
You know, you can't just turn it off and then
leave it. They're spewing methane for decades to come, and

(01:01:56):
so there's an incredible amount of work that BP could
be doing, and it could be engaging probably more people
that are currently employs to deal with all of the
various oil and gas wells and infrastructure that has left behind.
These in many ways, are forever liabilities that we're gonna
have to deal with. It's not quite so simple as
plugging a well and hoping that it never admits methane again.
You need people to go back and check it and

(01:02:18):
verify that it's been done right, and then you know,
manage that process going forward. And so there there is
a role in a way to kind of reimagine energy
companies of the past, these oil and gas giants playing
a role, as Duncan was saying, and helping kind of
do the retrofits and transition we need to move to
clean energy, but also taking some responsibility for managing the

(01:02:39):
damage that they've done and making sure that over the
decades to come, we're not having big blowouts of you know,
c O two that's been pumped somewhere, or numerous oil
and gas wells continuing to leak methane and push us
past global limits. Now tie to your question about shareholders,
this may require us rethinking some of these says when

(01:03:00):
it comes to capitalism, or beginning to at least put
in some interesting government incentives and doing the finance work
to do that. And so I think that campaigners over
the last few years have really begun to focus on
finance as a key target, pressuring folks like Black Rock, JP,
Morgan Chase, you know, others to play a larger role here.
We need those players to come in. BP might not

(01:03:22):
be able to do this loan. They're big, but maybe
they're not quite big enough to manage this, and so
figuring out the ways to structure their debts and get
government regulators involved in financed this whole transition is a
really interesting process that we need people to start thinking about.
Pent Look, we're we're big fans of the notion of
rethinking capitalism on this show, but I want to follow

(01:03:44):
that thread because you mentioned black Rock, and we've done
enough that black Rock, and we spoke with Taric Fancy,
who's the former head of sustainable investing at black Rock
and left because he just ultimately felt like he was
engaged in greenwashing there. And his take on the problem
is that it is I don't want to put words

(01:04:05):
in his mouth, but his basic thesis was that it's
hopelessly naive to expect companies to essentially self regulate, and
he thinks that regulation, specifically a carbon tax, is the
only medicine that will solve the problem of climate change.
What are the two of you think about That a
carbon tax could be a very helpful tool, It alone
is unlikely to solve the problem because simply what we've

(01:04:30):
seen in the past is that the generic incentive that
a carbon tax or equivalent gives is rarely enough to
bring about the transformation and technologies. So I think, yeah,
carbon tax good can help, not the single answer. Of course,
when we're when we're talking about carbon taxes as the answer,

(01:04:53):
we have to remember that that BP spent thirteen million
dollars in eighteen blocking a carbon tax in a divin
Washington State, and then afterwards just said, oh, well, it
wasn't the right carbon tax initiative. And my experience going
back over the years is that this is a common narrative.

(01:05:14):
When companies are offered taxes, they say the taxes aren't
quite right and they weren't voluntary measures. When they're offered
voluntary measures, they say, well, then we'll get undercut by
the cowboys, so we need regulatory measures. And when they're
offered regulatory measures, they say, well, this isn't really the
free market. Why don't we have taxes. Yeah, we have

(01:05:35):
a word for that. We call it bullshit. Which brings
me to my final question for both of you on
calling BS. We have something called the BS index or
the BS scale, and it goes from zero to one,
zero being the best score zero BS and a hundred

(01:05:55):
being the worst total BS. I want to ask both
of you to read be e P on the B
S scale. I'll start with you, Duncan. That's that's interesting.
I'm gonna throw them a bone and give them only
a writing. Okay, you're in a good mood today. Um,

(01:06:22):
all right, thank you for that, Duncan and Jamie, Well,
I'm glad Duncan said a high bar. You know, I
was thinking about this in two ways. One is sort
of the only standard that really matters, which is the
kind of standard of physics and chemistry and the climate,
in which case, you know, maybe we'll give BP a
score that relates to the amount of money they're still
investing of their capex and in oil and gas, which

(01:06:44):
is something like a ninety six percent um, And you know,
maybe that's a good way to do it now, to
throw them a bit of a bone, as Duncan did,
and we're trying to be charitable. I would say that
BP is ahead of the other oil companies, and so
maybe we'll drop it down to a nineties Nan was saying,
because I think two bps credit. They have been the
only one to really say that they do need to

(01:07:05):
reduce production. They did right off seventeen billion dollars of
oil and gas assets by saying that those were stranded
and needed to be kept in the ground. And they
have talked about sort of the larger need for this
transition to happen. And so you know, again, if anybody
feels like we're being a little too harsh on them,
just remember that they rebranded back into Fast and here
we are today, and so I would take everything they

(01:07:27):
do with a bit of skepticism, but at the very least,
it's good to see them beginning to move agreed. Okay,
listen this this was a great conversation. I could have
spent the rest of the afternoon talking with both of you.
I really appreciate it. So, folks, it's time to give
BP our official BS score. The companies saying all the

(01:07:48):
right things, but they lost massive amounts of trust when
they did this to us the first time, and as
all of our experts have pointed out today, their actions
so far are inadequate and incoherent at best. Based on
what I've heard today, I'm going to give BP a
ninety five. To bring that score down, they're gonna need

(01:08:09):
to make some big changes. To weigh in with your
own score, visit our website Calling Bullshit Podcast dot com.
We'll track BP's behavior over time to see if they
can bring it down. You'll also be able to see
where BP ranks on BS compared to the other companies
and organizations we feature on this show. And if you're

(01:08:31):
starting a purpose led business or you're thinking of beginning
the journey of transformation to become one Here are three
things that you should take away from this episode. One,
Transparency and coherence build trust. It comes up over and
over again this season. BPS saying that they're pivoting to

(01:08:53):
become a sustainable energy company but then also trying to
convince the world that natural gas is a sustainable, renewable
energy resource is just ludicrous, as is claiming that you're
taking on climate change while at the same time remaining
a dues paying member of an industry trade group that's

(01:09:14):
spreading misinformation about climate change. If your words and deeds
lack coherence, then anything you say, even if it's true,
will seem ridiculous. Two, show me the money. It's all
about action. If VP means it, they need to prove

(01:09:34):
it through action. Today we've talked about important actions like
cutting support for industry lobbying groups that are climate change deniers,
or discontinuing any misleading pr or advertising, and potentially seismic
actions like actually breaking the company into to make it
really clear that there is a dirty fossil fuel VP

(01:09:58):
of the past at a clean VP of the renewable
and sustainable energy future, and then letting investors choose which
one they want to invest in. Your actions would undoubtedly
be different, but the point is doing is always believing. Three.
Let's forget about the oil for a minute. There's gold

(01:10:21):
in this episode for purpose led entrepreneurs who want to
create the BPS of tomorrow. As Jamie and Duncan both said,
Big Oil has dragged its feet for so long that
BP and the other super majors may not be savable,
and that's fine. Sometimes companies just need to go away.

(01:10:42):
But there's an opportunity here to start a green energy
company that isn't weighed down by legacy investments in fossil fuel.
If nothing else, I hope this episode inspires somebody to
just go make that happen. And Bernard Looney, CEO of BP,
if you, whoever want to come on the show and
talk about any of the ideas or topics that we

(01:11:04):
touch on in this episode, I want you to know
you have an open invitation. I'd like to thank everyone
who joined us today, Tyson Slocum, Jamie Hen and Duncan McLaren.
You can learn more about them in our show notes.
And if you have ideas for companies or organizations we

(01:11:26):
should consider for future episodes, you can submit them on
our website calling Bullshit podcast dot com and if we
performed while transforming you today, please let us know by
rating and reviewing us on the I Heart Radio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. And thanks

(01:11:48):
to our production team Hannah Beal, Amanda Ginsburg, Andy Kim
d s Moss, Hailey Pascalites, MICHAELA. Reid, Parker, Silzer based
Soaper and me John Zulu. Calling Bullshit was created by
co Collective and is hosted by Me Time onto you.

(01:12:08):
Thanks for listening. Before you go, we'd love to hear
what you think about the show. Maybe you were inspired
to take action, maybe you disagree with today's bullshit rating.
Either way, we want to hear about it. Leave us

(01:12:30):
a message at two one two five oh five to
Zo five, or send a voice memo to CBS podcast
at co collective dot com. You might even be featured
on an upcoming episode.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}BP: Breaking Promises?

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

All Episodes

BP: Breaking Promises?

Stuff You Should Know