Finally, and most importantly, Chevron is a fossil fuel company. Don’t you get it, people? Burning fossil fuels is not sustainable. In fact, if you believe the numbers compiled by Bill McKibben and the Carbon Tracker Initiative, which remain unchallenged by the oil industry, the global economy can burn no more than about 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide and stay below 2°C of warming, an climate target agreed-upon by nearly all the world’s nations. But fossil fuel corporations already now have 2,795 gigatons in their reported reserves -- five times the safe amount. Exploring for more fossil fuels, which is core to Chevron, is folly if you believe McKibben. [See my blogpost, Do the math: Bill McKibben takes on Big Oil.]
There’s much more to say, enough to fill a 64-page alternative annual report produced by environmental groups that oppose Chevron.
Cary Krosinsky, a founder of the Carbon Tracker Initiative who has just been named executive director of the Network for Sustainable Financial Markets (NSFM), says:
Chevron seems to be a company deeply mired in sustainability controversies around the world from the larger carbon bubble to Ecuador and much more. I wouldn’t want to own a sustainability focused fund that held Chevron without a proper explanation.
Nell Greenberg of the Rainforest Action Network, which ran a three-year campaign against Chevron, says:
Chevron likely puts out lots of data and checks all the right sustainability boxes to boost its sustainability rankings according to this methodology. However, unless a “data-driven” sustainability ranking builds in careful, qualitative judgments about a company’s overall social and environmental record, it will continue to miss the forest for the trees — vacuously patting company’s like oil giant Chevron on the back without taking into account reality on the ground or in our air and water.
"Super-Pacs... not the point"
"Super-Pacs... not the point" - FAIL!
From a practical standpoint, it doesn't matter whether I give $2.5M directly to Bob, or whether I give Beth $2.5M which I know will be given to Bob...either way my INTENT is to get Bob $2.5M. Super-Pacs are just a back-end method of funding candidates or issues.
With this factored into the equation, now the comparison in Mr. Gunther's article is again valid.
Good for Chevron! It's about
Good for Chevron! It's about time to fight back against eco-human-rights-ambulance chasers
Clueless
Clueless
Conflating donations to
Conflating donations to senate, house, and presidential candidates with pressure group donations to a state controller who then pressures a corporation presently in litigation with those very same donors is theater of the absurd (or green colored lenses; you choose).
Chevron gave around $99K to Romney, around $85K to Obama in 2012 election cycle. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000015
When you get past Diane Feinstein (#12 on Chevron's 2012 donation list, by size), most federal candidates got $10K or less. More obscure federal candidates got as little as $4,000. Sure, the SuperPAC's give large amounts, but that's not the point here.
A STATE CONTROLLER got $60,000 (2/3 of what Chevron gave Romney directly, only $25,000 less than they gave Obama) from a few individuals in litigation with a corporation the controller then turned around and (green) pressured the corporation by trying to leverage pension funds. You find that equivalent?
Ironically, one of your own, Nell Greenberg/RAN has it about right on this subject: "However, unless a “data-driven” sustainability ranking builds in careful, qualitative judgments about a company’s overall social and environmental record, it will continue to miss the forest for the trees — VACUOUSLY patting company’s like oil giant Chevron on the back without taking into account reality on the ground or in our air and water." (emphasis mine)
Sustainabilchemists had BP as the #6 holding in the DJ Sustainability index on the morning of April 20, 2010 (ring a bell?). They had won around a dozen "sustainability" awards in the 8 years prior to that, all while I know for a fact that corroded pipelines in Alaska leaked 200,000 gallons of crude, while Texas City refinery exploded, and while BP had near a billion in CERCLA and similar soil/groundwater liabilities on their balance sheet. Missing the forest for the trees? Could you sustainabilchemists need any better evidence?
Where Greenberg has it wrong is the "qualitative" judgments. That's what got you sustainabilchemists in the described situation with BP. Substitute "qualitative" with "quantitative" and insert the words "scientific risk-based and economically cost/benefit justified" in front of the word "judgments" and then you'll have a start. (By present ESG standards, you demonstrate that you have no concept of what is material to human health and the environment.)
While patting BP on the back for "reducing their carbon footprint", or "increasing the numbers of women and minorities in senior management positions", all the above environmental ills went unresolved. Instead, you gave them awards! Many of these ills (contaminated soil, groundwater, sediments) posed potentially serious threats to human health and the environment. But reducing your "carbon footprint" gets you the #6 holding on the DJSI.
Got the picture yet? Let me know if I need to make it any clearer.
Your comment hits the nail on
Your comment hits the nail on the head. Unfortunately one needs a technical background to ascertain these professional propaganda machines and the general public is quite happy to believe these esoteric organizations are giving it to us straight. Many (not all) of the companies on the DOW sustainability index have their statements written by lawyers so as not to run afoul of green washing advocates.