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.