By Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium blogger
A Bolivian judge ordered Chevron this week to pay $8.6 billion in damages for polluting the Amazon rainforest from 1964 until 1990. The payout is the second largest ever in an environmental case, with only the damages BP agreed to pay in the wake of last summer's Deepwater Horizon spill being higher.
Environmental lawyers and advocates hailed the case as a landmark victory, but as Rebecca Tarbotton reports at AlterNet, Chevron is still planning to fight the case.
"In fact, the oil giant has repeatedly refused to pay for a clean up even if ordered to by the court," she writes. "In one chilling statement, Charles A. James, Chevron's vice president and general counsel, told law students at UC Berkeley that Chevron would fight 'until hell freezes over, and then skate on the ice.'"
The Cost of Doing Business
Chevron can continue to fight the case because it's cheaper for them to fund their lawyers than to cough up billions. Like so many environmental issues, this one comes down to money, which environmentally destructive corporations always seem to have and activists, regulators, and victims simply don't.
In Washington, the newly empowered Republican Party is doing its darndest to make sure that remains the case. It's budget season, and the Environmental Protection Agency is one of the prime targets for cutting in Republicans' budget proposals. Kate Sheppard reports at Mother Jones that House Republicans are not only trying to take away $3 billion from the agency, but also are pushing to bar the EPA from regulating carbon or other greenhouse gasses. Putting this in context, Sheppard writes:
The National Wildlife Federation says the cuts amount to a "sneak attack" on existing environmental laws like the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, because they would make it basically impossible for the EPA to do its job. The huge cut--the biggest in 30 years--"would jeopardize the water we drink and air we breathe, endangering the health and well-being of all Americans," Gene Karpinski, the president of the League of Conservation Voters, said Monday.
The need for green
But environmentalists have their backers, too. At Grist, Bill McKibben, the author and climate activist who co-founded the climate group 350.org, has an interesting look at how the Sierra Club's National Coal Campaign, led by Bruce Nilles, banded together with other environmental activists to successfully shut down proposals for coal-fired power plants across the country. One of the keys, of course, was money:
A consortium of foundations led by the Rockefeller Family Fund helped provide not only resources for the fight but crucial coordination. By the summer of 2005, RFF's Larry Shapiro, David Wooley from The Energy Foundation, Nilles, and others formed a loosely organized "coal cadre."
The coordination was crucial not only for the advocacy groups involved, which each have different strengths and geographical bases, but for the money men as well:
"I first went to Florida in 2005 to meet with several groups fighting coal plants," said Shapiro. "I thought I would figure out who we could give $50,000 to. After my trip, I realized it wasn't a $50,000 project -- it was a million-dollar project. Over time, the Energy Foundation and others got into the game, so we ended up with some real money."
In the end, McKibben reports, RFF gathered together, from its own pockets and from other foundations, $2.8 million.
On top of the type of advocacy work that McKibben details, there's another reason why more communities and companies are moving away from coal-fired power plants: they have a choice. Plants fueled with natural gas are a popular alternative, but as Gina Marie Cheeseman writes at Care2, in some areas, onshore wind power can compete with coal on costs.
"In some areas of the U.S., Brazil, Mexico and Sweden, the cost of wind power ($68 per megawatt hour) generated electricity is competitive with coal-fired power ($67 a megawatt hour)," Cheeseman writes. Wind power is also, she notes, competitive with natural gas, according to the American Wind Energy Association.
Close to home
These sort of adjustments make it easier for consumers to make sustainable choices. And in the end, personal choices do impact the amount of carbon humanity is spewing into the atmosphere. As two recent European studies showed, men make choices that generally produce more carbon emissions than women, Julio Godoy reported for Inter Press Service.
One study focused on France, the other on Germany, Greece, Norway, and Sweden. The second study, conducted by researchers at the Swedish Defence Research Agency, found that men ate more meat, drank more processed beverages, and drove more frequently and for longer distances. Annika Carlsson-Kanyama, one of the study's authors, has argued that their results apply more broadly, too.
"These differences are not specific to the four countries studied, but are generalised across the European Union and have little to do with the different professional activities of men and women," she told Godoy.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Follow The Media Consortium on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tmcmedia