In response to the 60 Minutes report about contamination of the Amazon rain forest in Ecuador, Chevron apparently hired its own reporter to create its own version of the report.  According to the New York Times:

Both videos start with a correspondent appearing on camera and calling it a “bitter” dispute. But from there, they diverge. The “60 Minutes” report visits the rain forest, talks to the Ecuadorean judge and interviews a Chevron manager. The Chevron video interviews the same Chevron manager, as well as five professors who are consultants to the oil company, but none of the plaintiffs.

The Chevron video never directly claims to be journalism. But a casual viewer could be swayed by the description — “Gene Randall reporting” — and the journalistic devices used, including file footage of the rain forest and over-the-shoulder interviews with experts. Chevron declined to answer questions about the video.

Chevron also bought Google ads so that its own website about the lawsuit, which includes the video, appear as the top link when anyone googles "Chevron in Ecuador".

It's unclear how much Chevron spent on the video and website, but it seems that money would have been better spent actually cleaning up oil wells in Ecuador. Surely that would have done more to improve Chevron's image than this bit of greenwash.

We've mentioned in previous posts Chevron's pending legal battle in Ecuador. Well, last Sunday 60 minutes did its own expose on the lawsuit and Chevron's legacy of toxic waste pits that continue to pollute communities in the Amazon.  

Acording to 60 Minutes, over 23 years, Texaco (now owned by Chevron) pumped out one and a half billion barrels of oil from the Amazon. Hundreds of wells were drilled, and at each site, pits were dug to hold toxic oil waste that comes up during drilling. Generally two or three pits were carved out near the well site. Trouble is, when Texaco finished its drilling, the waste pits were abandoned by the hundreds and for decades.  Communities have counted over 900 abandoned toxic wells in the region. One pit 60 Minutes saw has been there for 25 years and was actually designed to overflow into streams.

Watch the video on CBSnews.com

Besides inspired sticker artists, inspired online parodists have taken on Chevron's "Will You Join Us?" greenwash campaign.  My personal favorite?

 -Stop Greenwash

While the oil companies claim that wind and solar power are simply not "economic," the market continues to prove them wrong:

The United States passed Germany to become world #1 in wind power installations, and China’s total capacity doubled for the fourth year in a row. Total worldwide installations in 2008 were more than 27,000 MW, dominated by the three main markets in Europe, North America and Asia.

Global wind energy capacity grew by 28.8% last year, even higher than the average over the past decade, to reach total global installations of more than 120.8 GW at the end of 2008. Over 27 GW of new wind power generation capacity came online in 2008, 36% more than in 2007.

The excuses for avoiding renewable energy keep falling apart, don't they?

More good news from the anti-greenwash front: local DC activists have taken on Chevron's (in)famous "Will You Join Us?" greenwash campaign. I'd go on, but this picture says it all...

As reported on DC Indymedia, Chevron's history of dumping toxic wastes and supporting gross human rights violations presents an interesting backdrop for their campaign of individual responsibility. You can see more products of the sticker-wielding activists in their gallery, here.

-Stop Greenwash 

More evidence of BP not actually being "Beyond Petroleum".  The company accounced yesterday that BP Solar will sharply curtail manufacturing operations around the world, a cost-saving move that will result in the loss of 140 jobs at a solar panel plant in Frederick and 480 at two factories in Madrid.

According to the Washington Post, 

"The moves by BP Solar, which casts silicon into parts that are assembled into solar panels in Frederick, come as companies in the green-energy industry attempt to slash expenses in light of global economic pressures. The companies, according to analysts, are struggling to remain competitive with the price of petroleum, which has fallen from its record highs in the last several months...

"This comes at a time when solar markets are unsettled by the impact of the global economic environment, an over-supplied market, increased competition and rapidly falling prices," BP Solar chief executive Reyad Fezzani said in a statement.

Meanwhile, also yesterday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee released draft climate legislation that would require 25% of US electricity to come from renewable sources by 2025. Wouldn't that make this a great time to invest and ramp up solar operations? Seems like it to us.

Fred Pearce in The Guardian recently pointed out that Shell has sold out on its renewable promises, claiming they are 'not economic'. 

At a time when new bosses at Exxon in the US are making overtures to Barack Obama's idea of a new green deal to fight climate change, Shell is going back to the bad old days.

In recent years, Shell has invested more than $1bn in the most commercial of the new renewable industries, wind power. It claims to have more than 500MW of wind power capacity altogether — the equivalent of half a regular power station.

It was chicken feed for them. But many hoped for more. Then last year, Shell pulled out of what would be the world's largest offshore wind farm in the Thames estuary. The London Array would have tripled its wind capacity.

The company claimed at the time that it was going to concentrate its renewables business in the US. Now that promise has quietly disappeared. Last week, its head of gas and power, Linda Cook, told reporters: "We do not expect material amounts of investment [in wind and solar] going forward." Biofuels will still get cash. Everything else is back into cold storage.

 

Read the full article

One of ExxonMobil's wholly misleading ads, inspired this, well, inspired spoof:

A new Guardian article makes a nice companion piece to our previous article on Shell and it's history of doing everything possible to be ungreen. We'll let this speak for itself:

"The company has predicted that by 2025, 80% of energy will come from fossil fuels and 20% from alternative energy sources. Yet it is spending just over 1% of its budget on alternative technologies. Over the past five years, only $1.7bn of the $150bn it has invested has gone towards alternative energies."