Last week, Chevron stopped oil production
at a site on the seabed off Brazil after a new oil leak was found. This is
coming up right on the heels of another oil spill from Chevron in Brazil last November.
The November spill occurred in the Frade field about 240 miles from the Rio de
Janiero. Chevron is dealing with a multi-billion dollar lawsuit for the Frade
spill. Brazil is also pressing charges for this new spill, filing multiple
charges one of which is “environmental crimes.”
This article brings up many questions
for me from an environmental justice standpoint, especially after seeing parts
of the documentary Crude in class.
One thing I found interesting is that the article highlights the nationalities
of the 17 executives who are being prosecuted: five from the United States,
five from Brazil, three from Australia, two from France, one from Great
Britain, and one from Canada. I find this interesting, because as we saw in
Crude, it is not simply “Brazil” versus “Chevron.” In Crude, the oil company’s
lawyer was born and raised in Ecuador and in this case Chevron has five
Brazilian executives working on these oil sites. It is similar to the caution
we use when not mythicizing an indigenous people as completely one with nature,
never hurting a tree or animal in the name of conservation. While the Brazilian government is
trying to protect its sea shores from the harm of oil spills, there are also
Brazilian executives working for Chevron, trying to dig deeper and ever
increase profits.
Thinking in these terms, I also
wonder why Brazil is allowing digging so deep in the first place. I researched
the Frade spill a little further, since I hadn’t heard of it before, and found
that Brazil is being so stringent in prosecuting for these oil spills because
it is undertaking a massive deep sea oil plan. Brazil obviously wants to avoid
the disaster that BP had, however if they truly want to protect their seashores
then why are they expanding on such a dangerous method of oil extraction? Brazil
has banned Chevron’s drilling before, why allow them back in if they use such dangerous
methods? I think this ties in to our discussion of a utilizing green image
without the true meaning of conservation at heart. The Brazilian government
gets “Green” points for going up against the big bad Chevron, and at the same
time are expanding their deep sea oil plan. Brazil gets more than 85% of its power
from renewable energy, so they are capitalizing on this dangerous oil
extraction method to maximize their profit from selling oil. The entire plan is
incredibly risky for the environment, especially coming from a country with
such success in and focus on renewable energy. The article from BBC gave the
perspective of Brazil, “the victim,” filing suit against Chevron, “the bad guys.”
I don’t think the situation was quite so black and white, but where do you
think the injustice lies?
I think you do a really nice job highlighting the complexities of these situations: it ISN'T black and white. Chevron might not be a "good guy," but Brazil isn't 100% "the victim," either. They are just as interested in making money and coming out on top as well.
ReplyDeleteI can understand why Brazil wants to make money even though they're mostly renewable. But what I don't agree with is what you highlighted: that they are able to claim green points for their energy sources while they are making a profit by providing to not quite as green countries. They should be trying to sell patents on their green energy or else making a profit by becoming more stringent about their safety regulations in the first place. It's all fine to sue a company after a leak is discovered, but if they put their efforts into enforcing pre-leak safety techniques, then they may be able to save themselves a very pretty penny.
Also, one would think that with all of the publicized leaks and lawsuits abound in the world today that oil companies would be much more cautious about how they are mining. But these companies are acting like they are so big and so powerful and so rich that these international lawsuits are worth the penny they pay, because it does not come close to the money they make by drilling in that leaky area. That is mind boggling to me. And that is one of the true environmental injustices to me: that there are people so rich that they are still making a profit by suffering the consequences for harming the environment.
This article is especially interesting after seeing the excerpt from the video "Crude" in class. After consulting the article, I would also ask the question of why is Chevron allowed to drill at all in Brazil given their history? Could it be that the Brazilian government anticipates there will be future leaks and various problems which they might capitalize on? While this possibility does not put the Brazilian government in a high regard, their motives must still be questioned. There comes a point when the potential for profit must be sacrificed in order to protect the environment.
ReplyDeleteI believe the true injustice of the whole situation lies within the great focus of modern society on money making. Knowingly placing the natural environment at risk by allowing dangerous drilling practices makes the Brazilian government guilty of environmental injustice. You stating that the circumstances are not black and white couldn't be more true. There is most certainly not one, single "victim" of the injustice. It is evident that Brazil's government is not only negatively affected by the drilling, but is also allowing it to continue. Action should be taken to hold Brazil accountable for its actions as well as alleviate the problem of leaks during offshore drilling. Perhaps the best course of action would be eliminating this method of offshore drilling altogether.