Crude: The Real Price of Oil

Crude (2009) a documentary film directed and produced by Joe Berlinger.

I saw this fascinating movie recently, and was moved but not entirely convinced as to what is the right thing to do.

From the two websites:

QUOTE [http://www.crudethemovie.com/ ] :

Three years in the making, this ... feature from acclaimed filmmaker Joe Berlinger ... is the epic story of one of the largest and most controversial environmental lawsuits on the planet. The inside story of the infamous "Amazon Chernobyl" case, Crude is a real-life high stakes legal drama, set against a backdrop of the environmental movement, global politics, celebrity activism, human rights advocacy, the media, multinational corporate power, and rapidly-disappearing indigenous cultures.

[and]

The landmark case takes place in the Amazon jungle of Ecuador, pitting 30,000 indigenous ... rainforest dwellers against the U.S. oil giant Chevron. The plaintiffs claim that Texaco - which merged with Chevron in 2001 - spent three decades systematically contaminating one of the most biodiverse regions on Earth, poisoning the water, air and land. The plaintiffs allege that the pollution has created a "death zone" in an area the size of the Rhode Island, resulting in increased rates of cancer, leukemia, birth defects, and a multiplicity of other health ailments. They further allege that the oil operations in the region contributed to the destruction of indigenous peoples and irrevocably impacted their traditional way of life. Chevron vociferously fights the claims, charging that the case is a complete fabrication, perpetrated by "environmental con men" who are seeking to line their pockets with the company's billions.

:UNQUOTE.

At the end of the movie, additional information was provided if (for example) viewers wanted more information on the oil company's side of the story. It would only make sense that Chevron would want to post its views for the benefit of its shareholders. This is a source I came up with after a brief google search: www.chevron.com/ecuador

Mixed emotions

One scene in particular was gut wrenching: It was hard to watch a baby, only a few months only, suffering from a severe skin rash allegedly caused by the oil-tainted environment. I thought, "Who will do something for this poor child? Will anybody step up to the plate for this poor victim?"

But then I thought: "Victim, yes. But of whom?"

Yes, Chevron had been extracting oil for about 20 years (since the early ‘70s), but claims it is being unfairly singled out as being the only responsible party in the lawsuit. Chevron asks why Ecuador's national oil company Petroecuador isn't also being challenged, since that company has been managing oil extraction operations since 1990.

According to Wikipedia: "In 1995, amid litigation, Texaco agreed to clean a number of waste pits in proportion to its interest in the consortium, at a cost of $40 million. In exchange, the government released Texaco from further liability. Chevron has used this agreement as its primary defense against the ongoing legal claim." [Footnote 1, below]

Interesting, indeed.

On one hand, one could claim that the sovereign government of Ecuador should have been responsible all along for safeguarding its own people and land against contamination. However, maybe local officials didn't know the long-term effects of the extraction process at the time. Or maybe they were bribed or had chosen to look the other way.

On the other hand, maybe indigenous peoples can claim redress of grievances by claiming they were victims of a crime against humanity. That's a stretch, perhaps, but that could be one way of bypassing the notion that a sovereign government is the only entity that should be held responsible for operations undertaken on its territory.

So, who will answer?

It was nice of a foreign foundation to supply containers for collecting rainwater, so the natives would have unpolluted water to drink. And it was nice that a wide variety of international allies have stepped forward to advance this David vs. Goliath lawsuit, now in its 16^th year.

Sixteen years? Don't they say, "Justice delayed is justice denied." Oh, maybe "they" say it but don't always mean it: Remember the infamous and quite meaningless declaration by the US Supreme Court, in Brown vs. The Board of Education, that schools be desegregated with "all deliberate speed?"

After watching Crude, I was convinced that indigenous peoples are suffering from the consequences of these toxic wastes. But I was also amazed at the huge volume of amassed evidence in written form. Can an Ecuadorean court be expected to competently rule on highly-sophisticated claims of damages and their refutations? Can that country be expected to have the resident experts and testing facilities to do justice in this case? [Yes, this case is wending its way through an Ecuadorean court.]

Should Chevron be held responsible, simply because it can pay the $27 billion at stake?

Should the US government generously offer to send in and pay for expert crews to repair the environmental damage? Not to mention also paying for medical care?

Should we dream of a day when an international court can decide such matters?

Should we take up a collection?

Almsgiving

Ah, that...almsgiving, as an answer to the question: Should we take up a collection?

Caring for the poor and disadvantaged is considered a virtue by all of the world's religions. And yet, too many don't. The Me First materialistic creed seems to outweigh the directives of ancient, dusty religious texts.

This much is certain: There's no way our Congress and President will step up to the plate on this one. Which is one reason why We-the-People have to take matters into our own hands. Each and every one of us. One by one. After personally making a silent resolution to Do the Right Thing.

But it's hard to reach out all the way to those suffering in the rain forest. Wouldn't most of our donations end up being siphoned off by corrupt officials, or as part of suppliers' inflated profit margins? Does a "yes" to this question mean we should do nothing?

We can wish all we want that we could affect distant events, alleviate distant suffering. But think about this: If we had had laws in effect, in the first place, which severely limited oil companies from polluting foreign lands, the Ecuadoreans of the Amazon wouldn't have suffered so greatly. But such laws will not come from an American President or Congress - unless we elect Independents to office.

Maybe that's the true meaning of "Think globally, act locally." [Hint, hint.]

If so, we've got our work cut out for us, for I hear that President Obammer* won't even see the Dalai Lama who is currently in Washington DC, since he wants to pay an official visit to China first (in November). Hmm...that's "change you can believe in" alright - or at least, that's change the Chinese can believe in and exploit. I thought "Change you can believe in" meant something else. So did a lot of people.

But we can put all that behind us, and should - in preparation for the 2006 national elections. If we don't, our idea of foreign aid will (still) consist of Megabucks for Israel and more intensive "efforts" in Afghanistan.

I cannot begin to tell you how much I actually detest President Blacque Obammer* - for the worst sin of all: peddling hope which he didn't even faintly believe in.

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"At the risk of sounding tedious and tiring, one more time - who's going to help that baby?" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnote 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lago_Agrio_oil_field

* The following essay explains why I refer to him as "Blacque Obammer": http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/12/why_blacque_obammer

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.