It's funny how a person can be coaxed into wading into a very complicated issue without knowing all of the facts. That's what happened when
The New York Times' Columnist Bob Herbert wrote a
grossly inaccurate column about Chervron's involvement in Ecuador.
The BP Oil Spill, a totally awful event that British Petroleum should pay the damages for, has opened the floodgates for a torrent of rhetoric on the part of people who just want to point a finger, but not know the truth.
In this case, while this blogger can't make that claim against Bob Herbert, it's clear the NY Times columnist was manipulated into telling a horrible caricature of the truth behind the Chevron Ecuador environmental damage issue. A truth that leaves Ecuador itself untouched.
To put it simply, in talking and listening to the side suing Chevron -- which claims to represent the "indigeous tribes" of Ecuador, but really is
representing the Government of Ecuador as well as their
own desire to become billionaires...
-- and not doing a bit of independent research, let alone
listening to the other side (he talked to them), Bob Hebert made the following errors:
Texaco came barreling into this delicate ancient landscape in the early 1960s with all the subtlety and grace of an invading army. And when it left in 1992, it left behind, according to the lawsuit, widespread toxic contamination that devastated the livelihoods and traditions of the local people, and took a severe toll on their physical well-being.
Wrong Bob Hebert. The first error was in just reading the lawsuit without using the Internet to research the case. The fact is Texaco turned over control of the oil wells to the Ecuador-owned oil company called PetroEcuador in 1992. Chevron noted that it did clean up the land it used in 1992, but this is 2010, and the land's still being used for oil production and not by Chevron.
The undercapitalized PetroEcuador, clearly in over its head, has caused massive oil spills and explosions in the Amazon region between 1992 and today, (and mentioned before in this space). Moreover oil companies from Canada and Europe have produced oil and caused damage too, but you don't see a thing about that unless you read this space or do research.
That set of facts alone is enough to discredit Hebert's article because at no point in it does he mention PetroEcuador's activity or for that matter any other oil company. Sloppy. From Hebert's take, you'd think there was no oil exploration or production in the Amazon after 1992. How not true.
Look, Bob's taking a side, and that's cool, but Hebert doesn't know what he's writing about, that's the problem.
Bob failed to mention how Ecuador President Rafael Correa himself has worked to kick out American oil companies and nationalize oil production. Hebert failed to mention how Correa allowed Brazil to product oil in the Amazon region for compensation. Bob Hebert failed to note the 118 oil spills that have happened in the Amazon region since 1992, and some claim its even more than that.
What was Bob doing when he wrote the column?
The point is the real organization that should be sued, and has not been, is the Government of Ecuador itself, which takes petro-dollars and fails to get them to the poorest citizens. Meanwhile Ecuador and American lawyer Steve Donziger have done a good job in fooling college students into forgetting that Ecuador too has a massive responsibility to its poor that it's failed to take on.
Ecuador is responsible for the damaged Amazon, not American oil companies. Bob should rewrite his column. He's got a right to his view and I defend that. Just get it right.
Shelley Madore
