Shell needs to shell out the cash

Could Royal Dutch Shell finally be held accountable for some of its misdeeds? A Nigerian court has found Shell guilty of massive environmental degradation and has ordered the multinational to pay $1.5 billion in damages. Of course, whether the company actually pays up is another story- it won’t admit to this and other despicable acts, and we only have to look as far as another oil giant, ExxonMobil, to see that Big Oil seems to be exempt from paying court fees.

Could Royal Dutch Shell finally be held accountable for some of its misdeeds? A Nigerian court has found Shell guilty of massive environmental degradation and has ordered the multinational to pay $1.5 billion in damages. Of course, whether the company actually pays up is another story- it won’t admit to this and other despicable acts, and we only have to look as far as another oil giant, ExxonMobil, to see that Big Oil seems to be exempt from paying court fees.

Shell has a baaaad rap. Just recently nine contracted employees were taking hostage by kidnappers demanding that more of Nigeria’s people experience oil wealth first hand. They have also been the target of international boycotts following the execution death of Ken Saro-Wiwa and hundreds of other Ogoni people protesting Shell’s negative environmental and human rights practices. Shell seems to have bad relationships with local communities and good relationships with militants. And, Shell is notorious for its spills.

According to The Shell Report 2004, the Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies was responsible for spilling 53,886,442 liters (14,235,292 gallons) of crude and synthetic based oil between 2000 and 2004. That’s enough oil to fill the United States Capitol rotunda from floor to ceiling and two thirds of London’s St. Paul’s Cathedral. A 2005 Toyota Camry could travel around the world 19,436 times on the amount of oil Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies spilled in just five years. And it wouldn’t have to worry about running a flat—Shell spilled enough oil in 2005 to make 171,000 spare tires!

The Royal Dutch/Shell Group made U.S. equivalent $10 billion in the last quarter of the 2004 fiscal year. In the same fiscal year, the company was responsible for flaring 10,242,877 liters (2,705,882 gallons) of gas, spilling 7,348,150.54 liters (1,941,176 gallons) of crude and synthetic based oils, and emitting 12,000,000 tones of greenhouse gasses.

This oil giant needs to pay this relatively miniscule fine. It would be a crime if they evaded this the way ExxonMobil is evading the Exxon Valdez court fines.

(Credit Z.S.B. Brown for his facts and figures on Shell.)

Drilling in the Arctic Refuge will not improve our security

We all know that there’s been constant talk of security from both government and industry ever since September 11, 2001. Recently the security conversation has focused on Hurricane Katrina, the failure to deal with this natural disaster, and our oil dependency. Some say that this natural disaster has shown us that we need to decrease our dependency on foreign oil, and therefore drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. How this connection can be seriously established is beyond many of us, but it’s being touted as the only answer for our safety. One of the power-houses laying this message on pretty heavy is the single-issue lobby group Arctic Power. This is taken from their homepage:

This “message�? has more holes than a piece of pumice. But the point I’d most like to highlight here is the supposed security drilling in the Arctic would bring.

You might remember the oil spill that occurred in Alaska on October 4, 2001, four years ago today. A local hunter, quite intoxicated, shot the pipeline (supposedly impervious to bullets), causing what even the operators of the pipeline referred to as a “significant spill�?. Estimates on the number of gallons spilled range from 3,500 barrels to 6,800 barrels in just one day's time. The largest reported pipeline spill prior to this 2001 spill was a whopping 16,000-barrel (672,000-gallon) spill when the line was bombed with plastic explosives at Steel Creek near Fairbanks in February 1978. The people responsible were never discovered.

Here we are, years later, discussing terrorists, natural disasters, oil dependency, and security. A drunk hunter hits the pipeline with one rifle bullet, causing oil to spray over 75 square yards in a matter of hours, and we’re told that drilling in the Arctic is safe?

The point is this: oil drilling is messy – for the land and the sea, for communities nearby, for the consumers… for everyone but those who have no concern for the environment, and who have so much money that they could buy their way out of any mess. Our dependency is what makes us insecure, period. It doesn’t matter where the oil comes from- we’re not safe from natural disasters, terrorists, or drunk people with guns while we’re in this cycle of addiction and exploitation.

A Dark Day for the Arctic

The Senate voted today to include revenues from oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in its budget. The vote was 51-49.

This vote, though a major setback, does not end the fight. Each house of Congress will still need to vote at least twice more to finalize the budget and open the Refuge to drilling.

Big Oil Not Interested in Arctic Refuge

A recent story in the New York Times states that the oil industry has not shown much interest in drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The article cited BP and ConocoPhillips' withdrawals from the pro-drilling group Arctic Power, each of which followed Ecopledge campaigns, as proof of this fact. Congressional debate over the Refuge's fate may be affected by this article, as one might reasonably wonder why we should be considering drilling if the oil companies themselves aren't interested.

This article demonstrates that Ecopledge's efforts to protect the Arctic are bearing fruit. However, no company has yet publicly committed to stay out of the Refuge. This is probably because of industry fears of upsetting the Bush Administration. Public support will be key in convincing these companies that they are better off protecting the Refuge than the White House.

Otero Mesa - the new frontier for oil exploration

Despite opposition by New Mexico's governor, citizens and attorney general the Bush administration approved expansion of oil and gas exploration in Otero Mesa grassland, the largest source of untapped groundwater in New Mexico.

Richardson, the former secretary of Energy in the Clinton Administration stated, "I am very disappointed by the Bush administration's failure to respect New Mexico's position on oil and gas leasing in this precious, sensitive and world renowned area."

One of the most contested issues is the amount of water that will be used for oil and gas production and the quality of the water after it is used. Energy companies pump large amounts of groundwater while operating the oil well. The water after use is sometimes contaminated with saline or petroleum byproducts.

According to the Bureau of Land Management approximately 100 wells have been drilled in the last 100 years, and only two have produced oil or gas. Otero Mesa's production potential has been classified as low to moderate.

Where There's Oil, There's Oil Spills

Latest Alaskan Oil Spill Provides More Evidence that Critical Ecosystems such as the Arctic Refuge Should Be Preserved

On December 7, a Malaysian freighter spilled over 300,000 gallons of oil into the Alaskan Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. This spill, which the Alaska Oceans Program has called "clearly the worst economic and environmental disaster since the 11 million gallon Exxon Valdez spill in 1989", has demonstrated once again that oil development inevitably leads to significant environmental damage.

Congressional debate is likely to begin soon on whether to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Environmentalists must send a clear message to Congress that our most unique and valuable wilderness areas must be preserved free from development.

The Uncertanity of GE

Mark Shapiro, writer for the "Nation" explores the uncertainties of genetic engineering. Shapiro begins this article by exploring how GE strains made it into fields in this remote Mexican city and discusses the implications GE crops have on farmers both North and South.

The article then moves into a discussion on how GE technology is actually implemented today and where it may be headed tomorrow.

This article is a wealth of information for anyone interested in knowing more about GE foods their potential contributions and risks to the world's food supply.

ConocoPhillips Leaves Arctic Refuge Lobbying Group

Ecopledge, on behalf of Green Century Capital Management, won a significant victory for the Arctic Refuge when ConocoPhillips, Alaska's largest oil producer, withdrew from Arctic Power, a lobbying group that seeks to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. This decision demonstrates that the company does not see the Refuge as a priority. ConocoPhillips' decision could have an impact on the upcoming Congressional debate over drilling in the pristine wilderness area. Debate is expected to take place as early as February.

The story was covered by many news outlets, including the Wall St. Journal, NPR, and CBS Marketwatch.

The Environment, for a Penny a Gallon

The Globe and Mail reports on renewed efforts to drill for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. One of the key arguments made by advocates of drilling is the high price of gasoline. What they don't tell you is the effect that oil from the refuge would have on the price. It would lower the price by about one penny per gallon.

The Truth Behind SFI Certification

The Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) is a project of the American Forest & Paper Association, a woods products industry trade association. The SFI claims to be a certification system for sustainably managed forests. However, the SFI's standards fail to protect old growth, many endangered species and public lands from being logged. To date, the SFI has authorized at least 20 SFI certified companies to use the SFI name and logo on their wood products. These companies include: SPI, Pacific Lumber, Allegheny, Wood's Prod's and IP.

Today, activists from Don't Buy SFI Coalition forced decision makers at the North American Wholesale Lumber Association to come face to face with full color display photograph exhibit demonstrating the clear-cut forests and other destructive forestry practices that have been certified as sustainable.

Arctic Refuge isn't the Only Area in Alaska That Needs Protection

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, located in the northeastern corner of Alaska, has been the environmental community's top wilderness priority for many years. However, many groups are now looking at the impacts that development would have in other areas of Alaska's North Slope, and efforts have begun to protect the most critical wildlife habitats.

Audubon Alaska has conducted intensive research on an area known as the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, or NPR-A. This area comprises 23.5 million acres on western end of the North Slope, and is the largest block of public land in the U.S. NPR-A was established in 1923 to provide a domestic oil supply, and environmental groups do not oppose all exploration and drilling here. What concerns many wilderness experts is that the federal government appears set to allow these activities throughout NPR-A without any consideration for the significant wilderness values possessed by certain areas with the Reserve.

It looks like we may soon have another Alaskan hot spot on our hands.

Bush Roadless Rule Rollback Leaves Local Officials Feeling the Pinch

As was written in a previous blog entry, Bush's Ruthless Roadless Forest Rule Repeal, President Bush is attempting to roll back a rule that would prohibit destructive activities in 58 million acres of roadless land in National Forests.

A New York Times article published today documents how this rule change is playing out on the ground in our national forests and local communities.

Click here to read the article: here

President Bush's rule would replace the previous prohibition on logging in roadless areas with an approach that gives local politicians much of the control over what happens in our National Forests. These politicians receive significant money and support from the logging industry, and tend to favor clearcuts as far as the eye can see. As a result, local Forest Service officials, who for now are making decisions about where to allow logging until the court battle over the rules is finished, are under pressure from the logging industry to allow more logging in National Forests.

When is a roadless area no longer a roadless area? When a road has been built through it. The industry may be hoping that it can build a network of roads throughout our roadless areas now so that, even if they lose in court and the Roadless Rule goes into effect, much fewer roadless areas will remain to be protected by it.

Bush's Ruthless Roadless Forest Rule Repeal

In a press release issued today by Campaign to Protect America's Lands and Coalition of Concerned National Park Service Retirees, the Bush Administration was held responsible for jeopardizing the well being and health of 23 U.S. national parks and monuments. According to Peter Altman, Director of Campaign to Protect America's Lands, "The Bush Administration's repeal of the roadless rule turns our national parks into front row seats for the destruction of our national forests. Worse, the parks themselves will suffer from the collateral damage of timber clear-cuts, destroyed wildlife habitat and migratory corridors, streams destroyed by sediment and the noise and stench of industrial development. "

Never before in U.S. history has a rule had more support than the Roadless Rule. Yet the lobbying efforts of the American Recreation Coalition, a coalition of a hundred corporations including Coleman Company, Walt Disney and manufacturers of off-road vehicles and snowmobiles has come out on top once again. The administration's repeal of this rule is an undeniable offering to special interests at the expense of the environment.

Cruise Exec Pleads Guilty to Polluting Ocean Waters

On July 5, 2004 Richard Softye, former executive of Holland America cruise lines, pled guilty to six charges of falsifying records about its ships' discharge of polluted wastewater into the ocean lying about the cruise line's compliance with a court-ordered environmental audit.

In a galaxy far far away

the paperless office existed. Yet here on Earth the global consumption of wood products has risen, 64% between 1961 and 1998, and is expected to double by 2050, keeping pace with population growth. Even with the advent of email in the mid 1990’s, paper consumption has increased by 40%.

In the United States paper producers consume 1 billion trees, producing 725 pounds of paper per person per year. In Indonesia the pulp and paper industry destroys the rainforest so quickly that an area the size of Belgium disappears annually. In The Paper Chase, Jim Motavalli puts it this way:

The major source of this pollution is the chlorine used to bleach wood pulp white. Increased uses of recycled content could drastically reduce the levels of this potent carcinogenetic dioxin found throughout the world in air water, soil and food. Not surprisingly the paper industry says that it is doing its part. According to Michael Klien, a spokesperson for the American Forest and Paper Association, the paper and pulp industry is using all of the recycled paper it can get. He says that environmental advocates need to shift their demands and get people to recycle more!

Environmentalists agree that consumers need to more actively recycle. By doing so consumers will assure big potential buyers of recycled paper that a steady source of recycled paper will continue to exist. However, the paper industry must also do their part! Jeanne Tombly, founder of Fiber Futures, says that, “traditional companies are floundering and contracting, but there’s still not much enthusiasm for applying research and development money to innovative non-woods.�

The paper industry is at a crossroads right now. Until we reach the far away galaxies of paperless societies, we’ll need increased consumer recycling and increased industry commitment to ensure that alternatives to wood-based paper are sought and widely used. Only then will can we reduce the rate of climate change, save forests and cease the pollution of our life’s essentials.

Online Product Catalogs = A Possible Avenue for Paper Reduction

In a New York Times e-commerce report entitled "Product Catalogs on the Web" the reemergence of online catalogs was described as a boon not only for high-speed Internet customers but also for Internet retailing executives. With the advent of a growing broadband customer base and technological advances, high quality photos previously found only in conventional catalogs can be viewed on the Web, giving both customers and company executives a reason to celebrate.

But even with the overwhelming increases in sales via web catalogs and an overall rise in profits, companies remain convinced of the power of paper as an advertising vehicle. The reliance on paper catalogs is responsible for the destruction of virgin forests worldwide. According to ForestEthics, an Ecopledge ally currently working to reduce the environmental impact of the catalog business, US catalog companies send out more than 18 billion catalogs per year. Worst of all, 95% are discarded or recycled without ever being read.

With the customer receptivity to online catalogs, catalog companies should recognize that they can do more than increase profits and expand their customer base. They can also drastically reduce their use of paper.

Strong Vote on Arctic by ConocoPhillips Shareholders

Green Century Funds and U.S. PIRG just got a strong first-year vote by ConocoPhillips shareholders, demanding that the company make a public pledge to stay out of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. ConocoPhillips is the second-largest oil company operating in Alaska. Following recent statements by BP, a commitment by ConocoPhillips would reduce pressure to open up the Refuge for drilling. The positive vote puts Green Century and U.S. PIRG in a good position to continue to press the issue in the coming year.

For more, read the press release from Green Century and U.S. PIRG.

BP Announces Arctic Drilling not part of Current Business Plan

Good news from U.S. PIRG on the campaign to keep BP out of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge!

*****

For immediate release:
April 15, 2004

BP ANNOUNCES ARCTIC DRILLING NOT PART OF CURRENT BUSINESS PLAN
More than 6% of Shareholders Vote for No-Go Zones Resolution

In a victory for a campaign to persuade the London-based oil giant to stay out of sensitive and protected areas, BP Chairman Peter Sutherland announced at its annual general meeting today that drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge is "not part of its current business plan."

"Drilling in the Arctic doesn't make sense from an environmental standpoint and the company's announcement today shows that BP recognizes that it doesn't make good business sense either," said U.S. PIRG Arctic Campaign Director Athan Manuel. "We hope that we can build on a productive annual meeting and develop a long-term no-go zone policy for sensitive areas."

Manuel and the Right Reverend Mark MacDonald of the Episcopal Diocese of Alaska presented the resolution at Thursday's annual general meeting. The resolution, filed by a trans-Atlantic coalition of environmentalists, religious organizations, and socially responsible investors, directs BP to report on the risks associated with operating in sensitive and protected areas such as World Heritage Sites, IUCN categories, and national parks, monuments, and wildlife refuges. More than six percent of BP shareholders voted in favor of the resolution.

"For centuries, the Christian moral tradition and the Western legal tradition have consistently promoted aboriginal rights as fundamental elements of basic and minimal commitment to justice," said Reverend MacDonald. "Though these traditions are accepted almost unanimously in theory, government, corporations and sadly, even religious institutions have far too consistently undermined or stolen capacity for aboriginal peoples to survive," he concluded.

The Special Resolution, drafted by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG) Education Fund in December 2003, was co-filed by a broad coalition of environmental, financial, and religious groups, along with over 90 individual investors. This year's lead co-filers include the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, the Sierra Club, Clean Yield Asset Management, and some members of Ecumenical Council for Corporate Responsibility, including the Congregation of La Retraite.

"Today's vote sends a strong message to BP that the best way for the company to go beyond petroleum is to stay out of protected areas like the Arctic Refuge," said U.S. PIRG's Athan Manuel. "Adopting a no-go zones policy will make BP the industry leader on environmental issues and corporate responsibility."

In the last five years, the PIRG Arctic Wilderness Campaign has targeted oil companies that have an interest in drilling in the Arctic Refuge. ConocoPhillips shareholders will vote a similar resolution on on May 5, 2004. The campaign has filed 14 shareholder resolutions and generated more than 50,000 e-mail, phone calls, and letters to BP, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco. For more on the campaign visit: www.savethearctic.com.

For More Informations:
Athan Manuel (in London)
011 44 776 666 5119
Justin Tatham
202-907-6721
Liz Hitchcock
202-546-9707

Office Depot Victory!

Office Depot Announces Commitment to Protect Global Endangered Forests

When ecopledge launched our campaign on Office Depot in February, 2003, our request was simple. We asked Office Depot to stop selling products made from old-growth wood and wood taken from endangered forests. Office Depot responded last Earth Day with a policy that took some steps in the right direction, but that failed to provide fundamental protection for endangered forests around the world. In response ecopledge and our coalition partners in the Paper Campaign launched a grassroots campaign to bring Office Depot back to the negotiating table.

In the following months, ecopledge students acted with creativity and dedication. They rallied at Office Depot stores. They sent videotaped comments to Bruce Nelson, Office Depot CEO. They built tree graveyards on their campuses. They even wrote and performed plays featuring the Ghosts of Forests Past. We were joined in our efforts by activists from Forest Ethics, Dogwood Alliance, Free the Planet!, the Sierra Student Coalition, and many other activist groups. We were also aided by shareholder activists, including the Green Century Funds, Calvert, Trillium, and As You Sow.

Together, our efforts were successful. Our months of actions and activism have now paid off. The announcement by Office Depot of a revised environmental policy is the successful result of a year-long grassroots effort challenging the company to make a clear policy commitment to protect endangered forests!

In its revised policy, Office Depot seeks to influence the conservation of forests and biodiversity through using its purchasing power to influence its suppliers (the timber companies). It commits to:

* Identify endangered forests, including forests that are rare and vulnerable, contain exceptional biodiversity values, are subject to unsustainable management, or where illegal logging is occurring;
* Engage in landscape level conservation planning, including the establishment of ecological reserves;
* Work with its suppliers to end the conversion of natural forests to plantations;
* Work with its suppliers to prevent the use of genetically modified trees;
* Increase its overall post-consumer recycled content to at least 30%.

The steps taken by Office Depot, in combination with many other corporate commitments, is part of a broader effort to transform the paper industry away from the destruction of endangered forests, practices of over harvesting, and the conversion of natural forests to plantations and toward ecologically sound paper alternatives such as post-consumer recycled content and agricultural waste.

The Office Depot campaign has succeeded. Ecopledge will now move on to other companies and other campaigns to improve corporate behavior and protect the Earth. We invite your participation in this work.

The Paper Campaign coalition partners include:

* American Lands Alliance
* Dogwood Alliance
* Katuah Earth First!
* ForestEthics
* Green Corps
* Ecopledge
* Sierra Student Coalition
* Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project
* The Green Century Funds
* Free the Planet!
* Heartwood
* National Forest Protection Alliance
* Kentucky Heartwood
* Rainforest Action Network
* Rainforest Relief
* ReThink Paper
* Student Environmental Action Coalition
* Iowa STEP
* Shenendoah Ecosystem Defense Group
* Indiana Forest Alliance

and many local groups.