CHECK THE OIL

On Nov. 21st, Antonia Juhasaz wrote an op-ed in the L A Times, reprinted below. This morning, Chevron spokesman Dave Samson replied in a letter-to-the-editor, reprinted below the op-ed. I'm not quite sure what took him so long to respond - maybe he ran out of gas - but I responded to his letter with a letter of my own, reprinted at the bottom. You didn't think this was easy, did you?


Chevron's hype
The oil company's ads say it is investing heavily in alternative and renewable fuels, but corporate reports indicate otherwise.
By Antonia Juhasz
November 21, 2008

Chevron's "human energy" advertisements are everywhere: TV, magazines, bus stops and newspapers. The commercials -- which end with the words "oil," "geothermal," "solar," "wind," "hydrogen" and "conservation" flashing one at a time between the three bars of Chevron's logo -- encourage us to believe that the company is equal parts clean energy, conservation and oil. But is it really, as the commercials claim, "part of the solution" to the world's climate crises, rather than at the heart of the problem?

You'd think the company would be eager to demonstrate its commitment to alternative energy with accessible, easy to understand financial figures. In fact, the details are all but impossible to come by.

If you go to the company's website, you'll find cheery reports on various alternative fuels that state: "Chevron has invested more than $2 billion in renewable and alternative energy services since 2002. We expect to invest more than $2.5 billion from 2007 through 2009." But you will not find more detailed breakdowns that attach actual dollar amounts to specific investments in specific years.

If you call, you'll be told the same PR message: Some $4.5 billion in once and future green expenditures. And you may also get referred to other postings on the website, which include the company's "corporate responsibility report," annual shareholder reports and 10-K tax filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.But you won't get specific numbers -- as the company's spokesman told me, Chevron does not "break down spending for individual businesses" or "disclose more than has been disclosed in the 10-K."

So what is in the 10-K? I looked at the latest complete filing, which included 2006 and 2007, when Chevron's record-breaking profits, its net income after expenses, were $17 billion and $18.7 billion, respectively. I found page after page of financial information but no charts or chapters that make it possible to document, in any complete way, the company's yearly expenditures on "renewable and alternative energy services."

There was, however, an interesting chart to consider -- Chevron's "capital and exploratory" expenditures. It covered a great deal of the company's operations, from oil exploration, refining and marketing to its chemical business and beyond.

In 2006, Chevron spent $16.6 billion, and in 2007, $20 billion in this category. Of that, $13 billion and $15.5 billion, respectively -- nearly 80% -- went to searching for, developing and producing crude oil and natural gas. Not exactly green "services."

The chart also lists "all other" expenditures, which does include green enterprises: power-generating plants (four are "clean" geothermal operations); "alternative fuels" (the filing isn't more specific); and technology companies, which turn out to include Chevron Energy Solutions, which helps businesses increase energy efficiency and use renewable and alternative power; and Chevron Technology Ventures, which manages investments in emerging energy technology and its integration into Chevron's core businesses.

This "all other" category allows us to get a sense of the company's dollar commitment to alternative and renewable energy. Let's be extremely generous (because "all other" also includes dirty businesses too, like coal mining and traditional power plants, and apparently neutral expenditures such as "worldwide cash management") and credit the entire category to the green column: $417 million in 2006 and $774 million in 2007.

That's 2.4% and 3.8% of Chevron's total capital and exploratory expenditures. Not even a measly 4%.

Another way to look at it? In 2006, Chevron purchased the most expensive offshore oil-drilling rig in history for $600 million -- nearly 1 1/2 times its entire "all other" capital and exploratory expenditure that year.

And this is really the crux of the problem. Compared with what it spends producing oil and other environmentally catastrophic fuels in increasingly environmentally catastrophic ways -- scraping through tar sands, burrowing under mountains for oil shale and barreling into the depths of the ocean -- Chevron is spending minuscule amounts on clean alternatives.

The "human energy" ads are designed to get us to believe that when we fill up our tanks at a Chevron station, we're supporting clean energy, an assumption that might discourage us from advocating for new taxes on the oil industry or for cuts in its subsidies -- money that could be used for government investments in alternative energy.

The ads look nice, and to see Chevron's logo decorated with the words "solar" and "wind" is reassuring. But year in and year out, the energy giant's record-breaking profits don't go to renewable energy, they go to oil. Don't believe Chevron's hype.

Antonia Juhasz is the author of "The Tyranny of Oil: The World's Most Powerful Industry -- And What We Must Do to Stop It."



A part of the energy solution
Dave Samson
re: Chevron’s hype, Nov. 21

In the absence of insightful or informed comment in Antonia Juhasz's Op-Ed article, I would like to provide some balance.

We communicate not only Chevron's commitment to developing all forms of energy but the critical energy challenges facing us all. Billions of people are being lifted out of poverty who want the things we take for granted -- heat, light and mobility. This demand will require every form of energy.

Oil and gas are capital-intensive businesses that deliver energy at a tremendous scale. It takes huge investments to ensure that we don't even think twice that there will be fuel to get us to work or take our kids to school. And yes, we are also investing aggressively in the renewable energy businesses of today and ones that might be viable in the future.

Right here in California, Chevron Energy Solutions is helping schools and other public entities reduce energy use and use renewable power. We have also created a series of research and development partnerships to make next-generation biofuels from nonfood sources a reality, but we need to get the science right first.

We recognize that the way we use energy today has to change. We don't claim to have all the answers, but we are part of the solution to the world's growing energy needs.

Dave Samson

San Ramon, Calif.

The writer is general manager for public affairs for Chevron.

CHECK THE OIL
Bart Braverman

At the beginning of his letter-to-the-editor, Chevron spokesman Dave Samson caustically writes, “In the absence of insightful or informed comment in Antonia Juhasz's Op-Ed article (Chevron’s hype), I would like to provide some balance.”

He goes on to provides nothing, not a single answer to a single question raised in Juhasaz’s article. Instead he repeats the rhetoric of Chevron ads, praising Chevron as the world’s supplier of energy and the virtual savior of billions trapped in poverty who only want – wait a minute, let me wipe this tear away – “the things we take for granted.” And then for good measure, he throws in a little fear mongering, warning us how Chevron works “to ensure that we don't even think twice that there will be fuel to get us to work or take our kids to school.” As if Chevron could care less about people in poverty or children in school. Chevron is a money-making entity for whom the bottom line is the bottom line.

I am just old enough that I can remember when half a dozen tobacco executives were summoned to testify before Congress. When asked if they thought cigarette smoking caused cancer or was addictive, each of them starred straight ahead and said without hesitation, no, absolutely not! I don’t put too much stock in Mr. Samson’s idea of providing balance.

PARDON ME, MR. PRESIDENT

I know George W. Bush doesn’t read newspapers, at least he says he doesn’t. But maybe there’s someone who does, someone who knows the president personally and could tell him about Rosa Brooks’s extraordinary suggestion that he not end his term of office by issuing a long list of pardons-in-advance to people whose actions have been “questionable.” Instead, let the law takes its course. Just this once, do the right thing.

Referring to the final sixty days of his presidency, one pundit described Bush as a man who already has a towel around his neck and is heading for the locker room. Unconcerned with the final score, he is thinking only of the relaxing shower that awaits. But this one last play could be a game saver, an opportunity to do at least one thing right.

People have little memory for pain, prefering to focus on the positive. If George W. Bush were to fool everyone by being loyal in the end not to the small group of insiders who showed such disdain for the law but to the large group of voters who elected him, people would soon forget the lies that drove us to war and the incompetence that kept us there, remembering instead that before the final whistle blew, he did the right thing.

I suppose it isn’t likely – but one can always hope.

CONTINUING FIGHT

11/23/08

If you thought Proposition 8 was going to go quietly into the night, you should probably reconsider. Some in the Hollywood community ponder their next move, others are actively seeking revenge. The L A Times reports that some jobs have already been lost. Cooler heads are trying to prevail, but at the moment it is impossible to predict the outcome.

Proponents of the proposition seem to have forgotten that in the descriptive phrase, "gay Americans," the operative word is Americans. All Americans, gay or straight, are entitled to the same rights and privileges. Denying any group the right to marry denies them an equal place at the table. Such denials, whether they express the “will of the people” or the will of a single religeous organization, run counter to the principles of a free society and have been struck down in the past by the California Supreme Court. It is my understanding that as a result of prop. 8, the court has agreed to consider the question again.

Years ago, a group of NAZIs wanted to march in Skokie, IL, a suburb of Chicago with a large Jewish population. As I recall, their right to do so was defended in court by the ACLU. The issue then was free speech, the freedom of one group to express its hatred for another. The issue now is the effort of one group to restrict the activities of another. That is a whole different animal.

Contributing money to a political cause like prop. 8 does not come with the same assurance of privacy as casting a vote. In the case of the former, you are aiding a movement that alters the lives of others, and regardless of your intentions you should realize that there may well be consequences. That being said, I hope everyone involved will take a deep breath and seek the best results for themselves, rather than the worst results for others.

IT'S JUST A LOAN

11/10/08

Chevron has a great series of TV commercials. They’re all about new technology, clean energy, toddlers on the lawn, while a soft, thoughtful voice-over explains how much Chevron cares about America’s future. They remind me of the tobacco industry spots that warns young people of the evils of smoking.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, the auto industry is out of money. Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm made a pitch on Today for the big three – GM, Ford, and Chrysler – who apparently will run out of cash some time next year. If they do, and if the industry fails, that would mean a loss of 3 to 5 million jobs, which of course would be a catastrophe.

She didn’t say exactly how much money they need, but I think $10 billion is what they have in mind. Not a whole new $10 billion (they’re not crazy!), just a $10 billion slice of that $700 billion bank bailout pie the congress has already approved. And it’s just a loan, you understand. They’re gonna pay it right back.

I don’t know much about the auto industry – or any industry – but I can see that their downfall would be our downfall. And even though I believe in accountability, for right now I don’t think it is useful to haggle over whose fault it is. That can be done later. I know there are people who will resent bailing out yet another industry, but for right now I thing they should just get the money . . . I just don’t think they should get it from us.

Lucky for them, there’s another source out there that’s a much better fit. It’s got all the bucks with none of the resentment. Chevron! C’mon! In the last year, they had more profits than anyone in the history of profits. They are literally swimming in money. Besides, America needs the auto industry, the auto industry needs Chevron, and Chevron cares about America's future. This is a match made in heaven.

Wouldn’t it be nice if someone got us off the hook for a change?

ELECTION RESULTS

For those who choose not to believe in evolution, I refer you Tuesday’s election results. Without a doubt, human evolution is still a work-in-progress, still struggling to naturally select a winner with the best chance of advancing the species. Barack Obama has emerged, despite historical American prejudices, as that winner.

The president-elect says the struggle will be long and the climb will be steep. I think the struggle makes us stronger, and I look forward to it.

I do confess sadness over the passage of Proposition 8 in California. It appears that funding from the Mormon Church allowed two groups to conspired to ban same-sex marriage. The first group believes that they cannot fully exercise their rights as citizens unless they can limit the rights of others. Regardless of the issue, they always have some fear-based theory to support their position: If abortion is legalized, promiscuous sex will increase, and our society will be destroyed; if prayer is not permitted in school, children will no longer believe in God, and our society will be destroyed; homosexual marriage will undermine the institution of heterosexual marriage, and our society will be destroyed (I had no idea heterosexual marriage was that weak).

These theories are just that – theories. They are suppositions with no basis in fact whatever, yet they are presented by members of this first group as if they were the word of God, whispered to them by Him, and passed along by them to us, like some divine e-mail.

The second group is a patchwork quilt of small groups with one thing in common: they allowed themselves to be frightened by the arguments of the first group. Most surprising are the minorities. They apparently fail to see that if you can suppress gays, you can suppress Jews, blacks, Hispanics, or redheads. Anyone. If you rob my brother of his rights, you rob me. Either we are all full citizens or we are not.

For the moment, however, let’s bask in the glow of this historic election. Americans are often a clumsy people, but good-hearted, and I believe this election opens the door to an unimaginable future. I almost wish I were younger.

TUESDAY

Our polling place is Melrose Ave. Elementary, which, as it happens, is where I went to school. So whenever I go there to vote, and see that little auditorium, with all its little seats intended for its little students, it’s a little strange.

This morning, expecting a big crowd, Peg and I arrived at 6:40, twenty minutes before the poll opened, and found no one outside. Hmm, we thought, not bad. We walked in to find 150 people scrunched into those little seats.

Everybody was good natured, though, and pleasant, sensing the historic nature of this election and feeling proud to be part of it. The poll workers gathered into what looked like a football huddle, raised their right hands and took an oath. They seemed to have the process well in hand . . . until the clock struck seven.

The woman in charge told everyone to stand up, go outside, and form a line. By now, there were lines going out both doors. We in the auditorium had two choices: we could be angry or we could be amused. Fortunately for her, we chose the latter and suggested she come up with a new plan. After a moment’s delay, she got everyone out of their seats, into the aisles and moving toward the registration tables. Progress was slow but spirits were high.

What I noticed most about the voting itself was the method. We used a small device, into which the ballot was placed. There were holes down the center, into which a “pen” was inserted which marked the ballot with an ink blot. It was entirely mechanical – as opposed to electronic – and I couldn’t see any way to cheat. Of course I don’t know how they’re going to count the ballots, but it all looked pretty straight forward to me. Each voting apparatus couldn’t have cost more than $5 or $10.

The mystery is why any county in the country would spend millions on computerized voting machines which: (a) are completely vulnerable to malfeasance (see: Hacking Democracy on HBO), and (b) have ultra-secret software codes that the owners refuse to submit to oversight . . . by anyone! This is a formula for disaster.

As I have said before, the vote is at the heart of any democracy, and in order to be valid it must be reliable and be perceived as reliable. Without both, it ain’t democracy.

Now we go home and wait for the results. Let’s hope for the best.

VOTE

A friend of mine sent me a You Tube link to a speech by a union official, imploring his fellow workers to ignore the color of Obama’s skin and vote for him. It was inspiring.

There were a number of videos on You Tube right next to the union speech. I clicked on one called, Obama’s New World Order. In a very slick, professional format, it showed Obama speaking to massive crowds in Europe about globalization. In the corner of the screen there were images of Obama wearing a yarmulke, hugging Israeli leaders, and praying at the Wailing Wall. The final, full screen image was of Adolph Hitler, with an insert saying, “Hitler was for globalization, too.”

If you think this election is in the bag, I think you are mistaken. The polls will be crowded tomorrow. Bring food and drink, amusement – ipods, books, etc. – and video cameras to record any problems. This is the election you will remember. Let’s talk Wednesday.

A LETTER TO THE TIMES

Richard Peterson’s thoughtful, sensitive plea for passage of Proposition 8 has convinced me. I’m embarrassed to admit it, but at first I though Prop 8 was just about bigotry and discrimination – it certainly appears to be – but after reading Mr. Peterson’s piece, I realize it is actually about the “will of the people.” I don’t know how I missed that.

Perhaps the proposition could be expanded a little, so that the full legal protection and equal social status of domestic partnership that Mr. Peterson so graciously offers members of the gay community could be extended to inter-racial couples as well. I’m sure they would understand.

In fact, let’s put the bow on the package and include inter-faith couples. Marriage is tough enough without people going to separate churches and arguing over how to raise the kids. Of course, non-believers don’t have to be married at all. They probably don’t even care.

So, for the good of society and to honor the will of the people, Proposition 8 should define marriage as the union of one man and one woman of the same race and the same religion. It would be nice if they were from the same neighborhood, but that you can't punish someone because of where they were born. That wouldn't be fair.