Profits at the Expense of Ecology

Document 11.1 is a summary of the court proceedings of Aguinda v, ChevronTexaco in 2011. The report mentions that Texaco dumped production water into Equadorian surface water between 1972-1990 near indigenous territory (378). Texaco, a part of Chevron since 2001, defended their actions by claiming that it was "common practice" during that period of time (378). To say that something is "common practice" as a legal defense says nothing more than 'because my friends are all doing it, I also jumped off the cliff'. However, in convincing the audience it is an argument to try to naturalize their actions, rid them of being spectacular and instead reducing them to the ordinary, every day actions of many. This defense is used every day. It is repeated multiple times until it is widely considered to be common sense. Once it becomes common sense, people do little to try to challenge, prosecute, or even acknowledge their true significance. Texaco then admits that they know the damage unlined pits have on the environment but decided not to improve their methods because unlined pits are profitable. Do they not understand that without the environment they profit from, there will be no resources for them to build their business? Capitalism holds profits as the most esteemed value. But it results in short-sighted actions. Texaco prefers to spend less money now in order to maximize their profits. But if they continue in this direction, there will be nothing for them to profit from! Our parent's generation consistently blames our generation for being lazy, for being anti-social, for being the 'me generation'. I beg to differ! If there is one generation we can call the 'me generation', it would be the generation in current control of transnational corporations, such as Texaco!

Should it be a crime to damage the environment for personal gain and exploitation? Would it be possible to pass a law that criminalizes this kind of behavior when liberal democracy is founded on the principles of the free market and de(un)regulated practices?

Document 11.2 report on Chevron Corporation v. Steven Donziger presents two claims one presented by Chevron and one presented by the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs. The LAP representatives claimed that the poor, indigenous people of the rain forest cannot be properly represented nor sued in New York. Chevron claims that Ecuador's judiciary system is corrupt, thus it cannot provide adequate forum for the trial (388). The report then goes on to explore these claims. It addresess LAP's claim in a few sentences and then devotes 5 1/2 pages to giving context for Chevron's claim. It concludes that Ecuador's judicial system should be deemed as inadequate due to its corrupt nature. He states that the judges who do not rule in favor of the president are at risk of being met with "public condemnation, removal from office, and even criminal prosecution" (393), He also mentions the factoid, "Ecuador was ranked in the lowest eight percent of the economies studied with respect to 'Rule of law'".

Has the author sufficiently addressed the indigenous concerns? Was he right to end the conversation of the LAP's claim on the fact that indigenous people of Ecuador sued in the United States in the past? Is the report obscuring evidence that could back up their claim?