The Great Debate UK
from The Great Debate:
Suing corporations should be a last resort
On Feb. 28, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum. The case is about Shell’s alleged complicity in torture and extrajudicial killings committed by the Nigerian military in the mid-1990s, and is expected to determine whether corporations can be sued in the U.S. for their involvement in human rights abuses abroad.
Corporate lawyers and plaintiffs’ attorneys alike are eagerly awaiting the outcome. If the Supreme Court upholds corporate liability, as federal courts have in the past and the Obama administration is encouraging the High Court to do, other lawsuits will surely follow -- against Apple for labor abuses in its Chinese manufacturing base, for example.
But we should not let this case distract us from the fact that lawsuits should be a last resort for people hurt by business. Suing a company is expensive, complicated, and time-consuming, and it rarely makes victims whole. In 2009, after three years of litigation, Shell settled a related case for $15.5 million -- to be divided among 10 plaintiffs, their lawyers, and a fund for education and other initiatives in the plaintiffs’ communities. Hardly an ideal outcome where lives have been lost.
Similarly, Chevron’s relentless pursuit of legal absolution for environmental destruction in Ecuador means that the communities harmed by toxic waste will never receive remedy of any kind, as long as their advocates, government, and the company are consumed by the court proceedings.
Instead, we should focus on making sure that companies don’t hurt people in the first place -- and when they do, that there are adequate means of redress so that the victims don’t have to end up in protracted legal battles.
The tragic circumstances that led to Kiobel -- poor communities ironically left worse off after the discovery of natural resources in their area -- are hardly limited to Nigeria or Ecuador. The “resource curse” has affected communities around the world.
Extractive companies increasingly recognize that they can no longer block out the problems that their installations cause for the people who live nearby. Companies are hiring community ombudsmen and establishing grievance mechanisms to resolve disputes before they escalate to levels where serious harm is done.
from The Great Debate:
Energy realism and a green recovery
-- Jay R. Pryor is vice president of business development for Chevron. The views expressed are his own. --
The concept of a "green recovery" is a compelling topic of discussion at the World Economic Forum this week in Dailan, China. It stems from the United Nations Environment Program calling for investment of 1% of global GDP (nearly $750 billion) to promote a sustainable economic recovery.
A “green recovery” speaks to two of the most important issues of our time –- the efficient use of energy and the realistic understanding of energy’s role in the global economy. It’s a role that can help lift millions of people out of poverty, while addressing a healthier environment.
We all aspire to a more environmentally sound approach to energy, but to address these aspirations we need to be realistic about energy. Call it “energy realism.”
“Energy realism” is a commitment to a long-term view of the role of all forms of energy in our lives, and the need to be realistic about the true scale and complexity of the energy challenges that confront the global community.
Every day, the world uses, from all energy sources, the equivalent of 245 million barrels of oil. Eighty-five percent of the global economy is powered by oil, natural gas and coal, despite the enormous progress we've made toward alternative energy sources.
Worldwide, we use 50 percent more energy than we did only 20 years ago. And 20 years from now, demand will have risen by another 30 percent or so.
Pragmatism is an essential part of the future of energy in the western world and conservation needs to be at the forefront of energy government policy in regard to energy. We also need to deflate the inherent biases of eco-guiltists and their far-reaching influence over people that make decisions in the energy sectors of our nations. By using all of our sources of energy in s balanced manner we can limit our carbon footprint and find some form of energy independence.
