May, 25 2016, 04:30pm EDT
Chevron CEO and Board Confronted for Lying To Shareholders, SEC and Public at Annual Shareholder Meeting
Watson unable to respond to fraud charges and clear ethics violations
San Ramon, CA
After six years as Chevron CEO and Chair of the Board John Watson has been unable to resolve major shareholder unrest over his leadership. In one of its strongest rebukes to date, thirty percent of Chevron shareholders representing $57.6 billion of assets under management sent a clear message to Watson and his team on the Ecuador issue: your leadership has failed. Sponsors of the resolution contended that "Chevron's management has materially mishandled legal matters brought against the company by communities in Ecuador - in ways that increased liabilities for the matter, currently amounting to $9.5 billion. Moreover, proponents are concerned about the adequacy of the company's disclosure of those risks to shareholders."
Again, the issue of the company's ongoing contamination in Ecuador and efforts by indigenous and farmer communities to enforce their $9.5 billion judgment against Chevron dominated the meeting.
Humberto Piaguaje, Secoya indigenous leaders whose community has been gravely affected by Chevron's pollution in the Amazon, addressed the CEO directly: "Mr. Watson, stop your racism against us. We are neither manipulated nor will we ever be manipulated by lawyers or anyone else, as you continually repeat. We are intelligent enough to think and act for ourselves and to seek justice." To which Watson inexplicably responded, "We are sorry that the indigenous people of Ecuador have been manipulated by lawyers and by their own government."
Watson had absolutely no response to repeated questions about the company's $11 billion liability in Canada and specific criticism of his mismanagement of the issue. Instead he turned to a Chevron-produced video released months ago alleging that the company "cleaned up its part" in Ecuador. Unfortunately for Watson, Amazon Watch immediately responded to the video pointing out to the room, "If that were true, why did your own technicians find toxic contamination in 2005 on those very sites you claimed in this video to have cleaned up years prior? In 2014, your own lawyers authenticated leaked videos showing toxic contamination remains at the Texaco-only operated sites. They even interviewed local residents who were still getting sick at the time from the contamination you accepted responsibility for as recently as a few months ago in your new video."
While Chevron's propaganda video blames Petroecuador for its own legacy of contamination in Ecuador, after the Ecuadorian government Chevron is by far the largest processor of Petroecuador's oil. Not only is Chevron refusing to clean up its legacy of contamination; it's deepening it by refining nearly 70,000 barrels a day of oil from the Amazon.
At the next mention of the words "Amazon contamination," Watson become visibly flustered and frustrated, shutting off the microphone and disallowing further questions on the Ecuador issue. Tellingly, he said, "I've been trying to answer questions on Ecuador for seven years and I am not going to take any more questions."
For Watson, who took over the reins as CEO from David O'Reilly, Chevron's liability on the Ecuador issue is squarely on his shoulders. Watson was the principal architect of the merger between Texaco and Chevron in 2000, despite being fully aware of Texaco's toxic legacy in Ecuador and ongoing litigation. Texaco operated in Ecuador's Amazon between 1964 and 1990, using obsolete technology and dumping billions of gallons of toxic wastewater into the Amazon ecosystem and poisoning local communities. It left behind over a thousand toxic waste pits that continue to contaminate the region. The Ecuadorians won a historic verdict against the company and are seeking to enforce their judgment in several countries where Chevron has significant assets.
Chevron is staring down an $11 billion debt collection action in Canada for failure to pay the 2011 Ecuadorian verdict. The affected communities in Ecuador recently won a resounding victory before Canada's Supreme Court in their effort to force Watson to comply with the judgment by seizing the company's assets. In Canada, Chevron has an estimated $15 billion worth of oil fields, bank accounts, and refineries - or more than enough to pay the entirety of the Ecuador judgment. No mention was made of this liability in Watson's report to shareholders, nor has the company reported it to the SEC in accordance with the law.
Adding to Chevron's problems in Canada is growing solidarity between the country's First Nations and indigenous communities affected in Ecuador. Chevron has significant upstream development projects and pipelines planned in Canada, some of which are on or slated for First Nations' territory.
"As First Nations peoples of Canada, we stand with the affected indigenous communities in Ecuador who continue their decades-long quest for justice from Chevron for its deliberate contamination of the Amazon rainforest," said Michelle Thrush, Cree from Treaty 7 in Alberta Canada, noted Canadian actor and winner of a Gemini Award (Canada's highest honor for Screen Actors).
Adding to Watson's blunders as CEO, Chevron admits it is still paying disgraced Ecuadorian ex-judge Alberto Guerra, the key witness in Chevron's retaliatory RICO case who recently admitted under oath that he lied about the alleged bribe from the Ecuadorians. As part an ill-advised parallel case Chevron filed with the Hague, Chevron was forced to concede that a witness who already lacked any credibility for admitting to lying and accepting numerous bribes in his past, Guerra "exaggerated to Chevron in an attempt to improve his negotiating position," as Chevron itself indicated it its own legal filings. Yet Watson failed to disclose these important legal developments to his shareholders.
Watson also faced harsh criticisms for wasting millions more shareholder funds in an outright attempt to buy local elections in Richmond, CA last year. The company's candidates received a thumping from grassroots Richmond Progressive Alliance candidates and the entire debacle has made Chevron a prime target for the movement to get corporate funding out of politics. Richmond continues its $24 million suit against Chevron for the 2012 refinery fire which sent 15,000 people to the hospital.
In fact, Chevron faced six additional shareholder resolutions related to climate change in addition to appointing a board member with environmental expertise. Chevron leadership remains completely divorced from reality in insisting that by 2040 a full 60 percent of the world's energy needs will be met by oil and gas. Despite the clear climate science about the dangers of methane emissions, Watson said that the company would address climate issues primarily via the "miracle of hydraulic fracturing." Watson claimed Chevron "does not disagree" with the Paris Climate Accord but accepts none of the policies intended to implement it.
"It's astonishing that John Watson still has a job. Under his leadership, or lack thereof, Chevron's liabilities have snowballed, its brand has taken a beating, and any lingering idea that Chevron had any dedication to environmental or social responsibility has been eviscerated," said Paul Paz y Mino. "Poisoning local communities where you operate, belittling them afterwards, and in some cases suing them, is no way to conduct business.
For more information, visit amazonwatch.org and chevrontoxico.com.
Amazon Watch is a nonprofit organization founded in 1996 to protect the rainforest and advance the rights of indigenous peoples in the Amazon Basin. We partner with indigenous and environmental organizations in campaigns for human rights, corporate accountability and the preservation of the Amazon's ecological systems.
LATEST NEWS
'Blatant Censorship': Critics Blast US House Vote for TikTok Ban
"Don't ban TikTok," said Fight for the Future. "Pass a goddamn privacy law."
Mar 13, 2024
U.S. progressives on Wednesday decried what they called a xenophobic censorship bill passed by House lawmakers that would ban TikTok if its Chinese parent company doesn't sell its stake in the popular social media app, with critics arguing that Congress should instead pass a comprehensive digital privacy law.
Lawmakers passed the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act in an overwhelmingly bipartisan 352-65 vote. The legislation "prohibits distributing, maintaining, or providing internet hosting services for a foreign adversary-controlled application" like TikTok, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Chinese tech company ByteDance.
Fifty House Democrats and 15 Republicans voted against the bill.
"I voted no on the TikTok forced sale bill," Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) said in a statement. "While I have serious data privacy concerns with TikTok, this bill was rapidly rushed to a vote by the Republicans with almost no public scrutiny—and that's a recipe for unintended consequences."
"We need well-vetted, robust protections for TikTok users," Casar added. "Today's bill simply may not work."
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who also voted no, said on social media that "not only are there First Amendment concerns, this is bad policy."
"We should create actual standards and regulations around privacy violations across social media companies—not target platforms we don't like," she added.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), another no vote, said that "rather than target one company in a rushed and secretive process, Congress should pass comprehensive data privacy protections and do a better job of informing the public of the threats these companies may pose to national security."
Proponents of the bill, which was rushed to a vote after a closed-door hearing, argue that because ByteDance is beholden to the Chinese government, TikTok could be compelled to disclose data on the approximately 170 million Americans who use the app.
If passed by the Senate and signed into law by President Joe Biden—who has vowed to approve the legislation—ByteDance will have six months to divest from TikTok or it will be banned from U.S. app stores and web hosts.
Responding to the vote, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin accused the U.S. government of "resorting to hegemonic moves when one could not succeed in fair competition."
Wang added that the move "disrupts the normal operation of businesses, undermines the confidence of international investors in the investment environment, sabotages the normal economic and trade order in the world, and will eventually backfire on the U.S. itself."
"The rhetoric fueling a TikTok ban is a xenophobic, moral panic about the content on TikTok."
Civil liberties and digital rights groups blasted the House vote, with the ACLU accusing lawmakers of "violating the free speech rights of millions of Americans who use the platform daily to communicate and stay informed."
Fight for the Future said that "the rhetoric fueling a TikTok ban is a xenophobic, moral panic about the content on TikTok, disregarding... users in the U.S. that use the app for news, small business, community organizing, and free expression."
"Don't ban TikTok," the group asserted on social media. "Pass a goddamn privacy law."
Other critics highlighted U.S. tech giants' rampant abuse of user privacy. RootsAction called the bill a "serious First Amendment violation and an infringement upon free speech" that "does very little to address broader concerns about privacy rights, as U.S. based social media companies extensively violate those rights."
Jenna Ruddock, an attorney at Free Press Action, said in a
statement:
TikTok isn't perfect, but banning it is the wrong solution. Like all popular platforms, including those that Meta and Google own, TikTok collects too much data on its users. But unilaterally dismantling spaces for free expression limits people's access to information and cuts off avenues for creators to build community. The legislation also fails to meaningfully protect our privacy or address the national security concerns the bill's sponsors have raised.
"Banning a single platform will not address the problem at the root of the entire tech landscape," Ruddock contended, for "at any given time, dozens of corporations are tracking us, analyzing our behavior, and profiting off of our private information."
"It's ridiculous for Congress to single out one app while failing to act on this huge problem that's prevalent across all social media," she added. "Lawmakers should instead pass a federal privacy law that would limit how all companies collect, store, analyze, and sell our personal data."
Some critics linked the legislation to U.S. support for Israel's genocide in Gaza and TikTok users' prolific advocacy for Palestine, with RootsAction noting that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee was the leading campaign contributor to bill author Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) during the 2021-22 election cycle.
The peace group CodePink quipped, "As Israel drops U.S. bombs on civilians daily, they'd rather ban an app than a genocide."
The legislation now heads to the Senate, where Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) only said that the chamber "will review" the bill.
"Make no mistake: The House's TikTok bill is a ban, and it's blatant censorship," ACLU senior policy counsel Jenna Leventoff argued. "Today, the House of Representatives voted to violate the First Amendment rights of more than half of the country. The Senate must reject this unconstitutional and reckless bill."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Landmark Artificial Intelligence Act in EU Slammed as Rights 'Failure'
One expert said the law "is littered with concessions to industry lobbying, exemptions for the most dangerous uses of AI by law enforcement and migration authorities, and prohibitions... full of loopholes."
Mar 13, 2024
As European Union policymakers on Wednesday lauded the approval of the Artificial Intelligence Act, critics warn the legislation represents a giveaway to corporate interests and falls short in key areas.
Daniel Leufer, a senior policy analyst at the Brussels office of advocacy group Access Now, called the bloc's landmark AI legislation "a failure from a human rights perspective and a victory for industry and police."
Following negotiations to finalize the AI Act in December, the world's first sweeping regulations for the rapidly evolving technology were adopted by members of the European Parliament 523-46 with 49 abstentions. After some final formalities, the law is expected to take effect in May or June, with various provisions entering into force over the next few years.
"Even though adopting the world's first rules on the development and deployment of AI technologies is a milestone, it is disappointing that the E.U. and its 27 member states chose to prioritize the interest of industry and law enforcement agencies over protecting people and their human rights," said Mher Hakobyan, Amnesty International's advocacy adviser on artificial intelligence.
The law applies a "risk-based approach" to AI products and services. As The Associated Pressreported Wednesday:
The vast majority of AI systems are expected to be low risk, such as content recommendation systems or spam filters. Companies can choose to follow voluntary requirements and codes of conduct.
High-risk uses of AI, such as in medical devices or critical infrastructure like water or electrical networks, face tougher requirements like using high-quality data and providing clear information to users.
Some AI uses are banned because they're deemed to pose an unacceptable risk, like social scoring systems that govern how people behave, some types of predictive policing, and emotion recognition systems in school and workplaces.
Other banned uses include police scanning faces in public using AI-powered remote "biometric identification" systems, except for serious crimes like kidnapping or terrorism.
While some praised positive commonsense guidelines and protections, Leufer said that "the new AI Act is littered with concessions to industry lobbying, exemptions for the most dangerous uses of AI by law enforcement and migration authorities, and prohibitions so full of loopholes that they don't actually ban some of the most dangerous uses of AI."
Along with also expressing concerns about how the law will impact migrants, refugees, and asylum-seekers, Hakobyan highlighted that "it does not ban the reckless use and export of draconian AI technologies."
Access Now and Amnesty are part of the #ProtectNotSurveil coalition, which released a joint statement warning that the AI Act "sets a dangerous precedent," particularly with its exemptions for law enforcement, migration officials, and national security.
Other members of the coalition include EuroMed Rights, European Digital Rights, and Statewatch, whose executive director, Chris Jones, said in a statement that "the AI Act might be a new law but it fits into a much older story in which E.U. governments and agencies—including Frontex—have violated the rights of migrants and refugees for decades."
Frontex—officially the European Border and Coast Guard Agency—has long faced criticism from human rights groups for failing to protect people entering the bloc, particularly those traveling by sea.
"Implemented along with a swathe of new restrictive asylum and migration laws, the AI Act will lead to the use of digital technologies in new and harmful ways to shore up 'Fortress Europe' and to limit the arrival of vulnerable people seeking safety," Jones warned. "Civil society coalitions across and beyond Europe should work together to mitigate the worst effects of these laws, and continue to towards building societies that prioritize care over surveillance and criminalization."
"It has severe shortcomings from the point of view of fundamental rights and should not be treated as a golden standard for rights-based AI regulation."
Campaigners hope policymakers worldwide now take lessons from this legislative process.
In a Wednesday op-ed, Laura Lazaro Cabrera, counsel and director of Center for Democracy & Technology Europe's Equity and Data Program, argued the law "will become the benchmark for AI regulation globally in what has become a race against the clock as lawmakers grapple with a fast-moving development of a technology with far-reaching impacts on our basic human rights."
After the vote, Lazaro Cabrera stressed that "there's so much at stake in the implementation of the AI Act and so, as the dust settles, we all face the difficult task of unpacking a complex, lengthy, and unprecedented law. Close coordination with experts and civil society will be crucial to ensure that the act's interpretation and application mean that it is effective and consistent with the act's own articulated goals: protecting human rights, democracy, and the rule of law."
European Center for Not-for-Profit Law's Karolina Iwańska responded similarly: "Let's be clear: It has severe shortcomings from the point of view of fundamental rights and should not be treated as a golden standard for rights-based AI regulation. Having said that, we will work on the strongest possible implementation."
Yannis Vardakastanis, president of the European Disability Forum, said in a statement that "the AI Act addresses human rights, but not as comprehensively as we hoped for—we now call on the European Union to close this gap with future initiatives."
Amnesty's Hakobyan emphasized that "countries outside of the E.U. should learn from the bloc's failure to adequately regulate AI technologies and must not succumb to pressures by the technology industry and law enforcement authorities whilst developing regulation. States should instead put in place robust and binding AI legislation which prioritizes people and their rights."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Not a Radical Idea': Bernie Sanders Unveils 32-Hour Workweek Bill
"It is time to reduce the stress level in our country and allow Americans to enjoy a better quality of life," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "It is time for a 32-hour workweek with no loss in pay."
Mar 13, 2024
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday introduced legislation that would establish a 32-hour workweek in the U.S. with no loss of pay, a change the Vermont senator said is necessary to ensure the working class benefits from massive productivity gains and technological advances.
A 32-hour workweek "is not a radical idea," Sanders, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, said in a statement, noting that productivity gains have far outpaced wage growth in recent decades.
"Today, American workers are over 400% more productive than they were in the 1940s. And yet, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages than they were decades ago. That has got to change," said Sanders. "The financial gains from the major advancements in artificial intelligence, automation, and new technology must benefit the working class, not just corporate CEOs and wealthy stockholders on Wall Street."
"It is time to reduce the stress level in our country and allow Americans to enjoy a better quality of life," Sanders added. "It is time for a 32-hour workweek with no loss in pay."
Sanders introduced the Senate bill alongside Sen. Laphonza Butler (D-Calif.). Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), who has led 32-hour workweek bills in previous sessions, unveiled companion legislation in the House.
"As the lead sponsor of the Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act in the House of Representatives and a senior member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am thrilled Senator Sanders is leading the Senate companion to this transformative legislation that will be a win for both workers and workplaces," Takano said Wednesday.
"Increasing evidence firmly supports that reducing working hours yields beneficial outcomes for businesses, individuals, and the broader community."
The legislation was introduced shortly after Sanders announced that the Senate HELP Committee—which he chairs—will hold a hearing Thursday on the idea of a 32-hour workweek, which has gained traction among labor leaders and lawmakers amid promising experimental results.
Thursday's hearing will feature testimony from United Auto Workers (UAW) president Shawn Fain—whose initial contract demands to the Big Three automakers included a 32-hour workweek—and Juliet Schor, a sociology professor at Boston College who has led a team researching four-day workweek trials across the globe.
"Our research suggests that the four-day, 32-hour week is not only feasible; it's better for workers and employers," Shor wrote in a recent op-ed with fellow Boston College professor Wen Fan. "Of more than 100 companies with thousands of workers around the world, nearly 70% experienced reduced rates of burnout. Stress fell. Reported physical and mental health improved. People felt less anxious and fatigued, exercised more, and slept better. Their life satisfaction rose, and conflicts among work, family, and life plummeted."
According to a summary released by Sanders' office, the new legislation would:
- Reduce the standard workweek from 40 to 32 hours over four years by lowering the maximum hours threshold for overtime compensation for non-exempt employees.
- Require overtime pay at time and a half for workdays longer than eight hours, and overtime pay at double a worker's regular pay for workdays longer than 12 hours; and
- Protect workers' pay and benefits to ensure that a reduction in the workweek does not cause a loss in pay.
Major labor unions, including the UAW and the AFL-CIO, have endorsed the new legislation, as has 4 Day Week Global, a group that has organized four-day workweek pilot programs in the U.S., United Kingdom, Australia, and other countries.
"This bill underscores the escalating trend towards diminishing work hours," said Dr. Dale Whelehan, CEO of 4 Day Week Global. "Increasing evidence firmly supports that reducing working hours yields beneficial outcomes for businesses, individuals, and the broader community. At 4 Day Week Global, we are thrilled to support this endeavor spearheaded by Senator Bernie Sanders, marking further progress towards a future of work that prioritizes sustainable human performance and well-being."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular