Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! We only ask one time of year, but when we do, we mean it. Without your support we can’t continue to bring you the very best material, day-in and day-out. CounterPunch is one of the last common spaces on the Internet. Help make sure it stays that way.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Making Chevron Pay

by MARK WEISBROT

Environmentalists seem to realize that they have some stake in a fight such as the Ecuador-Chevron lawsuit.  In that case, which Chevron has recently moved to an international arbitration panel in an attempt to avoid a multi-billion penalty handed down by Ecuadorian courts, it is about whether a multinational oil corporation will have to pay damages for pollution, for which it is responsible.  Most environmentalists figure that would be a good thing.

But what about fights between multinational oil giants and the governments of oil-producing states, over control of resources?  Do people who care about the environment and climate change have a stake in these battles?  It appears that they do, but most have not yet noticed it.

In December of last year Exxon Mobil won a judgment against the government of Venezuela for assets that the government had nationalized in 2007.  The award was actually a victory for the government of Venezuela:  Exxon had sued for $12 billion, but won only $908 million.   After subtracting off $160 million the court said was owed to Venezuela, Exxon ended up with a $748 million judgment.  The ruling was made by an arbitration panel of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).  On February 15th, Venezuela paid Exxon $250 million and announced that the case was settled.

The case has been widely seen as extremely important among oil industry analysts although it didn’t get that much attention elsewhere.  Some background:  the dispute arose out of the Venezuelan government’s decision to take a majority stake in oil extraction, in accordance with its law.  In 2005 it entered into negotiations with foreign oil companies to purchase enough of their assets in order to achieve a majority stake.  Almost all of the negotiations with dozens of companies were successful, with only Exxon and ConocoPhillips going to arbitration (Conoco is still negotiating).

Exxon adopted a strategy of trying to make an example out of Venezuela, so that no government would try to mess with them.  They went to European courts to freeze $12 billion of Venezuelan assets, but this was reversed within a matter of weeks.  They also went to arbitration at the ICC and at the World Bank’s arbitration panel (ICSID) (the latter case is still pending). But the ICC gave them much less than the Venezuelan government had reportedly offered them in negotiations. The decision was noted intensely among oil industry specialists – and was seen by developing country governments as an important victory for the developing world —  but didn’t get much attention in the mass media.

This is a big precedent, and of course there are other countries that will continue to have disputes with oil companies over control of resources.  Why should environmentalists care?  Well for those of us who would like to slow the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we would like to keep more oil in the ground. That is one reason why most environmentalists would support a carbon tax, which would raise the price of carbon emissions.   The main reason that Venezuela insisted on a majority share in these oil projects is that it wants to control production.  Venezuela is a member of OPEC, and abides by the organization’s quotas.  If you want to reduce climate disruption, then you have a big interest in whether governments that want to reduce oil production are able to do so.

A higher price of oil due to reduced production by oil-producing countries reduces oil consumption in the same way that a carbon tax does.  It also encourages the development of non-fossil fuel alternatives, including solar and wind technologies, which become more economically feasible at higher oil prices. (Of course, higher prices do encourage non-OPEC countries to produce more oil and OPEC members to cheat on the cartel, and a carbon tax would not have the same effect; but this would be an argument for a stronger and more inclusive OPEC.)

On the other side, our adversaries have always had the goal of flooding the world with cheap oil, which would of course greatly accelerate global warming.  Before Hugo Chávez was elected in Venezuela, the national oil company (PDVSA) shared that goal with Washington.  But as soon as he was elected, Chávez successfully pushed OPEC to reduce production, moving oil prices off their deep low point of $11 a barrel in 1998.  The U.S. State Department, in a 2002 report, admitted that the U.S. government “provided training, institution building, and other support to individuals and organizations understood to be actively involved” in themilitary coup that briefly overthrew Venezuela’s elected government that year.   That same report also stated that one of the main reasons for Washington’s “displeasure” with Chávez was “his involvement in the affairs of the Venezuelan oil company and the potential impact of that on oil prices.”

Of course it is not politically popular for anyone to appear as pro-OPEC in the rich, oil-consuming countries.  But most environmentalists are willing to support policies, such as a carbon tax, that are not necessarily going to win elections this year.  They should also recognize that they have a stake in the producing states’ struggle with multinational companies over control of fossil fuel and other natural resources.

Mark Weisbrot is an economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: the Phony Crisis.

This article originally appeared in The Guardian

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. and president of Just Foreign Policy. He is also the author of  Failed: What the “Experts” Got Wrong About the Global Economy (Oxford University Press, 2015).

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

September 27, 2016
Louisa Willcox
The Tribal Fight for Nature: From the Grizzly to the Black Snake of the Dakota Pipeline
Paul Street
The Roots are in the System: Charlotte and Beyond
Jeffrey St. Clair
Idiot Winds at Hofstra: Notes on the Not-So-Great Debate
Mark Harris
Clinton, Trump, and the Death of Idealism
Mike Whitney
Putin Ups the Ante: Ceasefire Sabotage Triggers Major Offensive in Aleppo
Anthony DiMaggio
The Debates as Democratic Façade: Voter “Rationality” in American Elections
Binoy Kampmark
Punishing the Punished: the Torments of Chelsea Manning
Paul Buhle
Why “Snowden” is Important (or How Kafka Foresaw the Juggernaut State)
Jack Rasmus
Hillary’s Ghosts
Brian Cloughley
Billions Down the Afghan Drain
Lawrence Davidson
True Believers and the U.S. Election
Matt Peppe
Taking a Knee: Resisting Enforced Patriotism
James McEnteer
Eugene, Oregon and the Rising Cost of Cool
Norman Pollack
The Great Debate: Proto-Fascism vs. the Real Thing
Michael Winship
The Tracks of John Boehner’s Tears
John Steppling
Fear Level Trump
Lawrence Wittner
Where Is That Wasteful Government Spending?
James Russell
Beyond Debate: Interview Styles of the Rich and Famous
September 26, 2016
Diana Johnstone
The Hillary Clinton Presidency has Already Begun as Lame Ducks Promote Her War
Gary Leupp
Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Against Russia
Dave Lindorff
Parking While Black: When Police Shoot as First Resort
Robert Crawford
The Political Rhetoric of Perpetual War
Howard Lisnoff
The Case of One Homeless Person
Michael Howard
The New York Times Endorses Hillary, Scorns the World
Russell Mokhiber
Wells Fargo and the Library of Congress’ National Book Festival
Chad Nelson
The Crime of Going Vegan: the Latest Attack on Angela Davis
Colin Todhunter
A System of Food Production for Human Need, Not Corporate Greed
Brian Cloughley
The United States Wants to Put Russia in a Corner
Guillermo R. Gil
The Clevenger Effect: Exposing Racism in Pro Sports
David Swanson
Turn the Pentagon into a Hospital
Ralph Nader
Are You Ready for Democracy?
Chris Martenson
Hell to Pay
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Debate Night: Undecided is Everything, Advantage Trump
Frank X Murphy
Power & Struggle: the Detroit Literacy Case
Chris Knight
The Tom and Noam Show: a Review of Tom Wolfe’s “The Kingdom of Speech”
Weekend Edition
September 23, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
The Meaning of the Trump Surge
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: More Pricks Than Kicks
Mike Whitney
Oh, Say Can You See the Carnage? Why Stand for a Country That Can Gun You Down in Cold Blood?
Chris Welzenbach
The Diminution of Chris Hayes
Vincent Emanuele
The Riots Will Continue
Rob Urie
A Scam Too Far
Pepe Escobar
Les Deplorables
Patrick Cockburn
Airstrikes, Obfuscation and Propaganda in Syria
Timothy Braatz
The Quarterback and the Propaganda
Sheldon Richman
Obama Rewards Israel’s Bad Behavior
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail