Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. This page may contain affiliate links, which means I may receive a commission if you click a link and purchase something that I have recommended. There is no additional cost to you whatsoever.
Earth911 talks with Professor Daniel Lin, affiliate professor of operations administration on the University of San Diego School of Business. He feedback on a first-of-its kind complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) towards an vitality firm by a number of nonprofits — Earthworks, Global Witness, and Greenpeace USA. They argue that Chevron makes misleading, greenwashing promoting claims that “overstate investments in renewable vitality and [the company’s] dedication to decreasing fossil gas manufacturing.” Lin explains why the FTC has not enforced its Green Guides suggestions towards greenwashing first set out in the course of the Nineteen Nineties, and why it’s time to make these pointers into enforceable rules.
Chevron spends about $100 million a 12 months promoting itself as “the human vitality firm” for a “way forward for vitality [that is] decrease carbon,” however invests solely $26 million yearly to develop these applied sciences — out of its $13 billion capital investments. That’s simply 0.02% of its annual investments to develop low-carbon alternate options to its present fossil fuels-based enterprise. Lin shares his evaluation of Chevron’s spending and the way it’s trapped by its outdated enterprise mannequin as the worth of gasoline declines within the face of renewable alternate options and the rise of electrical autos. We additionally focus on how customers can become involved — write the White House and the FTC — in addition to the potential draw back of carbon capture technology.
To add your assist for the criticism, go to Earthworks, Global Witness, or Greenpeace USA and contribute to assist preserving stress on the FTC and Chevron.
