Disclaimer: Own Bamboo is a reader supported website. We are a member of Amazon Affiliates and this post may contain affiliate links. Meaning Own Bamboo receives a small commission from Amazon sellers if you make a purchase through our links, at no additional cost to you. For more information please visit out Affiliate Disclaimer Page.
Earth911 talks with Professor Daniel Lin, affiliate professor of operations administration on the College of San Diego Faculty of Enterprise. He feedback on a first-of-its sort grievance with the Federal Commerce Fee (FTC) in opposition to an power firm by a number of nonprofits — Earthworks, International Witness, and Greenpeace USA. They argue that Chevron makes misleading, greenwashing promoting claims that “overstate investments in renewable power and [the company’s] dedication to lowering fossil gasoline manufacturing.” Lin explains why the FTC has not enforced its Inexperienced Guides suggestions in opposition to greenwashing first set out throughout the Nineties, and why it’s time to make these tips into enforceable laws.
Chevron spends about $100 million a yr promoting itself as “the human power firm” for a “way forward for power [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 Lin shares his evaluation of Chevron’s spending and the way it’s trapped by its outdated enterprise mannequin as the worth of gasoline declines within the face of renewable alternate options and the rise of electrical autos.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 shoppers can become involved — write the White Home and the FTC — in addition to the potential draw back of carbon seize expertise.