Ecuador vs. Chevron

Before class today, I was completely unaware of the Ecuador vs. Chevron case, a big controversial debate that has apparently been going on for the last 16 years. After watching the two videos presented in class, I had a better idea of the conflict but still felt there was a lot of missing information. The first video definitely seemed to have a more "Murrow" journalistic style. It investigated the issue, talked to the people on both sides, and gave some insight on the basics of the issue for those who may not have had any idea (like me). The second video, however, appeared to be in a less journalistic style and focused more on interviewing the experts of Chevron. Every person that was interviewed in the Chevron YouTube video was some type of expert or Chevron consultant. The video didn't really offer up any new information about the case, just denied certain claims and allegations. Although, it did raise some key points about the case that I was not aware of from the first video. For example, the fact that in 1998 there was an inspection and all companies were released from future charges of pollution. Both videos offered important facts to the case, but the second video was definitely more biased and didn't offer as much information.

When trying to discover more about the case, I came across a few articles written by some active environmentalists that clearly sided with Ecuador. For example, an article called "Chevron Lies, People Die". However, an article I found most interesting described Chevron's latest tactic to avoid the $27 billion in damages. This article claimed Chevron is using another dirty PR trick, and is trying to claim the judge of the case is biased and needs to be removed. They claim they have proof from videos that the judge has already made his decision on the case, and that it totally unfair. In the Ecuador vs. Chevron article, it is clear that Chevron is again made out to be the bad guys of the case.

I don't know enough facts about the case from the limited amount I have learned today to make a fair judgment, but if I was the deciding judge I know that at least a portion of the $27 billion would need to go to pollution clean up. What amount is actually necessary to effectively clean up the areas is another matter of debate, but I would strongly agree that Chevron is liable for many of the damages and should have to pay the resulting costs.