Editor's Note: In this case, the BBC at least provides a modicum of neutrality in its report on Chevron's destruction of the Amazon in Ecuador. A much more widely published article (1,800 results in a Google search) by the New York Times shows how the rest of the corporate media has skewed judgement by the Ecuadoran court in favor of Chevron. - Axis of Logic
A court in Ecuador has fined US oil giant Chevron $8.6bn (£5.3bn) for polluting a large part of the country's Amazon region. The oil firm Texaco, which merged with Chevron in 2001, was accused of dumping billions of gallons of toxic materials into unlined pits and Amazon rivers. Campaigners say crops were damaged and farm animals killed, and that local cancer rates increased.
The company will also have to pay a 10% legally mandated reparations fee, bringing the total penalty to $9.5bn (£5.9bn). Pablo Fajardo, lawyer for the plaintiffs, described the court ruling as "a triumph of justice over Chevron's crime and economic power". "This is an important step but we're going to appeal this sentence because we think that the damages awarded are not enough considering the environmental damage caused by Chevron here in Ecuador," he told the BBC. A Chevron statement said the firm would appeal, and called the ruling "illegitimate and unenforceable". Hopes of precedent
The trial began in 2003 after almost a decade of legal battles in the US. At that time, a US appeals court ruled that the case should be heard in Ecuador. Environmentalists hope the case will set a precedent, forcing companies operating in developing countries to comply with the same anti-pollution standards as in the industrialised world. Ecuadorean Indian groups said Texaco - which merged with Chevron in 2001 - dumped more than 18 billion gallons (68 billion litres) of toxic materials into the unlined pits and rivers between 1972 and 1992.
Protesters said the company had destroyed their livelihood. Crops were damaged, farm animals killed and cancer increased among the local population, they said. Chevron has long contended that the court-appointed expert in the case was unduly influenced by the plaintiffs. Its statement described the ruling as "the product of fraud (and) contrary to the legitimate scientific evidence". (Photos and related comments added by Axis of Logic) Source: BBC Read more about Chevron's disaster in Ecuador on Axis of Logic: |