Politico, a widely read and highly regarded news organization, produces a weekly column they call "Power Switch." Ostensibly, Power Switch is Politico readers' "guide to the political forces shaping the energy transformation." Many major outlets now feature similar climate and energy-focused sections. So, what's the problem?
Power Switch is brought to you exclusively by Chevron.
Chevron is, of course, one of the world's largest fossil fuel companies. Over the course of its history, Chevron has emitted more GHGs than some small countries. One might note that the company has made nods toward sustainability, pledging to reach net-zero "operational emissions" by 2050. However, "operational emissions" are far from the most pressing concern when it comes to oil companies. According to Chevron, Anchor will produce "some of the world’s lowest carbon intensity oil and gas." To be fair, this might very well be true. Anchor is said to run on electricity, rather than diesel like other oceanic drilling stations. This means it will take less fossil energy to extract oil at the Anchor site. However, the negative implications of the technology that makes Anchor possible are much more significant.
With Anchor, Chevron has reached oil deposits located far deeper below the ocean's surface than has ever been done before. This means that not only will Anchor be pumping out oil for decades to come (meaning 187 million metric tons of CO2 emissions, estimates Samuelson), but also that new, ultra-deep projects are likely to roll out all over the world, with billions of barrels of extracted oil potential.
As should be clear, the carbon intensity of this particular oil may be lower, but that is no consolation for the absolutely massive increase in Chevron's overall carbon footprint. And this brings us to the real problem with Politico's willingness to partner with Chevron for their climate-focused newsletter. Whether or not Politico maintains editorial independence, giving Chevron a platform to tout their phony climate initiatives only serves to launder the reputation of a major climate criminal.
No "guide to the energy transition" that is brought to readers by a company so devoted to extracting ever last drop of oil out of the Earth can be taken seriously.
•
•
8 w
By critically examining corporate claims, emphasizing transparency, and promoting genuine climate solutions, media can help foster a more informed public discourse on the climate crisis and drive meaningful action toward sustainability.
•
•
•
8 w
Dear Weston Wilson Your climate warning has received over 50 agrees! We have reached out to POLITICO by email and requested a response. I will keep you updated on any progress! To reach more people and increase the chance of a response, click the Share button above to share the review on your social accounts. For every new member that joins We Don't Have Time from your network, we will plant a tree and attribute it to you! /Adam, We Don't Have Time
•
•
8 w
spreading fake information is wrong
•
•
8 w
Quite a shame this is !
•
•
•
9 w
Misleading pr.
•
•
•
9 w
This is beyond bad. A disgrace.
•
•
9 w
It's important for media outlets to critically evaluate the information they present to ensure they are not inadvertently contributing to misinformation.
•
•
8 w
@walter_lungayi absolutely right
•
•
9 w
Shame shame!
•
•
9 w
This is profoundly irresponsible. This type of coverage undermines the urgent need for honest dialogue about the climate crisis.