Jump to content

Amazon Watch: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →Campaigns: add wikilinks, minor ce
m I reorganized the page to be more specific about different motivations and made slight adjustments to the wording so that it didn't appear to be written by the nonprofit organization itself.
 
(32 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|US-based nonprofit organization}}
{{Infobox organization
{{Infobox organization
| name = Amazon Watch
| name = Amazon Watch
| logo = Amazon Watch logo.jpg
| logo = Amazon Watch logo.jpg
| logo_size = 175px
| logo_size = 175px
| image = Jack London Park 1.jpg
| caption = Headquarters in Oakland
| type = [[Non-governmental organization]]
| type = [[Non-governmental organization]]
| founded_date = 1996
| founded_date = 1996
| location = [[Oakland]], [[United States]]
| location = [[Oakland]], [[United States]]
| key_people =
| key_people = [[Leila Salazar-Lopez]], executive director
| area_served = [[Amazon Basin]]
| area_served = [[Amazon Basin]]
| focus = [[Environmentalism]]<br> [[Indigenous rights]]
| focus = [[Environmentalism]]<br> [[Indigenous rights]]
| method =
| method =
| revenue = [[United States dollar|US$]] [http://amazonwatch.org/about/annual-reports 1,485,169] (2012)
| revenue = [[United States dollar|US$]] [https://amazonwatch.org/about/annual-reports 1,485,169] (2012)
| num_members =
| num_members =
| homepage = [http://www.amazonwatch.org/ amazonwatch.org]
| homepage = [https://www.amazonwatch.org/ amazonwatch.org]
}}
}}
{{Indigenous rights}}
{{Indigenous rights}}
'''Amazon Watch''' is a [[nonprofit organization]]<ref>http://www.amazonwatch.org</ref> founded in 1996, and based in [[Oakland]], [[California]], it works to protect the [[Amazon rainforest|rainforest]] and advance the [[indigenous rights|rights]] of [[indigenous people in Brazil|indigenous peoples]] in the [[Amazon Basin]]. It partners with indigenous and environmental organizations in Ecuador, Peru, Colombia and Brazil in campaigns for [[human rights]], [[corporate accountability]] and the preservation of the Amazon's ecological systems.
'''Amazon Watch''' is a [[nonprofit organization]]<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://amazonwatch.org/|title=Amazon Watch &#124; Protecting the rainforest and our climate in solidarity with Indigenous peoples}}</ref> founded in 1996, and based in [[Oakland]], [[California]], it works to protect the [[Amazon rainforest|rainforest]] and advance the [[indigenous rights|rights]] of [[Indigenous people in Brazil|Indigenous peoples]] in the [[Amazon Basin]]. It partners with indigenous and environmental organizations in Ecuador, Peru, Colombia and Brazil in campaigns for [[human rights]], [[corporate social responsibility|corporate accountability]] and the preservation of the Amazon's ecological systems.


==Campaigns==
== Court Cases ==
In 1964, the Texaco Petroleum Company, in partnership with Gulf Oil, began exploring for oil in Northeast Ecuador. In 1974, the Government of the Republic of Ecuador, acting through the state-owned oil agency [[Petroecuador]], obtained a 25% interest. Two years later, Petroecuador acquired Gulf Oil's interest and became a 62.5% owner of the [[Lago Agrio oil field]]. By 1993, Petroecuador had also acquired Texaco's interest. After Texaco completed environmental remediation, the Government of Ecuador inspected and certified the work and ”absolved, liberated and forever freed” Texaco Petroleum from “any claim or litigation by the Government of Ecuador.” <ref name=":0">{{Cite web|title = Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc., Docket Nos. 01-7756L, 01-7758C, decided August 16, 2002.|url = https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1168108.html|website = Findlaw|access-date = 2016-01-19}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title = Judge Kaplan On Chevron: American Tort Law Is Not 'Robin Hood Justice'|url = https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrauss/2014/03/05/judge-kaplans-on-chevron-american-tort-law-is-not-robin-hood-justice/#2715e4857a0b58df1897416f|website = Forbes|access-date = 2016-01-19}}</ref> Nevertheless, in November 1993, a group of Ecuadorians filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of 30,000 inhabitants of the Oriente region, alleging that Texaco polluted the rain forests. After extensive litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed in Aguinda v. Texaco an earlier court's dismissal on the basis of "[[forum non conveniens]]." <ref name=":0" /> Thus, legal proceedings were started in Ecuador in 2003.<ref>{{Cite web|title = Texaco/Chevron lawsuits (re Ecuador) {{!}} Business & Human Rights Resource Centre|url = http://business-humanrights.org/en/texacochevron-lawsuits-re-ecuador|website = business-humanrights.org|access-date = 2016-01-19}}</ref>
In 1964, the [[Texaco Petroleum Company]], in partnership with [[Gulf Oil]], began exploring for oil in Northeast Ecuador. In 1974, the Government of the Republic of Ecuador, acting through the state-owned oil agency [[Petroecuador]], obtained a 25% interest. Two years later, Petroecuador acquired Gulf Oil's interest and became a 62.5% owner of the [[Lago Agrio oil field]]. By 1993, Petroecuador had also acquired Texaco's interest. After Texaco completed [[environmental remediation]], the Government of Ecuador inspected and certified the work and "absolved, liberated and forever freed" Texaco Petroleum from "any claim or litigation by the Government of Ecuador."<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc., Docket Nos. 01-7756L, 01-7758C, decided August 16, 2002. |url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1168108.html |access-date=2016-01-19 |website=Findlaw}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Judge Kaplan On Chevron: American Tort Law Is Not 'Robin Hood Justice' |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrauss/2014/03/05/judge-kaplans-on-chevron-american-tort-law-is-not-robin-hood-justice/#2715e4857a0b58df1897416f |access-date=2016-01-19 |website=Forbes}}</ref> Nevertheless, in November 1993, a group of Ecuadorians filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of 30,000 inhabitants of the Oriente region, alleging that Texaco polluted the rainforests. After extensive litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed in ''[[Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc.|Aguinda v. Texaco]]'' an earlier court's dismissal on the basis of "[[forum non conveniens]]."<ref name=":0" /> Thus, legal proceedings were started in Ecuador in 2003.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Texaco/Chevron lawsuits (re Ecuador) {{!}} Business & Human Rights Resource Centre |url=http://business-humanrights.org/en/texacochevron-lawsuits-re-ecuador |access-date=2016-01-19 |website=business-humanrights.org}}</ref>


Amazon Watch supports the Ecuadorian plaintiffs by publishing a press kit alleging that [[Chevron Corporation|Chevron]] (corporate successor to Texaco) should be held accountable for the dumping of {{convert|18|e9USgal|m3}} of toxic waste water into a region of Ecuador's Amazon rainforest inhabited by more than 30,000 people – purported to be one of the largest oil related contaminations ever, far exceeding that of the [[Exxon Valdez oil spill|Exxon Valdez disaster]].<ref>http://www.chevrontoxico.com and www.texacotoxico.org/eng</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title = Amazon Watch - Press Kit for Landmark Legal Case, Aguinda v. ChevronTexaco; "Detailed Background", page 3|url = http://amazonwatch.org/news/2009/0203-press-kit-for-landmark-legal-case-aguinda-v-chevrontexaco|website = Amazon Watch|access-date = 2016-01-19}}</ref> In 2011, a decision in Ecuador ordered Chevron to pay $9.5 billion. Ecuador's Supreme Court in 2013 affirmed the trial court judgment in a 222-page decision that documented the extensive and life-threatening levels of oil pollution at dozens of former Chevron well sites in the jungle. In all, eight appellate judges in Ecuador reviewed the evidence against Chevron and affirmed the judgment, as well as dismissing Chevron's allegation of fraud. When Chevron refused to comply with the $9.5 billion judgment against it for contamination in the [[Lago Agrio oil field]], the plaintiffs' lead attorney, [[Steven R. Donziger]], attempted to collect the judgment in Brazil, Argentina, and Canada.<ref>{{Cite web|title = Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation: enforcing an Ecuadorian judgment against a U.S. company in Ontario {{!}} Lexology|url = http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=894dd806-eb9c-4519-8cb9-e1bcca0b30df|access-date = 2016-01-19|first = Borden Ladner Gervais LLP-Cheryl M.|last = Woodin|first2 = Jonathan|last2 = Chen}}</ref> Chevron then filed suit in the United States,<ref>{{Cite web|title = Chevron v. Donziger: an enforcement action drama {{!}} Lexology|url = http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a65cd402-c53f-4a1b-a8ed-dc862f771126|access-date = 2016-01-19|first = Paul Hastings LLP-Rachel|last = Snyder}}</ref> and relying on the [[Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act]] (RICO Act), alleged that plaintiffs' attorneys in the Lago Agrio litigation had engaged in extortion and fraud by paying almost US$300,000 in bribes to obtain the 2011 court verdict in Ecuador.<ref>{{Cite web|title = US judge annuls Ecuador oil ruling against Chevron - BBC News|url = https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-26441836|website = BBC News|access-date = 2016-01-19|language = en-GB}}</ref> On 4 Mar 2014, Judge [[Lewis A. Kaplan]] concluded that "the course of justice was perverted" and enjoined Donziger from instituting any enforcement proceedings in the United States.<ref>{{Cite web|url = https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2011cv00691/374606/1874|title = Chevron Corporation v. Donziger et al|date = 2014-03-04|access-date = 2016-01-19|website = Justicia|publisher = U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York|last = Kaplan|first = Lewis}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title = Highlights from the Chevron/Donziger Opinion|url = https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/03/04/highlights-from-the-chevrondonziger-opinion/|website = WSJ Blogs - Law Blog|date = 2014-03-04|access-date = 2016-01-19|first = Ashby|last = Jones}}</ref> Donziger has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.<ref>{{Cite web|title = Court Hears Appeal In $9 Billion Chevron Ecuador Debacle|url = https://blogs.findlaw.com/second_circuit/2015/04/court-hears-appeal-in-9-billion-chevron-ecuador-debacle.html|website = U.S. Second Circuit|access-date = 2016-01-19}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title = Chevron V. Donziger: The Epic Battle For The Rule Of Law Hits The Second Circuit|url = https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrauss/2015/04/21/chevron-v-donziger-the-epic-battle-for-the-rule-of-law-hits-the-second-circuit/#14f4797350307fbd95615030|website = Forbes|access-date = 2016-01-19}}</ref>
Amazon Watch supports the Ecuadorian plaintiffs by publishing a press kit alleging that [[Chevron Corporation|Chevron]] (corporate successor to Texaco) should be held accountable for the dumping of {{convert|18|e9USgal|m3}} of toxic wastewater into a region of Ecuador's Amazon rainforest inhabited by more than 30,000 people – purported to be one of the largest oil-related contaminations ever, far exceeding that of the [[Exxon Valdez oil spill|Exxon Valdez disaster]].<ref>http://www.chevrontoxico.com and www.texacotoxico.org/eng</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=3 February 2009 |title=Amazon Watch - Press Kit for Landmark Legal Case, Aguinda v. ChevronTexaco; "Detailed Background", page 3 |url=https://amazonwatch.org/news/2009/0203-press-kit-for-landmark-legal-case-aguinda-v-chevrontexaco |access-date=2016-01-19 |website=Amazon Watch}}</ref> In 2011, a decision in Ecuador ordered Chevron to pay $9.5 billion. Ecuador's Supreme Court in 2013 affirmed the trial court judgment in a 222-page decision that documented the extensive and life-threatening levels of oil pollution at dozens of former Chevron well sites in the jungle. In all, eight appellate judges in Ecuador reviewed the evidence against Chevron and affirmed the judgment, as well as dismissing Chevron's allegation of fraud. When Chevron refused to comply with the $9.5 billion judgment against it for contamination in the [[Lago Agrio oil field]], the plaintiffs' lead attorney, [[Steven R. Donziger]], attempted to collect the judgment in Brazil, Argentina, and Canada.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Woodin |first1=Borden Ladner Gervais LLP-Cheryl M. |last2=Chen |first2=Jonathan |date=26 February 2014 |title=Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation: enforcing an Ecuadorian judgment against a U.S. company in Ontario {{!}} Lexology |url=http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=894dd806-eb9c-4519-8cb9-e1bcca0b30df |access-date=2016-01-19}}</ref> Chevron then filed suit in the United States,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Snyder |first=Paul Hastings LLP-Rachel |date=7 April 2014 |title=Chevron v. Donziger: an enforcement action drama {{!}} Lexology |url=http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a65cd402-c53f-4a1b-a8ed-dc862f771126 |access-date=2016-01-19}}</ref> and relying on the [[Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act]] (RICO Act), alleged that plaintiffs' attorneys in the Lago Agrio litigation had engaged in extortion and fraud by paying almost US$300,000 in bribes to obtain the 2011 court verdict in Ecuador.<ref>{{Cite news |date=4 March 2014 |title=US judge annuls Ecuador oil ruling against Chevron - BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-26441836 |access-date=2016-01-19 |work=BBC News |language=en-GB}}</ref> On 4 March 2014, Judge [[Lewis A. Kaplan]] concluded that "the course of justice was perverted" and enjoined Donziger from instituting any enforcement proceedings in the United States.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kaplan |first=Lewis |date=2014-03-04 |title=Chevron Corporation v. Donziger et al |url=https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2011cv00691/374606/1874 |access-date=2016-01-19 |website=Justicia |publisher=U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Jones |first=Ashby |date=2014-03-04 |title=Highlights from the Chevron/Donziger Opinion |url=https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/03/04/highlights-from-the-chevrondonziger-opinion/ |access-date=2016-01-19 |website=WSJ Blogs - Law Blog}}</ref> Donziger has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.<ref>{{Cite web |date=23 April 2015 |title=Court Hears Appeal In $9 Billion Chevron Ecuador Debacle |url=https://blogs.findlaw.com/second_circuit/2015/04/court-hears-appeal-in-9-billion-chevron-ecuador-debacle.html |access-date=2016-01-19 |website=U.S. Second Circuit}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Chevron V. Donziger: The Epic Battle For The Rule Of Law Hits The Second Circuit |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrauss/2015/04/21/chevron-v-donziger-the-epic-battle-for-the-rule-of-law-hits-the-second-circuit/#14f4797350307fbd95615030 |access-date=2016-01-19 |website=Forbes}}</ref> Amazon Watch's web page describes its activities in Ecuador as going "beyond supporting indigenous efforts to keep their territories intact and win greater rights guarantees".


⚫
Additionally, Amazon Watch is a [[plaintiff]] in a case against the US oil company [[Occidental Petroleum|Occidental]] for its damage to the Peruvian rainforest.<ref>{{Cite web |title=EarthRights International - New Report Exposes Occidental Petroleum's Legacy of Harm in the Peruvian Amazon |url=http://www.earthrights.org/feature/a_legacy_of_harm.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090302091103/http://www.earthrights.org/feature/a_legacy_of_harm.html |archive-date=2009-03-02 |access-date=2009-03-10}}</ref> The District Court initially granted Occidental's motion to dismiss without ruling on whether Amazon Watch had standing to sue. On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court overturned the dismissal<ref>{{Cite web |last=Cicero |first=Rita Ann |date=2013-04-30 |title=Peruvian Indians can pursue Amazon pollution suit in U.S. court |url=http://blog.thomsonreuters.com/index.php/peruvian-indians-can-pursue-amazon-pollution-suit-in-u-s-court/ |access-date=2016-01-19 |publisher=Thomson Reuters}}{{Dead link|date=June 2022|bot=InternetArchiveBot|fix-attempted=yes}}</ref> and the Supreme Court declined review.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Occidental Petroleum Corporation v. Carijano |url=http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/occidental-petroleum-corporation-v-carijano/ |access-date=2016-01-19 |website=SCOTUSblog |language=en-US}}</ref>
⚫
Amazon Watch's web page describes its activities in Ecuador as going "beyond supporting indigenous efforts to keep their territories intact and win greater rights guarantees, Amazon Watch is also promoting visionary alternatives that could protect the Amazonian environment and local communities. The Yasuni ITT initiative is one such initiative for which we have actively campaigned. The proposal seeks to keep some 900 million barrels of heavy crude that lies underneath Yasuni National Park permanently in the ground in exchange for half of the forgone oil revenues. If done right, the proposal is an important first step towards keeping oil reserves in [[culturally sensitive]] and fragile [[ecosystem]]s in Ecuador and beyond".<ref>{{Cite web|title = Amazon Watch - Ecuador|url = http://amazonwatch.org/work/ecuador|website = Amazon Watch|access-date = 2016-01-19|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160314051503/http://amazonwatch.org/work/ecuador|archive-date = 2016-03-14|url-status = dead}}</ref>


==Indigenous People of the Amazon Campaigns==
⚫
Additionally, Amazon Watch is a [[plaintiff]] in a case against the US oil company [[Occidental Petroleum|Occidental]] for its damage to the Peruvian rainforest.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.earthrights.org/feature/a_legacy_of_harm.html |title=Archived copy |access-date=2009-03-10 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090302091103/http://www.earthrights.org/feature/a_legacy_of_harm.html |archive-date=2009-03-02 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The District Court initially granted Occidental's motion to dismiss without ruling on whether Amazon Watch had standing to sue. On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court overturned the dismissal <ref>{{Cite web|url = http://blog.thomsonreuters.com/index.php/peruvian-indians-can-pursue-amazon-pollution-suit-in-u-s-court/|title = Peruvian Indians can pursue Amazon pollution suit in U.S. court|date = 2013-04-30|access-date = 2016-01-19|website = |publisher = Thompson Reuters|last = Cicero|first = Rita Ann}}</ref> and the Supreme Court declined review.<ref>{{Cite web|title = Occidental Petroleum Corporation v. Carijano|url = http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/occidental-petroleum-corporation-v-carijano/|website = SCOTUSblog|access-date = 2016-01-19|language = en-US}}</ref> Amazon Watch also supported the [[Achuar]] indigenous people in opposing oil exploration on their lands by the Canadian oil company [[Talisman Energy|Talisman]] and the Argentinian company Pluspetrol.<ref>http://www.pluspetrol.net/</ref> Moreover, Amazon Watch supports a school that trains indigenous leaders how to defend their rights against oil and mining companies.
⚫
Amazon Watch is promoting visionary alternatives that could protect the Amazonian environment and local communities. The Yasuni ITT initiative is one such initiative for which Amazon Watch have actively campaigned. The proposal seeks to keep some 900 million barrels of heavy crude that lies underneath Yasuni National Park permanently in the ground in exchange for half of the forgone oil revenues. If done right, the proposal is an important first step towards keeping oil reserves in [[culturally sensitive]] and fragile [[ecosystem]]s in Ecuador and beyond".<ref>{{Cite web|title = Amazon Watch - Ecuador|url = https://amazonwatch.org/work/ecuador|website = Amazon Watch|access-date = 2016-01-19|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160314051503/https://amazonwatch.org/work/ecuador|archive-date = 2016-03-14|url-status = dead}}</ref>


Amazon Watch also supported the [[Achuar]] indigenous people in opposing oil exploration on their lands by the Canadian oil company [[Talisman Energy|Talisman]] and the Argentinian company Pluspetrol.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.pluspetrol.net/|title=Pluspetrol|website=www.pluspetrol.net}}</ref> Moreover, Amazon Watch supports a school that trains indigenous leaders how to defend their rights against oil and mining companies.
⚫
In Brazil, the Brazilian government is building the world's third largest hydroelectric dam on the Xingu River, one of the Amazon's major tributaries. The Belo Monte dam complex would divert 80 percent of the Xingu River's flow, devastating an area of over 1,500 square kilometers of rainforest, and resulting in the forced displacement of up to 40,000 people. With the people of the Xingu and a network of Brazilian and international NGOs, Amazon Watch is working to document and publicize the dam's drastic impacts on local and indigenous populations.


⚫
In Brazil, the Brazilian government is building the world's third-largest hydroelectric dam on the Xingu River, one of the Amazon's major tributaries. The Belo Monte dam complex would divert 80 percent of the Xingu River's flow, devastating an area of over 1,500 square kilometers of rainforest, and resulting in the forced displacement of up to 40,000 people. With the people of the Xingu and a network of Brazilian and international NGOs, Amazon Watch is working to document and publicize the dam's drastic impacts on local and indigenous populations.

== Amazon Environmental Campaigns ==
Amazon Watch reports that the current rate of [[deforestation]] threatens to push the Amazon past a tipping point from which it cannot recover. Reports say that in the last 30 years, 20 percent of the Amazon has been deforested and another 20 percent degraded – all fueled by clearing land for [[agriculture]] and large-scale industrial projects such as oil and [[gas pipeline]]s, dams and roads.
Amazon Watch reports that the current rate of [[deforestation]] threatens to push the Amazon past a tipping point from which it cannot recover. Reports say that in the last 30 years, 20 percent of the Amazon has been deforested and another 20 percent degraded – all fueled by clearing land for [[agriculture]] and large-scale industrial projects such as oil and [[gas pipeline]]s, dams and roads.

In 2014 Amazon Watch set up Amazon Watch Sweden as an independent [[nonprofit organization]] in order to increase fundraising efforts as well as increase advocacy pressure in Europe.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Amazon Watch Sverige - Historik|url=https://www.amazonwatch.se/historik|access-date=2021-10-18|website=Amazon Watch Sverige|language=sv-SE}}</ref>


In September 2016 Amazon Watch released a report which concludes that imports of crude oil by the US are driving rainforest destruction in the Amazon and releasing significant greenhouse gases.<ref name="milman-2016">
In September 2016 Amazon Watch released a report which concludes that imports of crude oil by the US are driving rainforest destruction in the Amazon and releasing significant greenhouse gases.<ref name="milman-2016">
Line 49: Line 58:
| location = Oakland, CA, USA
| location = Oakland, CA, USA
| access-date = 2016-09-28
| access-date = 2016-09-28
| url = http://amazonwatch.org/assets/files/2016-amazon-crude-report.pdf
| url = https://amazonwatch.org/assets/files/2016-amazon-crude-report.pdf
}}
}}
</ref>
</ref>
Line 62: Line 71:
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20200207133655/https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-climate-change-film-phoenix/joker-star-phoenix-takes-aim-at-climate-apathy-with-film-about-dying-earth-idUKKBN2001YU
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20200207133655/https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-climate-change-film-phoenix/joker-star-phoenix-takes-aim-at-climate-apathy-with-film-about-dying-earth-idUKKBN2001YU
| archive-date = 7 February 2020
| archive-date = 7 February 2020
| url-status = live
| url-status = dead
| accessdate = 7 February 2020
| access-date = 7 February 2020
}}</ref> Dávid Szőke and Sándor Kiss in [[Film International]] expressed criticism of Extinction Rebellion's 2019 short film Extinction and Guardians of Life, saying that "It is no doubt that film is one of the most meaningful ways of facilitating changes in our world. While Extinction and Guardians of Life declare “nonviolent open rebellion” and the urge to action for the survival of our natural world, the divergence between their stated ideals and their disruptive tactics in shaping public understanding of climate-related issues point toward starkly opposite directions. Despite their alleged advocacy of environmental issues, the involvement of such movie stars as Emma Thompson or Joaquin Phoenix redirects attention to their celebrity status, eclipsing the focus on the ecological solutions they should represent. Thus, these films can be viewed as nothing more than glossy facades, effectively disguising the radical environmental actions of XR activists under a more inclusive, media-friendly veneer."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://filmint.nu/jack-cooper-stimpsons-extinction-and-shaun-monsons-guardians-of-life-2020-david-szoke-and-sandor-kiss/|title=Environmental Action in Opposite Directions: Extinction (2019) and Guardians of Life (2020)|last1=Szőke|first1= Dávid|last2=Kiss|first2=Sándor|date=February 18, 2024|work=Film International|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240219065739/http://filmint.nu/jack-cooper-stimpsons-extinction-and-shaun-monsons-guardians-of-life-2020-david-szoke-and-sandor-kiss/|archive-date=February 19, 2024|access-date=February 19, 2024}}</ref>
}}</ref>


==References==
==References==
Line 71: Line 80:
== Further reading ==
== Further reading ==


* {{cite book |first1=Adam |last1=Zuckerman |first2=Kevin |last2=Koenig |title=From well to wheel: the social, environmental, and climate costs of Amazon crude |date=September 2016 |publisher=Amazon Watch |location=Oakland, CA, US |access-date=2016-09-28 |url=https://amazonwatch.org/assets/files/2016-amazon-crude-report.pdf}}
* {{cite book
| first1 = Adam | last1 = Zuckerman
| first2 = Kevin | last2 = Koenig
| title = From well to wheel: the social, environmental, and climate costs of Amazon crude
| date = September 2016
| publisher = Amazon Watch
| location = Oakland, CA, USA
| access-date = 2016-09-28
| url = http://amazonwatch.org/assets/files/2016-amazon-crude-report.pdf
}}


==External links==
==External links==
Line 92: Line 92:
[[Category:Forest conservation organizations]]
[[Category:Forest conservation organizations]]
[[Category:Environmental organizations based in California]]
[[Category:Environmental organizations based in California]]
[[Category:Indigenous activists of the Americas]]
[[Category:Indigenous activists of North America]]
[[Category:Indigenous topics of the Amazon]]
[[Category:Indigenous topics of the Amazon]]
[[Category:Non-profit organizations based in California]]
[[Category:Non-profit organizations based in California]]

Latest revision as of 13:28, 12 November 2024

Amazon Watch
Founded1996
TypeNon-governmental organization
FocusEnvironmentalism
Indigenous rights
Location
Area served
Amazon Basin
Key people
Leila Salazar-Lopez, executive director
RevenueUS$ 1,485,169 (2012)
Websiteamazonwatch.org
Part of a series on
Indigenous rights
Indalo symbol
Rights
Governmental organizations
United Nations initiatives
International Treaties
NGOs and political groups
Issues
Countries
Category

Amazon Watch is a nonprofit organization[1] founded in 1996, and based in Oakland, California, it works to protect the rainforest and advance the rights of Indigenous peoples in the Amazon Basin. It partners with indigenous and environmental organizations in Ecuador, Peru, Colombia and Brazil in campaigns for human rights, corporate accountability and the preservation of the Amazon's ecological systems.

Court Cases

[edit]

In 1964, the Texaco Petroleum Company, in partnership with Gulf Oil, began exploring for oil in Northeast Ecuador. In 1974, the Government of the Republic of Ecuador, acting through the state-owned oil agency Petroecuador, obtained a 25% interest. Two years later, Petroecuador acquired Gulf Oil's interest and became a 62.5% owner of the Lago Agrio oil field. By 1993, Petroecuador had also acquired Texaco's interest. After Texaco completed environmental remediation, the Government of Ecuador inspected and certified the work and "absolved, liberated and forever freed" Texaco Petroleum from "any claim or litigation by the Government of Ecuador."[2][3] Nevertheless, in November 1993, a group of Ecuadorians filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of 30,000 inhabitants of the Oriente region, alleging that Texaco polluted the rainforests. After extensive litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed in Aguinda v. Texaco an earlier court's dismissal on the basis of "forum non conveniens."[2] Thus, legal proceedings were started in Ecuador in 2003.[4]

Amazon Watch supports the Ecuadorian plaintiffs by publishing a press kit alleging that Chevron (corporate successor to Texaco) should be held accountable for the dumping of 18 billion US gallons (68,000,000 m3) of toxic wastewater into a region of Ecuador's Amazon rainforest inhabited by more than 30,000 people – purported to be one of the largest oil-related contaminations ever, far exceeding that of the Exxon Valdez disaster.[5][6] In 2011, a decision in Ecuador ordered Chevron to pay $9.5 billion. Ecuador's Supreme Court in 2013 affirmed the trial court judgment in a 222-page decision that documented the extensive and life-threatening levels of oil pollution at dozens of former Chevron well sites in the jungle. In all, eight appellate judges in Ecuador reviewed the evidence against Chevron and affirmed the judgment, as well as dismissing Chevron's allegation of fraud. When Chevron refused to comply with the $9.5 billion judgment against it for contamination in the Lago Agrio oil field, the plaintiffs' lead attorney, Steven R. Donziger, attempted to collect the judgment in Brazil, Argentina, and Canada.[7] Chevron then filed suit in the United States,[8] and relying on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act), alleged that plaintiffs' attorneys in the Lago Agrio litigation had engaged in extortion and fraud by paying almost US$300,000 in bribes to obtain the 2011 court verdict in Ecuador.[9] On 4 March 2014, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan concluded that "the course of justice was perverted" and enjoined Donziger from instituting any enforcement proceedings in the United States.[10][11] Donziger has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.[12][13] Amazon Watch's web page describes its activities in Ecuador as going "beyond supporting indigenous efforts to keep their territories intact and win greater rights guarantees".

Additionally, Amazon Watch is a plaintiff in a case against the US oil company Occidental for its damage to the Peruvian rainforest.[14] The District Court initially granted Occidental's motion to dismiss without ruling on whether Amazon Watch had standing to sue. On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court overturned the dismissal[15] and the Supreme Court declined review.[16]

Indigenous People of the Amazon Campaigns

[edit]

Amazon Watch is promoting visionary alternatives that could protect the Amazonian environment and local communities. The Yasuni ITT initiative is one such initiative for which Amazon Watch have actively campaigned. The proposal seeks to keep some 900 million barrels of heavy crude that lies underneath Yasuni National Park permanently in the ground in exchange for half of the forgone oil revenues. If done right, the proposal is an important first step towards keeping oil reserves in culturally sensitive and fragile ecosystems in Ecuador and beyond".[17]

Amazon Watch also supported the Achuar indigenous people in opposing oil exploration on their lands by the Canadian oil company Talisman and the Argentinian company Pluspetrol.[18] Moreover, Amazon Watch supports a school that trains indigenous leaders how to defend their rights against oil and mining companies.

In Brazil, the Brazilian government is building the world's third-largest hydroelectric dam on the Xingu River, one of the Amazon's major tributaries. The Belo Monte dam complex would divert 80 percent of the Xingu River's flow, devastating an area of over 1,500 square kilometers of rainforest, and resulting in the forced displacement of up to 40,000 people. With the people of the Xingu and a network of Brazilian and international NGOs, Amazon Watch is working to document and publicize the dam's drastic impacts on local and indigenous populations.

Amazon Environmental Campaigns

[edit]

Amazon Watch reports that the current rate of deforestation threatens to push the Amazon past a tipping point from which it cannot recover. Reports say that in the last 30 years, 20 percent of the Amazon has been deforested and another 20 percent degraded – all fueled by clearing land for agriculture and large-scale industrial projects such as oil and gas pipelines, dams and roads.

In 2014 Amazon Watch set up Amazon Watch Sweden as an independent nonprofit organization in order to increase fundraising efforts as well as increase advocacy pressure in Europe.[19]

In September 2016 Amazon Watch released a report which concludes that imports of crude oil by the US are driving rainforest destruction in the Amazon and releasing significant greenhouse gases.[20][21]

On 6 February 2020, the environmental organization Mobilize Earth debuted Guardians of Life, the first of twelve short films that highlight the most pressing issues facing humanity and the natural world. Funds raised by the project will go to Amazon Watch and Extinction Rebellion.[22] Dávid Szőke and Sándor Kiss in Film International expressed criticism of Extinction Rebellion's 2019 short film Extinction and Guardians of Life, saying that "It is no doubt that film is one of the most meaningful ways of facilitating changes in our world. While Extinction and Guardians of Life declare “nonviolent open rebellion” and the urge to action for the survival of our natural world, the divergence between their stated ideals and their disruptive tactics in shaping public understanding of climate-related issues point toward starkly opposite directions. Despite their alleged advocacy of environmental issues, the involvement of such movie stars as Emma Thompson or Joaquin Phoenix redirects attention to their celebrity status, eclipsing the focus on the ecological solutions they should represent. Thus, these films can be viewed as nothing more than glossy facades, effectively disguising the radical environmental actions of XR activists under a more inclusive, media-friendly veneer."[23]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "Amazon Watch | Protecting the rainforest and our climate in solidarity with Indigenous peoples".
  2. ^ a b "Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc., Docket Nos. 01-7756L, 01-7758C, decided August 16, 2002". Findlaw. Retrieved 2016-01-19.
  3. ^ "Judge Kaplan On Chevron: American Tort Law Is Not 'Robin Hood Justice'". Forbes. Retrieved 2016-01-19.
  4. ^ "Texaco/Chevron lawsuits (re Ecuador) | Business & Human Rights Resource Centre". business-humanrights.org. Retrieved 2016-01-19.
  5. ^ http://www.chevrontoxico.com and www.texacotoxico.org/eng
  6. ^ "Amazon Watch - Press Kit for Landmark Legal Case, Aguinda v. ChevronTexaco; "Detailed Background", page 3". Amazon Watch. 3 February 2009. Retrieved 2016-01-19.
  7. ^ Woodin, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP-Cheryl M.; Chen, Jonathan (26 February 2014). "Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation: enforcing an Ecuadorian judgment against a U.S. company in Ontario | Lexology". Retrieved 2016-01-19.
  8. ^ Snyder, Paul Hastings LLP-Rachel (7 April 2014). "Chevron v. Donziger: an enforcement action drama | Lexology". Retrieved 2016-01-19.
  9. ^ "US judge annuls Ecuador oil ruling against Chevron - BBC News". BBC News. 4 March 2014. Retrieved 2016-01-19.
  10. ^ Kaplan, Lewis (2014-03-04). "Chevron Corporation v. Donziger et al". Justicia. U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. Retrieved 2016-01-19.
  11. ^ Jones, Ashby (2014-03-04). "Highlights from the Chevron/Donziger Opinion". WSJ Blogs - Law Blog. Retrieved 2016-01-19.
  12. ^ "Court Hears Appeal In $9 Billion Chevron Ecuador Debacle". U.S. Second Circuit. 23 April 2015. Retrieved 2016-01-19.
  13. ^ "Chevron V. Donziger: The Epic Battle For The Rule Of Law Hits The Second Circuit". Forbes. Retrieved 2016-01-19.
  14. ^ "EarthRights International - New Report Exposes Occidental Petroleum's Legacy of Harm in the Peruvian Amazon". Archived from the original on 2009-03-02. Retrieved 2009-03-10.
  15. ^ Cicero, Rita Ann (2013-04-30). "Peruvian Indians can pursue Amazon pollution suit in U.S. court". Thomson Reuters. Retrieved 2016-01-19.[permanent dead link‍]
  16. ^ "Occidental Petroleum Corporation v. Carijano". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 2016-01-19.
  17. ^ "Amazon Watch - Ecuador". Amazon Watch. Archived from the original on 2016-03-14. Retrieved 2016-01-19.
  18. ^ "Pluspetrol". www.pluspetrol.net.
  19. ^ "Amazon Watch Sverige - Historik". Amazon Watch Sverige (in Swedish). Retrieved 2021-10-18.
  20. ^ Milman, Oliver (28 September 2016). "US drives rainforest destruction by importing Amazon oil, study finds". The Guardian. London, UK. Retrieved 2016-09-28.
  21. ^ Zuckerman, Adam; Koenig, Kevin (September 2016). From well to wheel: the social, environmental, and climate costs of Amazon crude (PDF). Oakland, CA, USA: Amazon Watch. Retrieved 2016-09-28.
  22. ^ Green, Matthew (6 February 2020). "'Joker' star Phoenix takes aim at climate apathy with film about dying Earth". Reuters. Archived from the original on 7 February 2020. Retrieved 7 February 2020.
  23. ^ Szőke, Dávid; Kiss, Sándor (February 18, 2024). "Environmental Action in Opposite Directions: Extinction (2019) and Guardians of Life (2020)". Film International. Archived from the original on February 19, 2024. Retrieved February 19, 2024.

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amazon_Watch&oldid=1256964690"