Pretty incredible story that I completely missed: after Chevron was ordered to pay $9.5 billion to clean up willful contamination of the Amazon in Equador, they moved all their assets out of Ecuador and started to demonize the NY lawyer Donziger. makechevroncleanup.com
This human rights lawyer Donziger was found to be a fraud that payed off a corrupt judge in Ecuador. He's also in contempt of court and is disbarred. He's awaiting a trial at home with an ankle bracelet for over a year now. BUT...
This is all based on the findings of ONE pro Chevron judge called Kaplan and the pro Chevron prosecutor and judge that he appointed.
Dozens of judges, 200 lawyers, 37 disbarment organisations, 55 Nobel laureates and an increasing number of celebrities disagree.
Seems to me like Chevron and Kaplan have bitten off more than they can chew.
Chevron's strategy was to demonize Donziger, internal emails reveal. Also to keep this out of the public eye (at least outside of Equador) by avoiding jury trials. But this is becoming very public :-)
Fun fact: Chevron has paid 60 lawfirms and 2000 lawyers around $1 billion (!) to make life miserable for Donziger and those who stand with him. They promised the indigenous people (that where rewarded the $9.5 billion) "a lifetime of ligitation".
So let's hold Chevron accountable for the damage they knowingly caused. Let's give this little known case a bit more publicity.
That might also lead to more successful cleanup cases and to less squashing and murdering of human rights activists.
/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I will use Haidt's research into the moral roots of liberals and conservatives and Pinker's into progress.
I think the first step is letting go of the hatred of progress that many 'progressive' intellectuals display. Here @sapinker (whose presentation I will use in the following tweets) says it eloquently.
This rejection of progress hampers our effort to address climate change. Instead of working on solutions people become numb and hopeless. Doom prophets should replace their smug negativity with some actual research and test their doom and gloom hypotheses.
In the face of conspiracies and global problems, scientists need to become better storytellers.
Of course facts come first.
But conveying them in a way that is engaging, memorable and inspiring is important too!
I found that out the hard way and I have some advise.
Thirteen years ago I felt like I was just making money, not improving the world. I took a sabbatical in search of meaning.
I found that solar, wind and electricity storage where improving in predictable ways that promised cheap, clean and abundant energy forever. It inspired me.
I decided to dedicate my life to accelerating the transition to sustainable energy and mobility. To make a name for myself I wrote a book about electric vehicles.
After many months of long days researching and writing I proudly presented the result to a good friend and editor.
But lo and behold: this 2017 study was updated by the authors themselves in 2019 and what did they conclude?
Emissions between 61 and 106 kg CO2eq/kWh.
It's hard to overstate how outdated it makes this 'new' study by VDI. And I'm disappointed that @handelsblatt didn't see this.
Of course battery emissions will continue to go down (also - not surprisingly - faster than VDI assumes) as production becomes optimised further and as renewable electricity is used in mining and factories.
German quality newspaper @handelsblatt reports on new anti-EV study by German society of engineers VDI (@VDI_News).
VDI states that electric vehicles emit more CO2 than combustion engine vehicles due to battery production.
But VDI uses wrong numbers for...
battery production.
For those who don't know me: I research energy systems & mobility at the @TUeindhoven and specialize in comparing CO2 emissions of electric vehicles and combustion vehicles.
I think climate change should be our international top priority. So why do I help to discredit the recent article in the @guardian about the Arctic methane 'bomb'?
Because:
Truthful arguments last longest.
We should not panic or cower in fear but ACT: we have the solutions.
Outdated scenarios like RCP8.5 (too often called baseline/reference)
Nonsense like 'Planet of the Humans'
Lies like EVs/solar/wind solve nothing
Untruth just muddies the waters and makes it harder to act.
IF we should give global warming the same priority as e.g. a World War we would soon have it under control.
Of course it is not a 'war' because we only reduce death/suffering and increase prosperity for all. Also the enemy is within so shooting him or her is not a solution.
What a sad story: German car manufacturers association @VDA_online commits to climate neutrality by 2050...
BUT...
sees important role for combustion engines & eFuels
(a hideously expensive & inefficient combo).
If you are wondering why I scoff at eFuels for cars, just look at the chart. And know that all these efficiency reducing steps require expensive equipment too as @transenv shows in its famous efficiency charts. transportenvironment.org/press/e-fuels-…
Also know that heavy trucks will be able to drive without weight penalty and at much lower energy and maintenance costs in a few years, due to the electric drivetrain being lighter (researchgate.net/publication/33…)...