After spending the week facing a heated and huge backlash over its ill-considered decision to boycott Canadian oil, Chiquita Brands, the company behind the famous banana, is trying to climb out of the public relations pit it fell into. Not surprisingly, it's not doing a very good job.
It's no wonder Chiquita is worried. After the company made its boycott public,it didn't take long for Canadians, and even some Americans, to swamp the comments section of the produce company's Facebook page, denouncing Chiquita's decision to side with OPEC's conflict oil -- the main alternative to Canada's -- over ethical oil from our oil sands.
In a panic, Chiquita began deleting the comments, but that ham-handed censorship just made people angrier. Canadians across the country, offended that Chiquita would judge our oil unworthy (even though unlike OPEC oil, it's produced peacefully and adhering to some of the world's highest standards for workers and the environment), swore off buying Chiquita bananas and the company's line of Fresh Express salad kits. Determined consumers began spreading the word to their fellow grocery shoppers, their supermarket produce managers, and even telling the executives of grocery chains about the growing Chiquita boycott movement.
Immigration Minister Jason Kenney joined in. "I gather that Chiquita Bananas has no problem with Iranian oil, but is boycotting Canadian oil. No more Chiquita bananas for me," he declared on his Twitter feed. Rona Ambrose, the Minister of Public Works, encouraged Canadians to contact Chiquita's CEO, Fernando Aguirre, to "tell him his stand is wrong and how Canada respects the environment and human rights." She said ForestEthics, the environmental group that convinced Chiquita to boycott Canadian oil, doesn't "care about women's rights" because it would have companies choose oil from the misogynist Saudi kingdom over oil from a champion of equal rights.
She wasn't the only outspoken female political leader to publicly condemn the boycott: Danielle Smith, leader of Alberta's Wildrose Party, issued a statement announcing that she, in turn, would "boycott Chiquita products until they reverse their ill-informed decision to avoid fuel from Alberta's oil sands," adding, "I am proud of Alberta's record of responsible resource development." MP Scott Armstrong from Nova Scotia and MP Bob Zimmer from B.C. both announced their plans to take Chiquita products off their own shopping lists. Alberta MP LaVar Payne added his voice, tweeting "Will start to boycott companies who boycott ethical oil from our oil sands in Alberta."
Chiquita was already in a precarious position to be lecturing anyone, let alone ethical Canadians, about moral corporate behaviour. Blog after blog soon began detailing the heinous corporate history of the firm once known as the United Fruit Company, which inspired the term "Banana Republic" for its meddling in South American politics.
Shoppers were quickly reminded of the stories of corruption and support for terrorists that checker Chiquita's company story. The Calgary Herald ran an editorial scoffing at Chiquita's attempt at ethics-washing:
"You'll excuse us if we don't look to Chiquita for moral guidance. It seems the Cincinnati, Ohio-based company would rather buy its conflict oil from regimes that boast their own dodgy human rights records. In that regard, at least, Chiquita is in consistent company."
Now Chiquita is in damage control mode. Trouble is, the company has no better knack for containing a catastrophe than for avoiding one in the first place. Where ForestEthics claimed Chiquita had vowed it would "eliminate shipping of Chiquita bananas with fuel from refineries that use Canada's controversial Tar Sands," Chiquita Brands has since tried to add some nuance. The company has stated by way of clarification that it isn't "boycotting" oil sands oil, but rather "expressing a preference for fuels with lower than normal greenhouse gas footprints wherever possible."
There's just a couple of problems with that supposed clarification. For one thing, it means that Chiquita will happily buy any oil that has the most minimal carbon impact available, even if it comes from the worst regimes on the planet. The company will judge the morals of its purchasing decision by just a single, narrow criterion, fixating on a few extra puffs of carbon dioxide over the lives of women, minorities, and oppressed people suffering under authoritarian and bloody OPEC regimes.
So by this logic, if North Korea's newest tyrant were to discover an oil deposit tomorrow that was just a fraction less carbon-intensive to drill than oil sands oil, Chiquita would throw its support behind that gulag state before buying Canadian oil. Thanks for clearing that up, Chiquita.
The other thing Chiquita's statement clarifies is just how hollow the company's gesture really is. It will boycott oil from Canada's oil sands only "wherever possible." In other words, if it needs our oil and has no other choice but to use it or keep its trucks idle, it will just have to take ours. So, Chiquita won't actually go so far as to sacrifice its own supply chain efficiencies in the name of boycotting oil sands oil, refusing to use our oil altogether; it will just do it wherever there's an easy opportunity for some green-chic posturing.
This is a big enough issue for Chiquita to discredit Canadians over, apparently, but not quite big enough to risk its bottom line. Ironic, isn't it, that Canadian oil sands producers take millions of dollars from their own bottom lines to spend on programs and technologies aimed at aggressively reducing their own environmental impacts, but Chiquita will only stand up for its own supposed commitments if it's cost-free?
Except Chiquita is now learning that its public snubbing of the oil sands isn't so cost-free after all -- now that Canadians are passing on Chiquita products en masse, now that politicians across the country are condemning the firm, and the company's awkward ethical history is back in the news again.
Anti-oil sands activists may be celebrating their success in luring Chiquita into their ethically troubled web, but you can be sure there aren't a lot of people at Chiquita's headquarters that are feeling very good about it anymore. Here's betting that from now on ForestEthics will have a lot more trouble convincing corporations to put themselves in Canadians' bad books.
Follow Kathryn Marshall on Twitter: www.twitter.com/KVMarshall
Listen to our Chiquita Boycott Radio Ad | Ethical Oil
Keystone supporters go bananas over Chiquita's no-oil-sands ...
Chiquita Bananas Joins Other Major Brands, Pledges to Avoid Oil ...
Ethical oil only exists in the corporations minds, and her bank account.
Moreover, this tar sand pipeline will send this crude to the Gulf Coast to be refined and then sold on the world market. So even it this was a supposed 'ethical' oil it will be sold to the highest bidder, even to a country that suppresses its people. The oil might even be blended with other oil so that no one knows whether it's from the tar sands. But worst of all is the leaking that will occur, the ruptures and spills that will most definitely happen. How is it ethical to poison the environment, to destroy wildlife & habitat by turning it into an industrial zone, and marring peoples ancestral lands & homes/farms/fields?
...In broadening the appeal of Ethical Oil, Marshall would do well to start up Ethical Fisticuffs in Hockey and, after that catches on, she may want to throw in a couple more tidbits to the business community, such as Ethical Salmon Farming and Ethical Asbestos. Also, the lobbyist needs to offer something for intellectuals—Ethical Poverty would be a good title. As a grand finale, she could go for a Huffington Post piece titled “Ethical Sexism†to draw in women who, for some reason, didn’t get the point of her first piece.
...it’s obviously not sufficiently inclusive to simply talk about oil in terms of ethicality since the windmill, solar and natural gas people are sure to nod off after the first sentence. And those people who inexplicably insist on paying more attention to social issues than to business will refuse to relate. Then there has to be something for those who follow the Don Cherry Just-Say-No-to-Pinko-Sissies approach to life.
...Ethical Fisticuffs in Hockey, Ethical Poverty and Ethical Sexism. Ethical Fisticuffs in Hockey is a no-brainer, a mark of Canadianness right up there with the maple leaf and being polite. Of course, being polite does not apply when one is in the NHL. Note that underprivileged countries such as Saudi Arabia do not encourage anyone, especially women, to play hockey. Worse, I hear they don’t have much ice....
http://www.herizons.ca/node/505
If there’s one thing that makes any environmentalists blood boil, its got to be the practice of “greenwashing†where companies try to sell themselves as “green†when they are anything but. Then there’s “astroturfing†where a PR firm in the pay of a conglomerate creates a fake grass roots movement to further their own agenda (Countryside guardian an anti-wind farm group with links to the UK Nuclear industry is a classic example). But the promoters of the Canadian Tar Sands project have seriously pushed the boat out by attempting to label Tar sands oil as “ethical oilâ€. I realise that this is a bit of an old story, but I bring it up because it has got to count as the most cynical example of “greenwashing†I’ve every seen. I mean seriously their website should come with a health warning, as it has to be seen to be believed. They make “newspeak†in 1984 look like an episode of spin city!...
http://www.green-blog.org/2011/11/21/the-greatest-astroturf-of-all-time-ethical-oil/
...Many of the companies operating in the oilsands also have operations in regions featured in the Ethical Oil campaign. Among others, Shell has a long history in Nigeria and, along with Total, recently committed to shut down operations in Iran, Suncor has operations in Libya acquired via the PetroCanada merger, and Nexen has operations in Yemen. Exxon-Mobil, Conoco-Phillips, Marathon, CNRL, and almost any major oil company you can name operate in these regions. The only major E&P company operating in the oilsands region that I can think of which doesn’t operate in “conflict oil†regions is Cenovus.
So, I guess it’s in Alykhan Velshi and Ezra Levant’s court now to respond – how does the Ethical Oil test treat companies operating in conflict oil regions? I’ll be interested to hear what they have to say.
http://andrewleach.ca/oilsands/a-clever-hoax/
Deep Climate
Exploring climate science disinformation in Canada and beyond
The illogical (not to mention deceitful) framing of Alberta oil sands development as a supposed choice between “ethical oil†and “conflict oil†continues to fall apart. In the latest fiasco playing out at Huffington Post Canada, Ben Amunwa, a prominent critic of Shell Oil’s environmental record in Nigeria and the Alberta oil sands, has shredded EthicalOil.org spokesperson Kathryn Marshall’s ridiculous assertion that he is on the “same page†regarding the ethics of oil production (h/t Holly Stick).
So far, however, controversy has centred overwhelmingly on the distracting “ethical vs conflict oil†arguments and less on the equally misleading statements on the real environmental issues in the oil sands from EthicalOil.org (a.k.a. the Ethical Oil Institute). So today I’ll take a detailed look at the Ethical Oil position on the oil sands carbon footprint, as seen in former spokesperson Alykhan Velshi’s error-filled and confused post entitled Mythbusting: Are the Oilsands Major greenhouse Gas Emitters?, part of his “Myths and Lies†series....
Velshi’s original premise was that not only are oil sands greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions relatively insignificant, but that they are actually declining...
Ethical Oil’s credibility is further damaged by misleading statements concerning the supposedly tiny contribution of oil sands emissions when compared to total global human and natural emissions. ...
http://deepclimate.org/tag/ethical-oil-institute/
If you are really concerned about women and human rights Kathryn, pick a greater cause to fight for rather than the tar sands!
Fight for the right for current and future generations to have clean water and air.
"Recent studies suggest elevated levels of pollutants near mining sites including hydrocarbons and heavy metals . . . (It) raises questions about possible effects on health of wildlife and downstream communities."
http://www.canada.com/technology/Secret+Environment+Canada+presentation+warns+oilsands+impact+habitat/5894992/story.html
Yeah, the tar sands are just soooooo very ethical eh?
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Secret+Environment+Canada+presentation+warns+oilsands+impact+habitat/5894992/story.html
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Secret+report+elevates+oilsands+fears/5897433/story.html
Pretty damning evidence that "ethical oil" is an oxymoron. And they know it.
Oopsie!!!
Graham Saul, executive director of Climate Action Network, a coalition of environmental, faith-based and labour groups, said the warnings from Environment Canada suggest that Harper and Kent should stop trying to defend the environmental record of the oil and gas industry, making claims that the oilsands represent a "responsibly and sustainably developed resource."
"It's clear that there's nothing ethical about this level of environmental destruction and greenhouse gas pollution," said Saul. "The government seems to know the level of destruction associated with the tarsands and yet they're presenting a very different face to the public and in reality, there seems to be a massive gap between what they know to be an extremely destructive project and a policy agenda that is essentially seeking to promote the rapid expansion of the tarsands."
Source: Ottawa Citizen, Dec. 22, 2011
Read more: http://www.canada.com/technology/Secret+Environment+Canada+presentation+warns+oilsands+impact+habitat/5894992/story.html#ixzz1hHsYVbJD
This government wants to exploit this resource at a rapid pace and strip mine the forests in northern Alberta and leave a scar on the Canadian Shield that can be seen from space. The Athabasca River will be so polluted by 2020 at this rate, fish and wildlife will be killed at an astronomical pace, the First Nations communitys and way of life will be destroyed as we know how much this government cares for First Nations.
Dont forget these are big oil corporations and their record on the enviroment is no where near as good as there record PROFITS.