Loading...
AnimalsBusinessDirty Energy & FuelOil

Chiquita Dropping Tar Sands

 

chiquita

Chiquita (yes, the banana company) has agreed to drop the use of fuel that comes from oil refineries that use oil from Canada’s dirty tar sands. Chiquita is working with ForestEthics to get off this dirty energy source. Kudos to Chiquita! (And, of course, a big “Thank You” to ForestEthics.)

“Chiquita accounts for roughly one quarter of the United States’ banana market, and the millions of bananas it sells every day arrive at stores in diesel-fueled and refrigerated heavy-duty vehicles,” ForestEthics notes. “Chiquita’s action to reduce the use of controversial fuels like those from Tar Sands is similar to that taken by almost two-dozen major companies, 15 of which have confirmed their action publicly.”

More here: ForestEthics | Chiquita bananas photo via Miss Sydney Marie




24 comments
  1. Elder1

    Global warming is real, there is no doubt at all. CO2 produces a very real greenhous effect, that has been known and proven for over a century. Human activities release large amounts of CO2. The only question that remain unanswered is to what degree human activity is contributing to global warming. There cannot be no contribution and it is equally impossible that humans are solely responsible.

    The nub of the question is how much we contribute and are the activities undertaken to reduce our contribution worthwhile? Economic and energy use realism demands that we weigh the cost of reduction against the possible benefit. It is technically possible to turn off all the power and shut down all use of fossil fuels. Of course if that were done billions of people would die. Aside from a few insane extremists nobody wants that.

    We can also bury our heads in the sand and do nothing at all. The results will eventuall be almost as extreme but will take much longer to play out. There are many people that will accept that course of inaction since their universe will end before the problems are severe.

    The ethical course of action lies between the extremes. Where it lies differs and depends on every person’s point of view. Reaching a global concensus is also impossible. The history of humankind provides ample evidence of that.

    One thing is certain. Extreme views on either end of the spectrum will never be adopted by the majority of those who make the decisons. To have any chance of finding a middle ground that is acceptable one must fight for the middle ground. To win that battle compomise is both inevitable and essential. Adopting a no compomise attitude is the route to failure.

  2. Anonymous

    Global warming is real, there is no doubt at all. CO2 produces a very real greenhous effect, that has been known and proven for over a century. Human activities release large amounts of CO2. The only question that remain unanswered is to what degree human activity is contributing to global warming. There cannot be no contribution and it is equally impossible that humans are solely responsible.

    The nub of the question is how much we contribute and are the activities undertaken to reduce our contribution worthwhile? Economic and energy use realism demands that we weigh the cost of reduction against the possible benefit. It is technically possible to turn off all the power and shut down all use of fossil fuels. Of course if that were done billions of people would die. Aside from a few insane extremists nobody wants that.

    We can also bury our heads in the sand and do nothing at all. The results will eventuall be almost as extreme but will take much longer to play out. There are many people that will accept that course of inaction since their universe will end before the problems are severe.

    The ethical course of action lies between the extremes. Where it lies differs and depends on every person’s point of view. Reaching a global concensus is also impossible. The history of humankind provides ample evidence of that.

    One thing is certain. Extreme views on either end of the spectrum will never be adopted by the majority of those who make the decisons. To have any chance of finding a middle ground that is acceptable one must fight for the middle ground. To win that battle compomise is both inevitable and essential. Adopting a no compomise attitude is the route to failure.

  3. Gary Mount

    I have been researching this Global Warming thing for several years now from a scientific basis and have concluded that it is nothing other than a scam.

    1. Zachary Shahan

      You must be doing some pretty shoddy research. I have been for over a decade now and can assure you it isn’t. But if you aren’t going to trust nearly every scientific body in the world (which says the same), why would you trust me?

    1. Zachary Shahan

      You must be doing some pretty shoddy research. I have been for over a decade now and can assure you it isn’t. But if you aren’t going to trust nearly every scientific body in the world (which says the same), why would you trust me?

  4. Elder1

    This is an amazing turn of events. It appears that Forest Ethics has not only shot themselves in the head but this will reflect on the entire environmental movement. Allying with Chiquita Inc, formerly known as Uniited Fruit Company, is about on the same level as kissing up to companies like Union Carbide or Monsanto. Chiquita Inc is one of the top ten most hated companies in the world outside the USA. They were fined 25 million dollars in 2007 by the Justice Dept for hiring Columbian Terrorists to guard their plantations.

    Chiquita is a collabrative partner with Monsanto through Landec Corporation that develops food packaging and seed coating technologies.

    QUOTE:
    We believe our future obligations to our shareholders are to: (1) focus on technology innovation and new product development, (2) continue supporting our collaborative partners Chiquita, Monsanto and Air Products, and (3) insure that our sizable cash balances are protected in investments that are safe, and available as needed to selectively pursue and take advantage of profitable growth opportunities.

    See here
    http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Landec_(LNDC)/Filing/8-K/2009/Ex-99.1/D1184271

    It will be very difficult to restore even a shred of credibility after this total F.U.

      1. Elder1

        I really hope you don’t believe that. Firstly, they didn’t say they are going to drop tar sands oil, only that they will try to discourage their business partners from using it. In reality, it is impossible to boycott Canadian oil since there is no way to track it. A large percentage of the oil shipped from Canada isn’t bitumen, it is upgraded synthetic crude made from the oil sands which is cleaner than the highest quality Texas Sweet Light crude and sells for a high premium as a result. Oil isn’t labeled as to origin and refineries trade consignments constantly while doing business. Anybody that offers a “guarantee” that the product they are selling is “Tar Sands Free” is lying.

        It’s like “green” electricity. You cannot identify where electricity is produced or by whom. The same holds for petroleum products when they end up at the refinery. Refineries have enormous holding tanks for both incoming and outgoing product. Incoming is blended to make a raw product that meets the requirements of the refinery process. Any type of crude that meets the requirements will be used.

        A large portion of refined crude is used to make a product called diluent. It is a thin solvent similar to kerosene that is used to dilute crude oil for processing and pipeline distribution. When thick crude types such as bitumen are pipelined they are mixed with diluent. The diluent is then refined back out at the refinery and is sold to whomever needs to buy it. The diluent used to ship tar sands crude will be used in any other refinery or pipeline that needs it.

        Anyone that believes that Canadian crude can actually be boycotted is fooling themselves. People even slightly familiar with the business know better and there are many “environmental” NGOs that know it too. There are corporations that are either in collusion with environmental groups or in many cases using them as pawns to further their own agenda. I suggest you begin thinking in terms of who might benefit if pipelines such as Keystone are killed. You might start by looking at the oil tanker industry. It is a multibillion dollar business with a lot of excess capacity parked right now. The last thing they want is another pipeline. They are also largely foreign owned and they have no compunction or care about how they do business.

        The environmental movement has very powerful enemies and they will use the movement, abuse it and kill it if they deem necessary. Those that truly believe that they are trying to help save the planet are going to be in for a very nasty surprise unless they take great care, especially in examining sources of funding. Partnering with a company like Chiquita is about the stupidest thing I have seen in a very long time. Of course, it may be that Forest Ethics isn’t really ethical at all.

  5. Anonymous

    This is an amazing turn of events. It appears that Forest Ethics has not only shot themselves in the head but this will reflect on the entire environmental movement. Allying with Chiquita Inc, formerly known as Uniited Fruit Company, is about on the same level as kissing up to companies like Union Carbide or Monsanto. Chiquita Inc is one of the top ten most hated companies in the world outside the USA. They were fined 25 million dollars in 2007 by the Justice Dept for hiring Columbian Terrorists to guard their plantations.

    Chiquita is a collabrative partner with Monsanto through Landec Corporation that develops food packaging and seed coating technologies.

    QUOTE:
    We believe our future obligations to our shareholders are to: (1) focus on technology innovation and new product development, (2) continue supporting our collaborative partners Chiquita, Monsanto and Air Products, and (3) insure that our sizable cash balances are protected in investments that are safe, and available as needed to selectively pursue and take advantage of profitable growth opportunities.

    See here
    http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Landec_(LNDC)/Filing/8-K/2009/Ex-99.1/D1184271

    It will be very difficult to restore even a shred of credibility after this total F.U.

      1. Anonymous

        I really hope you don’t believe that. Firstly, they didn’t say they are going to drop tar sands oil, only that they will try to discourage their business partners from using it. In reality, it is impossible to boycott Canadian oil since there is no way to track it. A large percentage of the oil shipped from Canada isn’t bitumen, it is upgraded synthetic crude made from the oil sands which is cleaner than the highest quality Texas Sweet Light crude and sells for a high premium as a result. Oil isn’t labeled as to origin and refineries trade consignments constantly while doing business. Anybody that offers a “guarantee” that the product they are selling is “Tar Sands Free” is lying.

        It’s like “green” electricity. You cannot identify where electricity is produced or by whom. The same holds for petroleum products when they end up at the refinery. Refineries have enormous holding tanks for both incoming and outgoing product. Incoming is blended to make a raw product that meets the requirements of the refinery process. Any type of crude that meets the requirements will be used.

        A large portion of refined crude is used to make a product called diluent. It is a thin solvent similar to kerosene that is used to dilute crude oil for processing and pipeline distribution. When thick crude types such as bitumen are pipelined they are mixed with diluent. The diluent is then refined back out at the refinery and is sold to whomever needs to buy it. The diluent used to ship tar sands crude will be used in any other refinery or pipeline that needs it.

        Anyone that believes that Canadian crude can actually be boycotted is fooling themselves. People even slightly familiar with the business know better and there are many “environmental” NGOs that know it too. There are corporations that are either in collusion with environmental groups or in many cases using them as pawns to further their own agenda. I suggest you begin thinking in terms of who might benefit if pipelines such as Keystone are killed. You might start by looking at the oil tanker industry. It is a multibillion dollar business with a lot of excess capacity parked right now. The last thing they want is another pipeline. They are also largely foreign owned and they have no compunction or care about how they do business.

        The environmental movement has very powerful enemies and they will use the movement, abuse it and kill it if they deem necessary. Those that truly believe that they are trying to help save the planet are going to be in for a very nasty surprise unless they take great care, especially in examining sources of funding. Partnering with a company like Chiquita is about the stupidest thing I have seen in a very long time. Of course, it may be that Forest Ethics isn’t really ethical at all.

  6. Zachary Shahan

    Darcy, apparently you haven’t read very far into the matter — the oil coming from Canada’s tar sands is many times more harmful than typical oil. for more, check this link (which is also in the article above): http://planetsave.com/2011/08/30/tar-sands-oil-pipeline-backwards-thinking-humongous-climate-change-impact/

  7. Darcy

    Where on the planet do you get more enviro friendly oil than Western Canada!  Does anybody seriously think that oil from Venesuela,  The Middle East,  or the Congo is more enviro friendly.  Have you ever been there and seen what they are doing. There is full cooperation and compliance in environmental and safety issues  from all levels in the Canadian Oil and Gas patch and you cannot say that from the other questionable sources of Oil.  If you would rather support Dictators, Kingdoms and other undemocratic governments then go ahead but please don’t tell me that thier Oil is more planet friendly than ours. By the way I will probably never buy another Chiquita Banana or thier spin of products again!

    An Alberta Natural gas Service tech.
    The oil patch makes my living and pays my taxes!

    1. Zachary Shahan

      Darcy, apparently you haven’t read very far into the matter — the oil coming from Canada’s tar sands is many times more harmful than typical oil. for more, check this link (which is also in the article above): http://planetsave.com/2011/08/30/tar-sands-oil-pipeline-backwards-thinking-humongous-climate-change-impact/

      1. Bernd Felsche

        One would think environmentalists would be happy to help Canada clean up the big environmental messs that Alberta has with so much oil in the ground.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *