Editor’s Note: GOOD’s parent company is a proud partner with Global Witness, sharing stories of their mission challenging abuses of power to protect human rights and secure the future of our planet.


Despite Chevron’s public comments in support of the Black Lives Matter movement, Global Witness finds that Chevron gives over four times more campaign funding to US politicians who fail to uphold racial justice and civil rights legislation.

As the United States faces a watershed moment in the country’s movement for racial justice, Chevron is aiming to portray itself as an ally to Black communities with public statements of solidarity in the struggle against systemic racism. However, Global Witness found that behind the scenes, the company funnels hundreds of thousands of dollars through its political action committee to politicians whose civil rights voting records earned “F” grades from the NAACP[1]. According to a Global Witness analysis, Chevron gave over 4 times more in political funding to candidates with “failing” civil rights grades than to politicians with “passing” grades, as scored by the civil rights organization’s 2019 Legislative Civil Rights Report Card for the 116th Congress.



In the aftermath of the brutal and highly visible police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota late May 2020, millions of people flooded the streets in major cities and small towns alike to vocally oppose longstanding police violence and racism. Corporations took to social media to publicly show their support for the Black Lives Matter movement. Yet, while companies like Netflix, Citigroup, and Amazon voiced their support, the fossil fuel industry was largely silent, with just a few releasing statements in the days that followed. Chevron was the only major US oil company to do so.




It wasn’t the first statement on racial justice to come from Chevron. The oil major, which calls itself a “human energy company,” has previously spoken out on racial justice issues. The company has boasted commitments to diversity and inclusion, highlighted partnerships with historically Black colleges and universities, and cited efforts internally to improve diversity in their workforce, including among leadership. Following Floyd’s death, the company tweeted their solidarity and shared statements from top executives.

But behind the public persona, Chevron is propping up politicians who consistently work to oppose and dismantle policies that would further racial justice and equality. According to public campaign finance records[2] for the current election cycle spanning 2019 and 2020, Chevron has given at least $529,500 through its political action committee to US Congressmembers with failing civil rights grades, as scored by the NAACP. This compares to $124,000 given to politicians with passing grades.

Nearly half of Congress received a failing grade from the NAACP, largely falling on partisan lines. However, 80% of the members of Congress whom Chevron has contributed to have failing civil rights marks. Many elected officials with poor civil rights records are also key advocates for the oil and gas industry, and Chevron is notorious for its massive political spending to push pro-industry interests[3]. But it appears the company’s political spending also props up politicians who use their positions of power to further entrench racial injustice.

For example, Chevron has contributed to Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who recently penned a disturbing New York Times op-ed calling to “Send In the Troops” in response to ongoing protests against police brutality and racism. His argument to deploy the military on protestors caused many to point out how Cotton’s call to arms would put Black residents at risk.

In response, Cotton defended his article and referred to the backlash as the newsroom’s “woke progressive mob.” The senator, who called for justice for George Floyd in a sparse resolution also opposing calls to defund police, received a dismal NAACP civil rights score of 7%. His poor civil rights voting record is largely due to judicial confirmations that risk dismantling civil rights law, such as the appointment to an appeals court of Steven Menashi, the author of a controversial 2010 academic article appearing to promote ethnonationalism.

Or look to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the former Republican Senate Majority Whip who maintains a tremendous amount of influence in the party. Chevron gave the maximum possible donation to Cornyn as limited by FEC guidelines[4]. In the aftermath of Floyd’s killing, the senator said it was a reminder that “we have a long way to go in the fight for equal justice under the law,” and recently joined a handful of his Republican colleagues in a working group on legislation to overhaul policing. But he then went on to reject the notion that systemic racism within policing and beyond exists in the United States, seeming unable to accept the notion of implicit racial bias.

The Texas senator, who earned a disgraceful 7% civil rights score, is also cozy with fossil fuel interests. He is the top recipient of oil and gas money across the board, and recently introduced a bill to gift oil and gas companies a government handout amid the coronavirus pandemic.




Then there’s Sens. Martha McSally (R-AZ), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Steve Daines (R-MT), Cory Gardner (R-CO), and Thom Tillis (R-NC) – all of whom received maximum contributions from Chevron and failing grades from the NAACP. They all make up part of a joint fundraising committee that includes a former conservative talk radio host with a well-documented history of racist and misogynistic comments.

McSally, who joined Senator Cotton in introducing the modest resolution calling for justice for Floyd, has also advanced hateful rhetoric. In 2018, she proposed, apparently in jest, a border wall between California and Arizona designed “to keep these dangerous criminals out of [the] state,” in a reference to California’s sanctuary city policies to not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. At the same time, she has been criticized for putting Big Oil ahead of the public health of her constituents and hosts an overwhelmingly anti-environment voting record.

When asked by Global Witness about its funding of politicians with failing civil rights records, Chevron reiterated its support for diversity and inclusion in the workplace and said: “We support candidates based on a wide number of factors including their views towards the need for affordable, reliable and ever cleaner energy. We engage with and support many elected officials who take positions on a wide range of issues. We are not always aligned with all of their views but it is important for us to be part of the dialogue and share our perspectives, including those on diversity and inclusion, with candidates.”

A pattern of hypocrisy

But Chevron’s spending doesn’t just go to politicians with poor racial justice records, they also give substantial amounts to outside groups. For instance, Chevron contributed $1.625M to the Senate Leadership Fund (SLF), a super-PAC tied to Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY). The SLF has pledged nearly $11M in advertising through state-based affiliates to support McConnell, who as Senate Majority Leader has arguably been the largest single roadblock to progress on racial justice through the legislative process in recent years.

Consider “The Voting Rights Advancement” Act of 2019, an effort to restore and build upon the landmark civil rights legislation of 1965 that tackled racial discrimination in voter suppression. The 2019 bill passed in the House of Representatives, but has been blocked by McConnell for the better part of the year. Just this week, Democrats renewed calls to allow a vote in honor of the recent passing of civil rights icon and champion of the Voting Rights Act, Rep. John Lewis (D-GA). Yet McConnell has so far indicated no intention of doing so.

For all its lip service to racial justice and equality, Chevron’s backing doesn’t end with politicians who push hateful rhetoric and dismantle civil rights policies. In an analysis on corporate ties to police foundations, LittleSis found that Chevron holds a spot on the Houston Police Foundation board and previously partnered with the foundation to host a law enforcement conference in Houston. Police foundations, which partner with corporations to raise money that supplements police budgets, enable spending on technology and weaponry with little public oversight. Chevron’s ties to this police foundation show a willingness to ignore the calls of the Black Lives Matter movement to dismantle the systemic racism of policing even as they claim to support it.

The oil major also operates in insidious ways that directly oppose their proclamations of solidarity with marginalized populations. Just last month, E&E News revealed Chevron was likely behind a public relations scheme to convince journalists to push the message that environmentalists advance “radical” climate policies, such as the Green New Deal, that would hurt minority communities. The apparent slip-up listed Chevron’s name at the bottom of the press release, though Chevron has denied involvement in the campaign. The revelation, however, shows efforts to peddle a false narrative around environmental policies by stoking racial divides.

Time and again Chevron’s actions go against their proclamations. As many have ardently pointed out, including Drilled’s Amy Westervelt, Chevron’s #BlackLivesMatter statements ignore the charges of environmental racism perpetuated against communities of color where the company has polluted for generations.

In Richmond, California, where Chevron has presided since 1902, more than 80% of residents are people of color. Organizers from these communities have long fought for their health and safety, battling in the courts to try and hold Chevron to account for pollution violations and failed safety measures. Health conditions disproportionately impact Richmond residents, where children have roughly twice the rate of asthma as in neighboring areas and every community bordering Chevron’s facility is in the 99th centile for the respiratory illness. This is particularly alarming given the ongoing coronavirus pandemic that is thought to be exacerbated by air pollution and pre-existing respiratory conditions, and which impacts Black and Brown lives disproportionately.

Chevron actively harms the movement for racial justice they claim to support – in their operations, their public relations and their political funding. Their donations finance politicians who perpetuate systemic racism in the United States by barring legislation that would advance racial justice, confirming judges opposed to civil rights laws, and pushing policies that disproportionately harm communities of color. Chevron publicly claims to be an ally to Black communities and the Black Lives Matter movement, yet in reality they are part of the system that upholds structural racism in the US.

This article originally appeared on Global Witness. You can read it here.

  • Woman documents her nephew’s late night culinary quests as the viral ‘Midnight Chef’
    Photo credit: @midnightchef_amir on InstagramAmir Jackson's late night cooking is going viral.
    ,

    Woman documents her nephew’s late night culinary quests as the viral ‘Midnight Chef’

    A 15-year-old cooking late night snacks is inspiring the Internet.

    One night in Apple Valley, California, Morgan Graham rose in the middle of the night. A smell had woken her up. It was pleasant, but at 11:28 p.m. she wasn’t expecting to smell delicious cooking. She went down into the kitchen to see her 15-year-old nephew, Amir Jackson, baking cookies.

    This was the first of several viral videos of Graham’s nephew cooking up a storm late at night. Jackson, who has been staying with his aunt during the summer, is taking advantage of her kitchen to whip up some sumptuous snacks.

    Birth of a Midnight Chef

    Nearly every night, Graham wakes up around midnight to the smell of cookies, cornbread, tacos, or whatever her nephew wants to prepare.

    “I don’t care,” said Graham in the initial video. “He’s very responsible. He’s not gonna burn the house down, so therefore, cook whatever you want.”

    Graham further explained in the video that Jackson looks at recipes daily. He also rummages through her pantry during the day to search for ingredients for his nightly cooking fest. 

    “In his world, he’s having the time of his life. In my world, I just want to stop waking up close to midnight to the smell of food,” Graham joked.

    Graham’s videos featuring her nephew have racked up millions of views on TikTok and Instagram. The commenters soon bestowed the nickname “Midnight Chef” upon Jackson, to general delight. In another video, Jackson explained he liked the peace and quiet of the night while preparing his dishes.

    “I was like, ‘Man, I could go for some cookies right now.’ I saw they had cookie dough, so I started just making them, just randomly,” Jackson told TODAY. “I was trying to make sure nobody was up. My thought process was just like, ‘Man, why not?’”

    Graham is encouraging her nephew to keep cooking even though it wakes her. In fact, Graham set up Jackson’s own Midnight Chef Instagram page for him to post his latest recipes.

    “I just want to experiment while I still got the chance to experiment. I’ll maybe like branch into different fields,” said Jackson. “Explore what I can do while I still got time to.”

    Why do we indulge in late night snacking?

    Jackson’s popularity has brought up a commonly asked question: Why do we crave food randomly in the middle of the night?

    Well, there’s actually a bit of science behind it. Turns out that late night snacking is a result of our circadian rhythm system. As part of our now-defunct survival mechanism, our ancestors would eat large meals at night to store energy in times of famine. This is also why most midnight snackers crave foods higher in fat, salt, and sugar compared to what they’d usually eat during the day. While there’s nothing inherently wrong with late night snacking, it could curb certain health goals if a person is trying to trim down.

    If you find yourself getting up in the middle of the night with a hankering for a snack, it may be worth taking a peek at Jackson’s videos. Who knows what kind of late night cooking it can inspire? Perhaps you’ll become a Midnight Chef yourself.

  • European Union enforces ban on destroying unsold fast-fashion clothing by major companies
    Photo credit: CanvaThe European Union hopes to reduce fast-fashion waste.

    A new rule adopted by the European Union is intended to reduce landfill waste while holding major clothing manufacturers accountable.

    Starting July 19, the EU prohibits large companies from destroying unsold clothing, accessories, and shoes under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR). The regulations will expand to cover medium-sized companies in 2030.

    Fast fashion has become a major environmental concern. As retailers rapidly cycle through trends, unsold clothing often ends up in landfills or is destroyed to make room for new inventory. Many garments are made from synthetic fibers that can release greenhouse gases as they break down and shed microplastics that may contaminate soil and waterways.

    What’s the ban’s purpose?

    The ban is intended to reduce the amount of unsold clothing that large manufacturers dispose of. According to the European Environment Agency, between 264,000 and 594,000 tonnes of unused textiles are destroyed across Europe each year.

    Instead of destroying unsold clothing, companies will need to find other ways to keep those products in use. That could mean selling excess inventory at a discount, donating it to charities or social enterprises, or preparing it for reuse through repair, refurbishment, or remanufacturing. When those options aren’t feasible, the materials can be recycled.

    While the regulation is primarily focused on reducing the fashion industry’s environmental impact, the EU also hopes it will strengthen the economy by encouraging more sustainable business practices. The ban incentivizes companies to design products that are more resource-efficient, durable, reusable, and easier to repair or recycle. In turn, consumers should benefit from higher-quality products that last longer and generate less waste.

    Companies may destroy unsold clothing and footwear only in limited circumstances, such as when the items are damaged, unsafe, counterfeit, infringe intellectual property rights, or have been rejected by charitable organizations. Businesses relying on these exemptions must provide supporting documentation, such as test results or other records, to justify the destruction. Even then, they must follow the EU’s waste hierarchy, which prioritizes reuse and recycling over disposal. Companies are also required to publish annual reports detailing the unsold products they have discarded.

    National authorities will enforce the ban and may impose fines on companies that violate its requirements, including failing to maintain records for at least five years to support inspections. To help reduce the administrative burden, businesses may use existing customs and logistics codes when reporting the products they discard.

    Why recycling isn’t enough

    Recycling clothing can be a complicated and labor-intensive process. It often involves separating fabrics, dyes, synthetic fibers, and natural textile materials before they can be reused. That’s not to say it isn’t worthwhile. Instead of ending up in a landfill, recycled textiles can be turned into new clothing, home insulation, carpet padding, and other products.

    Still, recycling isn’t a cure-all. The EU hopes the new ban will encourage companies to keep usable clothing in circulation for as long as possible through resale, donation, reuse, or refurbishment before recycling becomes necessary. In doing so, the regulation aims to create a more circular economy rather than allowing piles of unused clothing to continue growing.

    This movement hopes to encourage clothing manufacturers to produce higher-quality products and reshape the industry as a whole. Making clothing from higher-grade materials with durable stitching that’s easier to repair can help reduce waste. While critics argue that doing so could reduce the number of garments sold each year, many say better-made clothing is worth the higher price—especially if consumers end up buying fewer replacement items over time.

    What can you do with old clothing?

    There are plenty of things you can do with old clothing around your home. If an item is too damaged to donate, its fabric can be repurposed for crafts or used as cleaning rags. And if you’re handy with a needle, there are countless ways to upcycle old clothes into new outfits, accessories, or other useful items with a little inspiration from the Internet.

    Giant corporations and everyday people alike can do their best to make the most of the materials they have, helping save money and reduce waste.

  • European Broadcasting Union offers guide to reduce sexualizing camera angles of Olympic women athletes
    Photo credit: CanvaA new guide has been introduced on how to respectfully broadcast woman athletes.

    Being an athlete is tough, especially if you’re an Olympian. They sacrifice their time and bodies in order to achieve peak physical condition. There is also the mental pressure to compete against the best. The last thing they should worry about is being objectified and sexualized online. 

    With this in mind, the European Broadcasting Union wants to help. They offered a booklet to broadcasters titled Raising the Bar: Guidelines for respectful media coverage in women’s athletics. The 23-page guide shows how camera placement choices and editing could potentially compromise an athlete. It also offers broadcasters guidelines for how to set up camera shots and show slow-motion replays that won’t sexualize or present athletes in undignified poses. 

    athletes, infographic, olympians, guide
    Screenshot

    Focusing on the sport, reducing harassment

    These guidelines come as multiple stories about women athletes being harassed online have surfaced. Many misogynistic posts about athletes have come from slow motion footage focused on certain parts of the athlete’s body. 

    “The sexualization of women athletes through selective camera angles and editing choices continues to be a significant concern across many sports broadcasts,” wrote Glen Killane, executive director of EBU Sport in the booklet. “Lingering shots on bodies, low-angle cameras that capture revealing views, and excessive slow-motion replays that serve no technical or storytelling purpose are among the issues observed in the media coverage of women’s athletics competitions today.”

    These new broadcast guidelines and suggestions are backed by Serbian long jumper Ivana Španović, British Olympic pole vaulter Holly Bradshaw, and Croatian high jumper Blanka Vlašić. Vlašić has spoken out regarding the equal visibility of women’s sports. Bradshaw has spoken out against the discomfort and sexualization of Olympic women athletes due to their tight-fitting uniforms.

    “I first-hand have received social media abuse and witnessed inappropriate videos online of myself and colleagues when slow motion content of us competing is captured,” wrote Bradshaw in the guide. “Athletes want to enjoy themselves doing the sport they love without feeling uncomfortable or anxious about the footage being shown live. Many athletes, myself included, have been in competitive scenarios where they are more focused on the cameras instead of their own performance.”

    What the guide provides

    The guide provides visual aids for broadcasters along with insights from the athletes to explain why certain shots would be preferred. Broadcasters are requested to avoid tight shots from the back of athletes. They’re also asked to avoid low camera angles from underneath. They recommend shots above the pelvis or ones that don’t linger onto commonly sexualized areas of the body. They recommend wider shots so the audience can see the technical ability being displayed by the athlete. Overall, the point is to focus on the athletic performance rather than close-ups of the athlete.

    Currently, there is no enforcement of these guidelines or penalties if a sports broadcast doesn’t adhere to them. However, there is value in knowing which broadcasts will focus on the athletic contests rather than an athlete’s appearance. This will help the competitors focus on how they do rather than how they look when the cameras are on.

Explore More Culture Stories

Fashion

European Union enforces ban on destroying unsold fast-fashion clothing by major companies

Film & TV

European Broadcasting Union offers guide to reduce sexualizing camera angles of Olympic women athletes

Culture

The summer concert state rankings: Which states pack more festivals, shows, and tours in 2026

Internet

The church fathers of early Christianity are showing their swag – on TikTok