How much is this really grassroots with what the people living in the area want, versus Western environmental groups empowering and giving a platform to a voice they agree with.
Recall the hierarchy of needs. Most people in developing countries really care more jobs and development more than in preserving nature or tradition (see for example the path that happened in the US and Europe where environmentalism really didn’t take off until the a certain level of development).
Same thing with endangered species. I bet most poor farmers in areas with lots of elephants, hate the elephants that can destroy their crops and easily kill more maim them. However, largely Western environmental groups apply tremendous pressure to protect the elephants, and elevate and give a platform to those who agree with them, whether or not they actually represent the majority view of the people actually living there.
No supplier of products want to be linked with this type of thing. Traceable back to the source. But I believe they is what is needed to eventually manage to put pressure on the whole supply chain to follow the law and improve how the law is followed.
Lots of things are harmful. People living in mud-homes without piped clean water, toilets, electricity, or doors and windows... is also harmful. I grew up (in better circumstances) seeing this around me in my native India... and I think it's not right to deny the poor these things.
Where is the consideration that this development may have been necessary to lift a certain number of people out of a very poor standard of living?
Shell and other multinational companies are not philanthropic, they are prepared to leverage their considerable means to extract the maximum value.
I've lived in some of the poorest countries in the world. The narrative told to the communities going in is that everyone will get rich. The reality is very few people have the skills to take well-paid jobs. The only people to get moderately rich are the local government officials. When the resources dry up, the community is often left to deal with an environmental disaster.
Despite having seen this play out so many times, I would still consider myself utilitarian and to some extent libertarian. Unfortunately, when people are living in poverty, they are in an incredibly vulnerable position at the bargaining table. They will not able to negotiate for a fair compensation. In this situation the assumptions of a free and fair market do not hold.
I just remember Bolivia. The silver and other metals from Bolivia funded the Spanish Empire for 200 years or more. And every ordinary person is poor and the infrastructure is ramshackle.
When you have the time, checkout rates of the cancer and autoimmune within populations that live next to petro chemical facilities. The health impacts are generational, even for people who no longer live in those areas.
You can also checkout the track record of Shell in Nigeria to answer your question.
