In a move that has sparked both environmental and energy security debates, California’s state Senate recently introduced a landmark resolution to scrutinize the state’s reliance on crude oil imports from the Amazon, particularly from Ecuador. This decision follows a visit from Indigenous leaders from Ecuador’s Amazon, including Juan Bay, president of the Waorani Nation, Jhajayra Machoa Mendúa of the A’i Kofan, and Nadino Calapucha of the Kichwa Pakkiru, who urged California lawmakers to address the environmental and human rights impacts of oil extraction in their territories. The resolution, introduced on June 10, 2025, marks a potential shift in California’s energy policy, but it also raises critical questions about why Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration continues to favor foreign oil over domestic sources like Alaska or reopening permitting for in-state production. Once energy-independent, California’s growing dependence on imports now poses a national security risk, and the rationale behind these choices demands examination.
The Amazon Oil Connection and Indigenous Pleas
California is the world’s largest consumer of Amazonian crude, with refineries like Chevron’s in Richmond processing oil extracted from Ecuador’s rainforest. This trade has come under fire due to its ecological and cultural toll. Ecuador’s government plans to auction 14 new oil blocks covering over 2 million hectares of rainforest—much of it Indigenous territory—in a 2026 bidding round called “Sur Oriente.” Indigenous leaders argue this expansion violates a 2023 national referendum to keep oil underground in Yasuni National Park and a March 2025 Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruling that found Ecuador’s oil operations breached Indigenous rights in Block 43.
During their June 2025 visit, Ecuadorian leaders kayaked in San Francisco Bay to protest near Chevron’s Long Wharf, highlighting the link between California’s oil consumption and rainforest destruction. Their advocacy, coupled with a new Amazon Watch report, Drilling Toward Disaster: Amazon Crude and Ecuador’s Oil Gamble, prompted Senate Resolution SR51, which calls for investigating California’s role in Amazon crude imports and exploring policies to protect the rainforest. The resolution commends Indigenous communities and signals California’s intent to address its complicity in deforestation and human rights violations.
California’s Shift from Energy Independence
California’s decision to rely on foreign oil, particularly from ecologically sensitive regions like the Amazon, stands in stark contrast to its historical energy independence. In the mid-20th century, California was a major oil producer, with fields in Kern County and the Los Angeles Basin meeting much of its demand. However, stringent environmental regulations, a push for decarbonization, and restricted permitting under Newsom’s administration have curtailed in-state production. By 2025, California imports over 60% of its crude, with Ecuador as a key supplier.
This shift has raised eyebrows, especially when domestic alternatives like Alaska’s North Slope oil fields remain viable. Alaska’s crude, transported via pipeline and tanker, could reduce California’s reliance on foreign oil while avoiding the ethical and environmental concerns tied to Amazon extraction. Moreover, reopening permitting for in-state drilling or expanding production in existing fields could revive California’s energy self-sufficiency. Critics argue that Newsom’s policies, which prioritize climate goals over energy security, have left the state vulnerable to global supply chain disruptions and geopolitical risks.
Newsom’s Rationale: Climate Leadership or Misstep?
Governor Newsom’s administration defends its energy strategy as a commitment to climate leadership. California has set ambitious goals to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, and Newsom has championed policies like banning new gas-powered car sales by 2035 and phasing out fossil fuel infrastructure. Importing oil from Ecuador, rather than expanding domestic production, aligns with this narrative by avoiding new drilling in California’s ecologically sensitive areas, such as the Central Valley or offshore waters. The administration also argues that global oil markets dictate supply sources, and Ecuador’s crude is readily available through existing trade networks.
However, this rationale has significant flaws. First, importing Amazon crude undermines California’s environmental credentials. Oil extraction in Ecuador’s rainforest contributes to deforestation, carbon emissions, and biodiversity loss, contradicting the state’s climate goals. The Amazon stores vast amounts of carbon and supports rainfall patterns across the hemisphere, making its preservation critical to global climate stability.
Second, the decision ignores national security implications. California’s dependence on foreign oil exposes it to supply shocks, as seen during past OPEC crises. Domestic production in Alaska or California could provide a stable, secure supply, reducing reliance on politically unstable regions. For example, Alaska’s oil fields, with an estimated 4.4 billion barrels of recoverable reserves, could meet a significant portion of California’s demand if prioritized. In-state production, meanwhile, could create jobs and bolster local economies without the ethical baggage of Amazon crude.
Third, Newsom’s restrictive permitting policies have stifled innovation in cleaner extraction technologies. Modern drilling techniques, such as enhanced oil recovery with carbon capture, could minimize environmental impacts while maintaining energy security. By contrast, Ecuador’s oil operations, often conducted with outdated infrastructure, result in spills and pollution that harm Indigenous communities.
A National Security Risk
California’s shift from energy independence to import reliance has broader implications for national security. As the fifth-largest economy in the world, California’s energy stability is critical to the U.S. economy. Disruptions in global oil supplies—whether due to geopolitical conflicts, natural disasters, or trade disputes—could cripple the state’s transportation, manufacturing, and agricultural sectors. The U.S. Energy Information Administration notes that California consumes about 1.8 million barrels of oil daily, and any shortfall could have cascading effects nationwide.
Moreover, reliance on foreign oil ties California to countries with questionable human rights records. Ecuador’s government, facing economic pressures, has prioritized oil revenue over Indigenous rights and environmental protections, as evidenced by its defiance of the Yasuni referendum. By contrast, domestic production operates under stricter U.S. regulations, ensuring greater accountability.
A Path Forward: Balancing Climate and Security
The Indigenous-led push to examine California’s Amazon oil ties offers an opportunity to rethink the state’s energy strategy. While Newsom’s climate ambitions are commendable, they must be balanced with pragmatic solutions that prioritize both environmental justice and energy security. Several steps could address these concerns:
-
Phase Out Amazon Crude Imports: California should commit to reducing and eventually eliminating Amazon oil imports, aligning with the Indigenous leaders’ calls and Senate Resolution SR51. This could involve setting a timeline to transition to alternative sources.
-
Prioritize Domestic Oil: Increasing imports from Alaska or reopening limited, environmentally responsible permitting in California could reduce reliance on foreign oil. Targeted investments in cleaner extraction technologies could mitigate environmental impacts.
-
Invest in Renewables and Infrastructure: Accelerating the transition to renewables, such as solar and wind, alongside investments in electric vehicle infrastructure, could reduce oil demand long-term. California’s abundant renewable resources make this a viable path.
-
Support Indigenous Rights Globally: California can lead by advocating for global standards that protect Indigenous territories from extractive industries, reinforcing its role as a climate and human rights champion.
Conclusion
California’s decision to examine its Amazon oil ties, spurred by the powerful advocacy of Ecuador’s Indigenous leaders, is a critical moment to reassess Governor Newsom’s energy policies. While the state’s climate goals are laudable, its reliance on environmentally and ethically problematic oil from Ecuador undermines those ambitions and exposes it to national security risks. By prioritizing domestic production from Alaska or limited in-state drilling, California could reclaim its energy independence, support its economy, and honor its commitment to environmental justice. The path forward requires bold leadership to balance climate ideals with the practical realities of energy security—a challenge Newsom cannot afford to ignore.
Sources: Associated Press, Amazon Watch, The Daily Climate, U.S. Energy Information Administration, Inter-American Court of Human Rights
