Image by Luis Ramirez.
Xavier Becerra recently told Californians that we need to think about the future of humanity.
He said it with conviction. He said it with urgency. He said it as a candidate for governor of a state on the frontlines of climate change.
And then he defended taking campaign money from Chevron.
Not just quietly accepting it.
Not just brushing it off.
He said, plainly, that “we need Chevron.”
That statement deserves scrutiny, especially from Latino communities who live every day with the consequences of decisions like that.
Because in California, the future of humanity is not an abstract concept. It is the air our children breathe in the Central Valley. It is the asthma rates in Boyle Heights and Wilmington. It is the refineries that loom over neighborhoods where Latino families live, work, and go to school.
And those communities are tired of politicians who talk about climate leadership while staying financially tethered to the very industries driving the crisis.
Campaign finance records show that Becerra’s gubernatorial campaign has accepted contributions from fossil fuel and utility interests; including Chevron, Sempra, the American Gas Association, and PG&E.
These are not neutral actors in California’s energy debate.
They are corporations with long histories of lobbying against clean energy policies, delaying the transition away from fossil fuels, and passing costs onto ratepayers; many of them Latino households already struggling with rising energy bills.
They are also companies whose infrastructure is concentrated in communities of color, communities that consistently rank among those with the worst air quality in the nation.
This is not speculation. It is the lived reality of environmental injustice in California. So when a candidate says we must think about the future of humanity while taking money from the industries fueling climate change, voters are right to ask a simple question: Whose future are we talking about?
Latinos make up nearly half of California’s population, yet we are disproportionately exposed to pollution from oil refineries, gas plants, and diesel freight corridors. We breathe more polluted air. We suffer higher rates of asthma. We face greater risks from extreme heat and climate disasters. And we pay the price when utilities invest billions in fossil fuel infrastructure instead of clean energy solutions that could lower costs and improve public health.
This is why campaign contributions from fossil fuel and gas interests are not just political trivia.
They are signals of alignment. They tell us who has a seat at the table, and who does not.
Becerra has also faced scrutiny over his campaign operations in the past. Federal prosecutors brought charges against a former aide for stealing funds from a dormant campaign account, a case that led to a guilty plea. Becerra himself was not charged and cooperated with investigators. But the episode raised serious questions about oversight, accountability, and leadership; questions that matter when someone seeks the highest office in the state. Leadership is not just about speeches. It is about judgment. And judgment is revealed by the company you keep.
Let’s be clear: California does not “need” Chevron.
This is the same Chevron that has poisoned communities like Richmond for decades. The same Chevron that has spent millions of dollars shaping public opinion and local politics to protect its bottom line. The same Chevron that fought accountability for massive oil contamination in the Amazon, leaving Indigenous communities to battle one of the worst environmental disasters in history.
And today, it is the same Chevron profiting from global instability, reporting record earnings while families in California struggle to afford gas and groceries.
That is the company Xavier Becerra says we “need.”
California needs leaders who are willing to stand up to powerful corporations when public health and environmental justice are on the line.
We need leaders who will invest in clean energy, not double down on fossil fuels. We need leaders who will protect communities on the frontlines of pollution. We need leaders who understand that the future of humanity is not compatible with business as usual.
Because if we elect a governor who sides with the fossil fuel cartel, the consequences will be immediate and lasting. It would mean pushing the transition to clean, renewable energy to the back burner, at the exact moment we can least afford delay.
It would mean locking California into more gas plants, more pipelines, and more pollution, while other states and countries race ahead in the clean energy economy. And Latino families would be the ones paying the price. We would pay it in higher electricity and gas bills. We would pay it in missed job opportunities in the fastest-growing sectors of the economy; solar, storage, and clean technology.
We would pay it in hospital visits for asthma, heart disease, and heat-related illness. And we would pay it in lost wages when parents miss work to care for sick children.
That is not climate policy. That is an economic burden placed on working families. California’s clean energy transition is not just about protecting the planet. It is about lowering household costs. It is about creating good jobs that cannot be outsourced. It is about keeping our communities healthy and economically secure.
Delaying that transition is not neutral. It is a decision; one that benefits fossil fuel companies while shifting the costs onto Latino families.
So the question for voters is simple: Do we want a governor who prepares California for the future, or one who keeps us tied to the past? Because the future of humanity is not a slogan. It is a choice. And the time to make that choice is now.
