Over 99.9% of scientists agree that the climate crisis is real and caused by humans – a consensus which is not necessarily reflected in public consciousness and media discourses, where misinformation and disinformation about climate change persist. For decades, the fossil-fuel industry has exploited the public's misunderstanding of scientific language for its benefit, leading to confusion and doubt around climate change.1 Additionally, as outright denial becomes untenable, it has shifted tactics, deflecting focus to personal carbon footprints – a concept popularized by BP – and spreading misleading narratives about renewable energy.2
In an effort to combat the misinformation challenge, companies are starting to take action. One of these examples is Meta, who introduced a climate science center in Facebook and expanded its flagging system for climate-related posts, as Data for Good director Laura McGorman explains:
Laura McGorman
How Meta’s Climate Science Center fights misinformation
Our Climate Science Center is a one-stop resource available in more than 150 countries, connecting people on Facebook with science-based news, approachable information and actionable resources from the world’s leading climate change organizations. The center includes detailed deep dives covering the basics of climate-related subjects, tips for spotting misleading information, and ways for individuals to take action.
At Meta, we understand the importance of addressing complex discussions around climate change on our platforms – they are crucial for building consensus and finding solutions. To achieve this, we take a comprehensive approach to climate-related content, ensuring that people are educated with accurate information while countering misinformation responsibly. Protecting freedom of expression, engaging in research, and promoting transparency are essential aspects of our approach.
While climate change misinformation is a small portion of the overall content, it can surge during high-profile discussions, like during extreme weather events. To combat this, we collaborate with over 90 independent fact-checking organizations in more than 60 languages. Our partners review a wide range of climate-related claims and debunk false information that challenges the existence and impacts of climate change, misrepresents scientific data, or distorts mitigation and adaptation efforts.
When content is rated as false by fact-checkers, we add warning labels and reduce the visibility of such content to limit its spread. We also don’t recommend or approve ads with false claims and take measures against accounts and groups that repeatedly share false information about climate science.
We have taken additional steps to enhance our fact-checkers' capacity: Our Climate Misinformation Grant program supports projects that unite fact-checkers, climate experts, and other organizations to combat climate misinformation. We also use keyword detection to gather climate-related content in one place — facilitating fact-checkers in identifying potential misinformation during breaking news events. We recognize that some climate information may be misleading or confusing without containing verifiable false claims. While we do not restrict this type of content, we focus on educating and informing people with authoritative information.
By collaborating with esteemed climate organizations like Monash Climate Change Communication Research Hub, Cambridge Social Decision-Making Laboratory, and Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, we support the dissemination of reliable climate information. We are committed to making climate-related data and research more accessible through innovative tools and research efforts. Our Ad Library provides an extra layer of ad transparency, requiring all active ads to be available in the public domain, and providing additional information for ads related to social issues, elections, politics, and advocacy around energy and climate change.3
Despite promising measures like Meta’s, the problem continues to run deep. The fossil fuel industry has long been a master of using advertising and communications to shape public opinion and political policy. For instance, between 2008 and 2018 the oil and gas sector spent around 1.3 billion dollars on political activities, of which around 64% is directed to advertising and promotion.4 These tactics continue until this day: a recent DeSmog investigation found that fossil fuel companies have been working with influencers to promote their products and exaggerate environmental credentials5 (see Influencing the Influencers), and a recent ExxonMobil ad featured a number of people caught up in cables struggling to go about everyday life, implying that using electric vehicles is inconvenient and restrictive.6
Fossil fuels also have a considerable impact on media narratives and policy. The industry invests billions of dollars each year in advertising, public relations, and lobbying efforts to influence climate policy.7 Meanwhile, non-governmental organizations working to promote climate action often operate with far fewer resources and funding constraints.8 This means that they are at a disadvantage when it comes to getting their message across and competing with misinformation coming from the fossil fuel industry.9
Through a vast range of misleading advertisements, the fossil fuel industry has attempted to manipulate public and policy perception, casting doubt on the reality, cause, severity, and solvability of climate change. The use of "advertorials" — ads disguised as editorials — in prominent publications further propagated their denial narrative.10 Some ads sought to create doubt about the reality and human contribution to climate change, framing it as mere theory rather than scientific fact.11 Others downplayed the severity of the crisis, using headlines like “reset the alarm” to suggest the issue wasn't as urgent as made out to be. Others exploited the notion of "scientific uncertainties" to question the extent of human involvement in climate change.10 Another selection of ads emphasizes the potential economic risks associated with climate action, diverting attention from environmental impacts towards financial concerns,10 and building a narrative of dependence on fossil fuels for economic growth.12
João Talocchi
How the Fossil Fuel Industry Blocks Climate Action
The fossil fuel industry had developed some of the most precise climate models themselves, back in the 1970s.13,14 But instead of using their knowledge and resources to advance new forms of energy and address the future destruction that they knew their products would end up creating, the industry chose to hide this information and actively worked to discredit similar findings by other scientists - see examples below.
Their strategy is proven very lucrative. The oil and gas sector has seen record profits over the past two years, both in total and for individual companies. The IEA estimates a staggering $4000 billion in profits were made by the entire industry in 2022, compared to typical annual estimates of $1500 billion.15 The five biggest international oil companies alone reported a combined $199bn in net profits in 2022. National oil companies profited the most. Saudi Aramco earned a staggering $161 billion. But now that we are living through the reality of an already much warmer world, will the industry use their massive resources to solve the problem, prioritizing survival over profit? It doesn't seem like it.
Oil and gas fight hard against the proposed solutions to the climate crisis. Instead, they back initiatives which are more expensive, or less impactful, than transitioning to renewables, ultimately resulting in the climate impacts landscape we see today. Some of their empty promises include carbon capture (at the point of emissions, or captured from air), bioenergy with questionable carbon accounting, hydrogen made from fossil fuels and many blended forms of these. The tempting narrative they offer is a maintenance of fossil fuel sales and usage that also solves the emissions problem — but the majority of their solutions have failed, or are failing, to bend the curve. As these solutions fail to deliver, the industry moves on to either deny their interest in change or our ability as a society to change (see Is Doomism the New Delay?).
As temperature records were shattered around the world, ExxonMobil's CEO Darren Woods position was “Exxon is a molecule company, not an electron company”.16 TotalEnergies CEO, Patrick Pouyanne said: “Today, our society requires oil and gas, there is no way to think that overnight we can just eliminate all that".<7 But is everyone that works or has worked at the fossil fuel industry to blame? No. It's important to differentiate people that make a living in a global industry from the industry itself - and those with the power to determine its future. For the past decades, various individuals and organizations have attempted to work with the fossil fuel industry to address the climate challenge. Unfortunately, these efforts have mostly failed.18
A number of reports have exposed that fossil fuel companies have known about climate change for decades, but decided to ignore, downplay or even deny their findings. Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway’s book Merchants of Doubt chronicles how a small group of scientists was hired by various industries, including the fossil fuel industry, to cast doubt on scientific consensus through cherry-picking data, questioning the integrity of climate scientists, and creating fake grassroots campaigns to sow confusion.19
Other historical examples of misinformation campaigns include tobacco industry leaders hiding the dangers of smoking in the 1960s, and the character assassination faced by Rachel Carson following her revelation of DDT's environmental dangers in her influential book Silent Spring. The latter event spurred industry groups to label her as "radical," "communist," and "hysterical," unveiling the misogyny now inextricably linked with climate change denialism. Unfortunately, those efforts were incredibly successful in shaping public opinion and delaying meaningful action on climate change.20
In The New Climate War, Michael Mann describes the sophisticated deflection campaigns undertaken by those aiming to slow down climate action, echoing the diversion tactics used by the gun lobby, tobacco industry, and beverage corporations. The aim is to shift the responsibility for the climate crisis from corporations to individuals, and position personal actions like veganism or less air travel as the main solutions to climate change. This overemphasis distracts from the urgent need for government policies to crack down on corporate pollution, and drives a wedge into the climate advocacy community through the use of advanced cyber tools like online bots and trolls, reminiscent of those seen in the 2016 US presidential election.21
Fossil fuel companies including ExxonMobil, Shell and BP have a history of working with groups like the Heartland Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute to challenge climate change science — using newspapers, debates, and even fake science articles to argue that climate change data was too unclear and unreliable to attribute it to human activity. The Koch brothers, known fossil fuel business owners, played a big role in this by hosting the first conference denying climate change in 1991. This widespread denial led the public to think that more people don't believe in climate change than actually do — making people less likely to talk about it or put pressure on lawmakers.21
DAVID FENTON'S COMMUNICATION RULES FOR ACTIVISTS
TELL THE TRUTH. Spin is deceit. Expect your opponents to lie and mislead—don’t do it yourself. The truth is more powerful, and it’s the only ethical choice. You can simplify the truth, but do not distort it. If you make mistakes, quickly admit them and move on.
FIGHT FALSEHOOD AND DISINFORMATION IMMEDIATELY. If you don’t, it can stick in people’s minds, enabling a big lie to become “truth.” To fight it, double down on all of the directives above. If a journalist is regurgitating disinformation, complain respectfully to them, and their bosses, too.
From The Activist Media Handbook
In recent years, fossil fuel lobbyists have been found to set up deceptive coordinated groups masking as grassroots efforts to undermine climate policy — a phenomenon termed Astroturfing. In the western United States, the Western States Petroleum Association secretly operated a number of astroturf front groups, such as “California Drivers Alliance” and “Washington Consumers for Sound Fuel Policy”. These groups were used to run PR campaigns influencing policy decisions — creating the perception of public support for oil companies, and opposition to progressive climate policies.22
The industry has also been known to fund politicians who are friendly to their interests23 — such as Donald Trump, who withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement.24 Fossil fuel companies have also been actively working against ESG and emissions reduction regulations, lobbying politicians to block climate legislation.23 Recently, Republicans voted to repeal a rule that allows retirement funds to consider climate change in their investments, claiming that it would have a negative impact on tax revenue and employment.25 In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott signed a law prohibiting investment in businesses that boycott fossil fuels26 — effectively banning investors from having a Net Zero strategy. These efforts are backed by groups like the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which is funded by oil and gas companies.27
Until this day, the fossil fuel sector is spending millions on ads influencing public opinion: between September 2022, in the run-up to the COP27 climate conference in Sharm El-Sheikh, until after the conference at the end of November, companies spent $3-4 million on Meta alone.28 Researchers counted 3,781 ads during this time, the majority driven by a small number of groups — in particular Energy Citizens, a PR group of the American Petroleum Institute. Ads included misleading claims on the climate crisis and Net Zero targets, pushing the necessity of fossil fuels, as well as outright climate denial from groups such as PragerU and The Heartland Institute. From July 2022, a spike for the hashtag #ClimateScam was observed on Twitter, which was actively recommended for organic searches of ‘climate’ as well as posts including #climate.28
CASE STUDY
The advertising industry speaks up against climate misinformation
Ahead of COP27, companies and brands including IPC, Omnicom, VirginMedia, Sky and Patagonia signed an open letter to delegates of COP27, demanding that they take action against climate misinformation. The letter followed a survey by Climate Action Against Disinformation and the Conscious Advertising Network, which analyzed common false climate beliefs around the world. It found that there is a significant gap between public beliefs and the science on basic issues such as whether climate change exists and whether it is mainly caused by humans. A large number of respondents also believed that fossil gas was a climate-friendly source of energy (39% of US citizens and 40% of Brazilians, compared to only 14% of UK respondents). The highest share of people who believed at least one misinformation statement was found in India, and the lowest in the UK.29
Industry front groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Heartland Institute have been particularly active in sabotaging efforts at the national and state levels to promote renewable energy30. The watchdog group SourceWatch describes ALEC as a "corporate bill mill" through which "corporations hand state legislators their wish lists to benefit their bottom line".31 In recent years, fossil fuel corporations such as ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP have pulled out of ALEC, concerned about increased public scrutiny of their funding activities.32
In a joint article, Susan Joy Hassol and Michael Mann call attention to a pattern of disinformation by certain conservative media outlets, particularly those under the Murdoch media empire, during extreme climate events.33 These outlets have repeatedly attributed the devastating effects of extreme heat and drought — as seen in the 2019/2020 "black summer" of Australia and the 2020 wildfires in western US — to natural causes, forest management policies, or even arson,34 obscuring the true link between the burning of fossil fuels and global heating. These misleading narratives serve to misdirect public understanding and undermine policy action.33
“These coal and oil barons say they’re just supplying people with what they want. But we don’t want fossil fuels. What we want is cold beer and hot showers, services like convenient ways to get around and good food to eat. If we can get those in a way that doesn’t destroy our planet’s life-support system, we’d surely prefer that."
Since COP27, misinformation hasn’t gone anywhere: Despite Google’s ban on ads containing climate denial, Ben Shapiro’s media outlet The Daily Wire bought an estimated $60 million worth in Google ads to advertise search terms such as “climate change is a hoax” and “why is climate change fake — meaning that Shapiro’s stories would come up at the top of those searches.35 And the influence of the fossil fuel industry is not only seen in media and policy, but also research itself. A study by Data for Progress found that six fossil fuel companies provided over $700 million in funding for climate research to 27 US universities between 2010-2020, including leading institutions like MIT, Stanford and Harvard. The authors suggest that this funding can influence research programs and policies towards industry-preferred climate solutions such as carbon capture, biofuels and hydrogen.36 At present, there is a lack of transparency with regards to industry funding sources.
CASE STUDY
Exxon Mobil knew about climate change since the 1970s
In 2005, investigative journalists discovered internal company memos indicating that Exxon has known about the potential effects of fossil fuel products on global warming since the late 1970s, and predicted “dramatic environmental effects before the year 2050”. In doing so, ExxonMobil scientists showed a high level of scientific accuracy - 63-83% of their climate projections were accurate in predicting subsequent global warming. Instead of taking action to decarbonize, ExxonMobil worked hard to overemphasize uncertainties in scientific consensus and feign ignorance about the role of human activity in global warming — failing to address the possibility of fossil fuels becoming stranded assets as the world takes action on climate change.37
Today, a number of cities, states and countries are suing fossil fuel companies for misleading the public whilst knowing about the threat climate change poses. The European Parliament and US Congress have held hearings holding fossil fuel giants accountable, and grassroots groups like #ExxonKnew and #ShellMustFall are gaining traction, working to dismantle the industry’s self-portrayal as part of the solution.37
While discourses around climate change have evolved, strategies for delaying ambitious climate action have, too. While outright climate denial, skepticism and attacks on scientists are not common anymore, they have been replaced with climate delay — accepting the reality of climate change but raising doubts of the possibility of mitigation.
The four discourses of climate delay include: 38
- Redirecting responsibility by focusing on individual rather than collective actions, obscuring the role of powerful actors, such as BP’s ‘Know your Carbon Footprint’ campaign. This strategy includes directing attention away from companies and towards large emitters like China, and arguing that others will take advantage of those who lead on climate action as per the free rider effect.
- Pushing for non-transformative solutions, in particular technologies which are not proven to work at scale (such as direct air capture and zero-carbon planes), ‘clean’ fossil fuels (as advertised by the American Petroleum Institute), pointing towards recent but comparatively small advances in lowering emissions, and dismissing restrictive measures (e.g. frequent flier levies) over voluntary policies.
- Emphasizing the downsides of climate action to employment, prosperity and ways of life. More recently, fossil fuel companies have appealed to social justice, framing the shift to renewable energy as costly and burdensome, threatening living standards. Often companies will feature individuals from marginalized groups in advertisements, implying that climate policies threaten livelihoods and living standards, a phenomenon coined ‘wokewashing’.
- Surrendering by arguing that large-scale socio-economic transformation is impossible. The extreme form of this is doomism - the belief that catastrophic climate change is already locked in, and that all that society can do is adapt to climate impacts.
Discourses of delay are often used in combination, such as the pervasive overpopulation argument - directing attention away from historically high emitters towards developing countries (redirecting responsibility), and arguing that CO2 trajectories in those countries are already locked in (surrender). This argument ignores the efforts of developing countries to reduce their emissions and fails to address the root causes of climate change — including the industries, countries and individuals responsible for the majority of carbon emissions.
Figure 22: Shell's "Make the Future" ad is a practical example of discourses of delay.
A practical example of discourses of delay is Shell’s “Make the Future” ad, which features a woman named Shweta, who drives a truck powered by Shell’s gas and speaks about the need to transition to cleaner fuels. The ad suggests that Shell is supporting women’s empowerment and gender equality by providing women with access to clean and efficient fuels.39 While the ad highlights the potential benefits of using LNG as a cleaner alternative to diesel, critics have pointed out that it fails to acknowledge the fact that the use of any fossil fuel, including natural gas, contributes to climate change.40
Another popular strategy used by those opposing climate action is to divert focus from collective and regulatory action towards individual behavior, breeding conflict among climate advocates by encouraging blame and virtue-signaling. The term 'carbon footprint,' was pioneered by BP, who invested over $100 million annually between 2004 and 2006 to weave it into everyday language and focus on individual lifestyle choices. In 2019, they doubled down on this initiative, launching a fresh 'Know your carbon footprint' campaign on social media.40
This focus on individual behavior might stem from feelings of powerlessness or despair, but it ultimately distracts from necessary structural changes. This strategy is used to discredit climate advocates by accusing them of hypocrisy for not leading austere, low-carbon lifestyles, fostering division and undermining the effectiveness of their messages. Lifestyle choices — which are closely tied to personal identity — become points of contention. This focus on individual actions can be harmful, as it can diminish support for system-level climate solutions and policy.41
CASE STUDY
The Crying Indian
The Crying Indian Public Service Announcement is a classic example of a deflection campaign where focus is shifted from regulatory reform onto individual action. The campaign was initiated by a consortium of American corporations including Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Anheuser-Busch, and Philip Morris, collectively named "Keep America Beautiful." In collaboration with the Ad Council and New York-based advertising giant Marsteller, they propagated the message of personal responsibility for environmental protection, downplaying the necessity of corporate accountability and systemic changes.
In the PSA, an actor dressed as a Native American sheds a tear after witnessing a littered river, implying that individuals are responsible for preventing pollution. In The New Climate War, Michael Mann argues that lifestyle alterations and consumer choices alone cannot substitute the need for infrastructural changes such as high-speed rail, renewable energy or carbon pricing. While there is value in advocating for individual action, it's crucial to balance the narrative by persistently pressuring politicians to enact climate-friendly policies — avoiding a divided community which inadvertently plays into the hands of fossil fuel interests.
According to John Marshall of the Potential Energy Coalition, misinformation can be tackled by being proactive and prepared.42 Our problem is not the lack of effective messages, but rather the underinvestment in educating the public. One striking statistic Marshall mentions in a conversation on the Outrage and Optimism podcast is that less than 20% of people realize that clean energy has become more affordable in the past decade, with the cost of solar dropping significantly. This is a significant communication gap rather than a message problem. There are moments throughout the year where the general public is more attuned to climate-related issues — and we need to be ready with the right messages during those times.
CASE STUDY
Getting personal
Greenpeace x Fenton Communications
In The Activist’s Media Handbook, David Fenton suggests that whenever it's appropriate, narratives should be personalized. Every policy has decision-makers behind it, often with images that are publicly accessible. Making stories character-driven can make them more engaging, simplifying complex issues for the public. Adopting this approach not only garners attention, but can also stimulate extended discourse. Fenton exemplifies this with his experience from the 1990s when he designed a climate change advertisement for Greenpeace, featured in the Washington Post. The ad prominently displayed a photo of the CEO of Mobil, accompanied by the caption, “This man can actually change the weather.”43
The fossil fuel industry has had a decades-long history of spreading misinformation to shape public perception and policy around climate change. By exploiting the public's understanding, financing campaigns, and delaying meaningful action, they have redirected climate narratives to focus on individual responsibility rather than corporate accountability. Combatting this misinformation will necessitate investment in public education to help people understand the reality, consequences, and solutions to the climate crisis. But fossil-fuelled misinformation is not the only challenge we’re facing: Greenwashing has permeated virtually every area of climate communications, and is a growing threat to sustainability efforts.
Greenwashing
In recent years, greenwashing has risen for a number of reasons, including increased climate commitments, consumers seeking to buy more sustainable products, and employees feeling attracted to work for companies with strong sustainability credentials.
Keep reading
- Hassol SJ. The Right Words Are Crucial to Solving Climate Change. Scientific American. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0223-64
- Solnit R. Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed. Keep them on the hook. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook. Published August 23, 2021. Accessed July 17, 2023.
- Meta. Our Approach to Climate Content. Meta Sustainability. Published November 4, 2022. Accessed August 1, 2023. https://sustainability.fb.com/blog/2022/11/04/our-approach-to-climate-content/
- Brulle R, Downie C. Following the money: trade associations, political activity and climate change. Clim Change. 2022;175(3):11. doi:10.1007/s10584-022-03466-0
- Dimitriadis D, Grostern J, Bright S. Revealed: Fossil Fuel Giants Are Using British Influencers to go Viral. DeSmog. Published July 27, 2023. Accessed August 1, 2023. https://www.desmog.com/2023/07/27/fossil-fuel-oil-gas-giants-shell-bp-using-british-influencers-to-go-viral/
- ExxonMobil Anti-EV Ad.; 2023. Accessed August 1, 2023. https://vimeo.com/845125155
- Yoder K. Big Oil spent $3.6 billion to clean up its image, and it’s working. Grist. Published December 24, 2019. Accessed August 26, 2023. https://grist.org/energy/big-oil-spent-3-6-billion-on-climate-ads-and-its-working/
- Youssef AB. Effectiveness and Constraints of NGOs on Climate Policies in Developing Countries: The case of Tunisia. ERF Policy Brief. 2021;(66).
- Kaufman L. Unmasking Dark Money: How Fossil Fuel Interests Can Undermine Clean Energy Progress. Kleinman Center for Energy Policy. Published June 20, 2023. Accessed August 26, 2023. https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/news-insights/unmasking-dark-money-how-fossil-fuel-interests-can-undermine-clean-energy-progress/
- Supran G, Oreskes N. The forgotten oil ads that told us climate change was nothing. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing. Published November 18, 2021. Accessed July 19, 2023.
- Kaupa C. Smoke Gets in Your Eyes: Misleading Fossil Fuel Advertisement in the Climate Crisis. Published online February 16, 2021. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3786647
- Wright C, Irwin R, Nyberg D, Bowden V. ‘We’re in the coal business’: Maintaining fossil fuel hegemony in the face of climate change. J Ind Relat. 2022;64(4):544-563. doi:10.1177/00221856211070632
- Bonneuil C, Choquet PL, Franta B. Early warnings and emerging accountability: Total’s responses to global warming, 1971–2021. Glob Environ Change. 2021;71:102386. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102386
- McCarthy A. Exxon disputed climate findings for years. Its scientists knew better. Harvard Gazette. Published January 12, 2023. Accessed August 21, 2023. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/
- Adomaitis N, Solsvik T. Oil and gas industry earned $4 trillion last year, says IEA chief. Reuters. Published February 14, 2023. Accessed August 21, 2023. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-gas-industry-earned-4-trillion-last-year-says-iea-chief-2023-02-14/
- Vaillant J. Opinion: As our forests burn, oil companies are doubling down on their old business models. The Globe and Mail. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-as-our-forests-burn-oil-companies-are-doubling-down-on-their-old/. Published August 29, 2023. Accessed September 4, 2023.
- Noor D. Big oil quietly walks back on climate pledges as global heat records tumble. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/16/big-oil-climate-pledges-extreme-heat-fossil-fuel. Published July 16, 2023. Accessed September 4, 2023.
- Figueres C. I thought fossil fuel firms could change. I was wrong. Al Jazeera. Published July 6, 2023. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/7/6/i-thought-fossil-fuel-firms-could-change-i-was-wrong
- Oreskes N, Conway EM. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Climate Change. Paperback edition, Nachdruck. Bloomsbury; 2022.
- Lineberry C. How Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” Awakened the World to Environmental Peril. History. Published April 22, 2022. Accessed August 8, 2023. https://www.history.com/news/rachel-carson-silent-spring-impact-environmental-movement
- Mann ME. The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet. First edition. PublicAffairs; 2021.
- UCSUSA. How Fossil Fuel Lobbyists Used “Astroturf” Front Groups to Confuse the Public. Union of Concerned Scientists. Published October 11, 2017. Accessed August 29, 2023. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/how-fossil-fuel-lobbyists-used-astroturf-front-groups-confuse-public
- Bottaro G. US fossil fuel sector ‘instrumental’ in sparking anti-ESG movement. SG Voice. Published May 22, 2023. Accessed August 27, 2023. https://www.sgvoice.net/strategy/research/34039/us-fossil-fuel-industry-instrumental-in-sparking-anti-esg-movement/
- Ward B, Bowen A. An analysis of the Trump Administration’s economic and policy arguments for withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate change. Grantham Res Inst. Published online 2020.
- Morgan D. U.S. Congress votes to block ESG investing, Biden veto expected. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/us-senate-poised-consider-blocking-biden-esg-investment-rule-2023-03-01/. Published March 2, 2023. Accessed August 27, 2023.
- Adams-Heard R. Texas Targets Wall Street in Fight Over ESG Investing. Bloomberg - Green Finance. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-15/texas-targets-wall-street-in-fight-over-sustainable-investing. Published June 15, 2021. Accessed August 27, 2023.
- Gelles D. The Texas Group Waging a National Crusade Against Climate Action. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/04/climate/texas-public-policy-foundation-climate-change.html. Published December 4, 2022. Accessed August 27, 2023.
- Cooke P. Fossil Fuel Groups ‘Spent Millions’ on Social Media Ads Spreading Climate Disinformation During COP27. DeSmog. Published January 19, 2023. Accessed August 1, 2023. https://www.desmog.com/2023/01/19/fossil-fuel-groups-spent-millions-on-social-media-ads-spreading-climate-disinformation-during-cop27/
- Ormesher E. Fossil fuel sector spent millions on ads to influence public during Cop27. The Drum. Published 2023. Accessed May 23, 2023. https://www.thedrum.com/news/2023/01/19/fossil-fuel-sector-spent-millions-ads-influence-public-during-cop27
- Worth K. In Shift, Key Climate Denialist Group Heartland Institute Pivots to Policy. FRONTLINE. Published November 2, 2018. Accessed August 27, 2023. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/in-shift-key-climate-denialist-group-heartland-institute-pivots-to-policy/
- Center for Media and Democracy. American Legislative Exchange Council. SourceWatch. Published April 20, 2023. Accessed August 27, 2023. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5738760-Full-List-of-Alec-Funders-1981
- Mandel K. Exxon quits ALEC. Think Progress. Published July 12, 2018. Accessed August 27, 2023. https://archive.thinkprogress.org/exxon-quits-alec-lobbying-group-020c0ce2dad1/
- Hassol SJ, Mann ME. Welcome to the apocalyptic haze of the new abnormal. There is nowhere left to hide. The Independent. Published June 9, 2023. Accessed July 19, 2023. https://www.independent.co.uk/us/voices/air-quality-index-nyc-fires-smoke-b2354703.html
- Knaus C. Disinformation and lies are spreading faster than Australia’s bushfires. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/12/disinformation-and-lies-are-spreading-faster-than-australias-bushfires. Published January 11, 2020. Accessed August 31, 2023.
- Dembicki G. Google let Daily Wire advertise on ‘climate change is a hoax’ searches. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/27/daily-wire-google-ads-climate-crisis-deniers. Published January 27, 2023. Accessed May 23, 2023.
- Shell. Truck Driver | Great Things Happen When We Move #MoveWithShell.; 2021. Accessed September 16, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymjkC23GUfU
- Supran G, Oreskes N. The forgotten oil ads that told us climate change was nothing. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing. Published November 18, 2021. Accessed July 19, 2023.
- Westervelt A. Fossil fuel companies donated $700m to US universities over 10 years. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/01/fossil-fuel-companies-donate-millions-us-universities. Published March 1, 2023. Accessed May 31, 2023.
- Supran G, Rahmstorf S, Oreskes N. Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections. Science. 2023;379(6628):eabk0063. doi:10.1126/science.abk0063
- Lamb WF, Mattioli G, Levi S, et al. Discourses of climate delay. Glob Sustain. 2020;3:e17. doi:10.1017/sus.2020.13
- Mann ME. The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet. First edition. PublicAffairs; 2021.
- Marshall J. John Marshall: 3 strategies for effectively talking about climate change. TED Talk. Published March 2021. Accessed September 16, 2023. https://www.ted.com/talks/john_marshall_3_strategies_for_effectively_talking_about_climate_change
- Fenton D. The Activist’s Media Handbook: Lessons from Fifty Years as a Progressive Agitator. Earth Aware Editions; 2022.
Source: Christine Arenas
Figure 17: Ads from the Informed citizens for the Environment, 1991. Source: The Guardian.
Figure 20: BP Ads on carbon footprint, published between 2004 and 2006. Source: The Guardian.
Figure 19: The Troll Army of Big Oil, by Climate Town.
Over 99.9% of scientists agree that the climate crisis is real and caused by humans – a consensus which is not necessarily reflected in public consciousness and media discourses, where misinformation and disinformation about climate change persist. For decades, the fossil-fuel industry has exploited the public's misunderstanding of scientific language for its benefit, leading to confusion and doubt around climate change.1 Additionally, as outright denial becomes untenable, it has shifted tactics, deflecting focus to personal carbon footprints – a concept popularized by BP – and spreading misleading narratives about renewable energy.2
In an effort to combat the misinformation challenge, companies are starting to take action. One of these examples is Meta, who introduced a climate science center in Facebook and expanded its flagging system for climate-related posts, as Data for Good director Laura McGorman explains:
Laura McGorman
How Meta’s Climate Science Center fights misinformation
Our Climate Science Center is a one-stop resource available in more than 150 countries, connecting people on Facebook with science-based news, approachable information and actionable resources from the world’s leading climate change organizations. The center includes detailed deep dives covering the basics of climate-related subjects, tips for spotting misleading information, and ways for individuals to take action.
At Meta, we understand the importance of addressing complex discussions around climate change on our platforms – they are crucial for building consensus and finding solutions. To achieve this, we take a comprehensive approach to climate-related content, ensuring that people are educated with accurate information while countering misinformation responsibly. Protecting freedom of expression, engaging in research, and promoting transparency are essential aspects of our approach.
While climate change misinformation is a small portion of the overall content, it can surge during high-profile discussions, like during extreme weather events. To combat this, we collaborate with over 90 independent fact-checking organizations in more than 60 languages. Our partners review a wide range of climate-related claims and debunk false information that challenges the existence and impacts of climate change, misrepresents scientific data, or distorts mitigation and adaptation efforts.
When content is rated as false by fact-checkers, we add warning labels and reduce the visibility of such content to limit its spread. We also don’t recommend or approve ads with false claims and take measures against accounts and groups that repeatedly share false information about climate science.
We have taken additional steps to enhance our fact-checkers' capacity: Our Climate Misinformation Grant program supports projects that unite fact-checkers, climate experts, and other organizations to combat climate misinformation. We also use keyword detection to gather climate-related content in one place — facilitating fact-checkers in identifying potential misinformation during breaking news events. We recognize that some climate information may be misleading or confusing without containing verifiable false claims. While we do not restrict this type of content, we focus on educating and informing people with authoritative information.
By collaborating with esteemed climate organizations like Monash Climate Change Communication Research Hub, Cambridge Social Decision-Making Laboratory, and Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, we support the dissemination of reliable climate information. We are committed to making climate-related data and research more accessible through innovative tools and research efforts. Our Ad Library provides an extra layer of ad transparency, requiring all active ads to be available in the public domain, and providing additional information for ads related to social issues, elections, politics, and advocacy around energy and climate change.3
Despite promising measures like Meta’s, the problem continues to run deep. The fossil fuel industry has long been a master of using advertising and communications to shape public opinion and political policy. For instance, between 2008 and 2018 the oil and gas sector spent around 1.3 billion dollars on political activities, of which around 64% is directed to advertising and promotion.4 These tactics continue until this day: a recent DeSmog investigation found that fossil fuel companies have been working with influencers to promote their products and exaggerate environmental credentials5 (see Influencing the Influencers), and a recent ExxonMobil ad featured a number of people caught up in cables struggling to go about everyday life, implying that using electric vehicles is inconvenient and restrictive.6
Fossil fuels also have a considerable impact on media narratives and policy. The industry invests billions of dollars each year in advertising, public relations, and lobbying efforts to influence climate policy.7 Meanwhile, non-governmental organizations working to promote climate action often operate with far fewer resources and funding constraints.8 This means that they are at a disadvantage when it comes to getting their message across and competing with misinformation coming from the fossil fuel industry.9
Through a vast range of misleading advertisements, the fossil fuel industry has attempted to manipulate public and policy perception, casting doubt on the reality, cause, severity, and solvability of climate change. The use of "advertorials" — ads disguised as editorials — in prominent publications further propagated their denial narrative.10 Some ads sought to create doubt about the reality and human contribution to climate change, framing it as mere theory rather than scientific fact.11 Others downplayed the severity of the crisis, using headlines like “reset the alarm” to suggest the issue wasn't as urgent as made out to be. Others exploited the notion of "scientific uncertainties" to question the extent of human involvement in climate change.10 Another selection of ads emphasizes the potential economic risks associated with climate action, diverting attention from environmental impacts towards financial concerns,10 and building a narrative of dependence on fossil fuels for economic growth.12
João Talocchi
How the Fossil Fuel Industry Blocks Climate Action
The fossil fuel industry had developed some of the most precise climate models themselves, back in the 1970s.13,14 But instead of using their knowledge and resources to advance new forms of energy and address the future destruction that they knew their products would end up creating, the industry chose to hide this information and actively worked to discredit similar findings by other scientists - see examples below.
Their strategy is proven very lucrative. The oil and gas sector has seen record profits over the past two years, both in total and for individual companies. The IEA estimates a staggering $4000 billion in profits were made by the entire industry in 2022, compared to typical annual estimates of $1500 billion.15 The five biggest international oil companies alone reported a combined $199bn in net profits in 2022. National oil companies profited the most. Saudi Aramco earned a staggering $161 billion. But now that we are living through the reality of an already much warmer world, will the industry use their massive resources to solve the problem, prioritizing survival over profit? It doesn't seem like it.
Oil and gas fight hard against the proposed solutions to the climate crisis. Instead, they back initiatives which are more expensive, or less impactful, than transitioning to renewables, ultimately resulting in the climate impacts landscape we see today. Some of their empty promises include carbon capture (at the point of emissions, or captured from air), bioenergy with questionable carbon accounting, hydrogen made from fossil fuels and many blended forms of these. The tempting narrative they offer is a maintenance of fossil fuel sales and usage that also solves the emissions problem — but the majority of their solutions have failed, or are failing, to bend the curve. As these solutions fail to deliver, the industry moves on to either deny their interest in change or our ability as a society to change (see Is Doomism the New Delay?).
As temperature records were shattered around the world, ExxonMobil's CEO Darren Woods position was “Exxon is a molecule company, not an electron company”.16 TotalEnergies CEO, Patrick Pouyanne said: “Today, our society requires oil and gas, there is no way to think that overnight we can just eliminate all that".<7 But is everyone that works or has worked at the fossil fuel industry to blame? No. It's important to differentiate people that make a living in a global industry from the industry itself - and those with the power to determine its future. For the past decades, various individuals and organizations have attempted to work with the fossil fuel industry to address the climate challenge. Unfortunately, these efforts have mostly failed.18
A number of reports have exposed that fossil fuel companies have known about climate change for decades, but decided to ignore, downplay or even deny their findings. Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway’s book Merchants of Doubt chronicles how a small group of scientists was hired by various industries, including the fossil fuel industry, to cast doubt on scientific consensus through cherry-picking data, questioning the integrity of climate scientists, and creating fake grassroots campaigns to sow confusion.19
Other historical examples of misinformation campaigns include tobacco industry leaders hiding the dangers of smoking in the 1960s, and the character assassination faced by Rachel Carson following her revelation of DDT's environmental dangers in her influential book Silent Spring. The latter event spurred industry groups to label her as "radical," "communist," and "hysterical," unveiling the misogyny now inextricably linked with climate change denialism. Unfortunately, those efforts were incredibly successful in shaping public opinion and delaying meaningful action on climate change.20
In The New Climate War, Michael Mann describes the sophisticated deflection campaigns undertaken by those aiming to slow down climate action, echoing the diversion tactics used by the gun lobby, tobacco industry, and beverage corporations. The aim is to shift the responsibility for the climate crisis from corporations to individuals, and position personal actions like veganism or less air travel as the main solutions to climate change. This overemphasis distracts from the urgent need for government policies to crack down on corporate pollution, and drives a wedge into the climate advocacy community through the use of advanced cyber tools like online bots and trolls, reminiscent of those seen in the 2016 US presidential election.21
Fossil fuel companies including ExxonMobil, Shell and BP have a history of working with groups like the Heartland Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute to challenge climate change science — using newspapers, debates, and even fake science articles to argue that climate change data was too unclear and unreliable to attribute it to human activity. The Koch brothers, known fossil fuel business owners, played a big role in this by hosting the first conference denying climate change in 1991. This widespread denial led the public to think that more people don't believe in climate change than actually do — making people less likely to talk about it or put pressure on lawmakers.21
DAVID FENTON'S COMMUNICATION RULES FOR ACTIVISTS
TELL THE TRUTH. Spin is deceit. Expect your opponents to lie and mislead—don’t do it yourself. The truth is more powerful, and it’s the only ethical choice. You can simplify the truth, but do not distort it. If you make mistakes, quickly admit them and move on.
FIGHT FALSEHOOD AND DISINFORMATION IMMEDIATELY. If you don’t, it can stick in people’s minds, enabling a big lie to become “truth.” To fight it, double down on all of the directives above. If a journalist is regurgitating disinformation, complain respectfully to them, and their bosses, too.
From The Activist Media Handbook
In recent years, fossil fuel lobbyists have been found to set up deceptive coordinated groups masking as grassroots efforts to undermine climate policy — a phenomenon termed Astroturfing. In the western United States, the Western States Petroleum Association secretly operated a number of astroturf front groups, such as “California Drivers Alliance” and “Washington Consumers for Sound Fuel Policy”. These groups were used to run PR campaigns influencing policy decisions — creating the perception of public support for oil companies, and opposition to progressive climate policies.22
The industry has also been known to fund politicians who are friendly to their interests23 — such as Donald Trump, who withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement.24 Fossil fuel companies have also been actively working against ESG and emissions reduction regulations, lobbying politicians to block climate legislation.23 Recently, Republicans voted to repeal a rule that allows retirement funds to consider climate change in their investments, claiming that it would have a negative impact on tax revenue and employment.25 In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott signed a law prohibiting investment in businesses that boycott fossil fuels26 — effectively banning investors from having a Net Zero strategy. These efforts are backed by groups like the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which is funded by oil and gas companies.27
Until this day, the fossil fuel sector is spending millions on ads influencing public opinion: between September 2022, in the run-up to the COP27 climate conference in Sharm El-Sheikh, until after the conference at the end of November, companies spent $3-4 million on Meta alone.28 Researchers counted 3,781 ads during this time, the majority driven by a small number of groups — in particular Energy Citizens, a PR group of the American Petroleum Institute. Ads included misleading claims on the climate crisis and Net Zero targets, pushing the necessity of fossil fuels, as well as outright climate denial from groups such as PragerU and The Heartland Institute. From July 2022, a spike for the hashtag #ClimateScam was observed on Twitter, which was actively recommended for organic searches of ‘climate’ as well as posts including #climate.28
CASE STUDY
The advertising industry speaks up against climate misinformation
Ahead of COP27, companies and brands including IPC, Omnicom, VirginMedia, Sky and Patagonia signed an open letter to delegates of COP27, demanding that they take action against climate misinformation. The letter followed a survey by Climate Action Against Disinformation and the Conscious Advertising Network, which analyzed common false climate beliefs around the world. It found that there is a significant gap between public beliefs and the science on basic issues such as whether climate change exists and whether it is mainly caused by humans. A large number of respondents also believed that fossil gas was a climate-friendly source of energy (39% of US citizens and 40% of Brazilians, compared to only 14% of UK respondents). The highest share of people who believed at least one misinformation statement was found in India, and the lowest in the UK.29
Industry front groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Heartland Institute have been particularly active in sabotaging efforts at the national and state levels to promote renewable energy30. The watchdog group SourceWatch describes ALEC as a "corporate bill mill" through which "corporations hand state legislators their wish lists to benefit their bottom line".31 In recent years, fossil fuel corporations such as ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP have pulled out of ALEC, concerned about increased public scrutiny of their funding activities.32
In a joint article, Susan Joy Hassol and Michael Mann call attention to a pattern of disinformation by certain conservative media outlets, particularly those under the Murdoch media empire, during extreme climate events.33 These outlets have repeatedly attributed the devastating effects of extreme heat and drought — as seen in the 2019/2020 "black summer" of Australia and the 2020 wildfires in western US — to natural causes, forest management policies, or even arson,34 obscuring the true link between the burning of fossil fuels and global heating. These misleading narratives serve to misdirect public understanding and undermine policy action.33
“These coal and oil barons say they’re just supplying people with what they want. But we don’t want fossil fuels. What we want is cold beer and hot showers, services like convenient ways to get around and good food to eat. If we can get those in a way that doesn’t destroy our planet’s life-support system, we’d surely prefer that."
Since COP27, misinformation hasn’t gone anywhere: Despite Google’s ban on ads containing climate denial, Ben Shapiro’s media outlet The Daily Wire bought an estimated $60 million worth in Google ads to advertise search terms such as “climate change is a hoax” and “why is climate change fake — meaning that Shapiro’s stories would come up at the top of those searches.35 And the influence of the fossil fuel industry is not only seen in media and policy, but also research itself. A study by Data for Progress found that six fossil fuel companies provided over $700 million in funding for climate research to 27 US universities between 2010-2020, including leading institutions like MIT, Stanford and Harvard. The authors suggest that this funding can influence research programs and policies towards industry-preferred climate solutions such as carbon capture, biofuels and hydrogen.36 At present, there is a lack of transparency with regards to industry funding sources.
CASE STUDY
Exxon Mobil knew about climate change since the 1970s
In 2005, investigative journalists discovered internal company memos indicating that Exxon has known about the potential effects of fossil fuel products on global warming since the late 1970s, and predicted “dramatic environmental effects before the year 2050”. In doing so, ExxonMobil scientists showed a high level of scientific accuracy - 63-83% of their climate projections were accurate in predicting subsequent global warming. Instead of taking action to decarbonize, ExxonMobil worked hard to overemphasize uncertainties in scientific consensus and feign ignorance about the role of human activity in global warming — failing to address the possibility of fossil fuels becoming stranded assets as the world takes action on climate change.37
Today, a number of cities, states and countries are suing fossil fuel companies for misleading the public whilst knowing about the threat climate change poses. The European Parliament and US Congress have held hearings holding fossil fuel giants accountable, and grassroots groups like #ExxonKnew and #ShellMustFall are gaining traction, working to dismantle the industry’s self-portrayal as part of the solution.37
While discourses around climate change have evolved, strategies for delaying ambitious climate action have, too. While outright climate denial, skepticism and attacks on scientists are not common anymore, they have been replaced with climate delay — accepting the reality of climate change but raising doubts of the possibility of mitigation.
The four discourses of climate delay include: 38
- Redirecting responsibility by focusing on individual rather than collective actions, obscuring the role of powerful actors, such as BP’s ‘Know your Carbon Footprint’ campaign. This strategy includes directing attention away from companies and towards large emitters like China, and arguing that others will take advantage of those who lead on climate action as per the free rider effect.
- Pushing for non-transformative solutions, in particular technologies which are not proven to work at scale (such as direct air capture and zero-carbon planes), ‘clean’ fossil fuels (as advertised by the American Petroleum Institute), pointing towards recent but comparatively small advances in lowering emissions, and dismissing restrictive measures (e.g. frequent flier levies) over voluntary policies.
- Emphasizing the downsides of climate action to employment, prosperity and ways of life. More recently, fossil fuel companies have appealed to social justice, framing the shift to renewable energy as costly and burdensome, threatening living standards. Often companies will feature individuals from marginalized groups in advertisements, implying that climate policies threaten livelihoods and living standards, a phenomenon coined ‘wokewashing’.
- Surrendering by arguing that large-scale socio-economic transformation is impossible. The extreme form of this is doomism - the belief that catastrophic climate change is already locked in, and that all that society can do is adapt to climate impacts.
Discourses of delay are often used in combination, such as the pervasive overpopulation argument - directing attention away from historically high emitters towards developing countries (redirecting responsibility), and arguing that CO2 trajectories in those countries are already locked in (surrender). This argument ignores the efforts of developing countries to reduce their emissions and fails to address the root causes of climate change — including the industries, countries and individuals responsible for the majority of carbon emissions.
Figure 22: Shell's "Make the Future" ad is a practical example of discourses of delay.
A practical example of discourses of delay is Shell’s “Make the Future” ad, which features a woman named Shweta, who drives a truck powered by Shell’s gas and speaks about the need to transition to cleaner fuels. The ad suggests that Shell is supporting women’s empowerment and gender equality by providing women with access to clean and efficient fuels.39 While the ad highlights the potential benefits of using LNG as a cleaner alternative to diesel, critics have pointed out that it fails to acknowledge the fact that the use of any fossil fuel, including natural gas, contributes to climate change.40
Another popular strategy used by those opposing climate action is to divert focus from collective and regulatory action towards individual behavior, breeding conflict among climate advocates by encouraging blame and virtue-signaling. The term 'carbon footprint,' was pioneered by BP, who invested over $100 million annually between 2004 and 2006 to weave it into everyday language and focus on individual lifestyle choices. In 2019, they doubled down on this initiative, launching a fresh 'Know your carbon footprint' campaign on social media.40
This focus on individual behavior might stem from feelings of powerlessness or despair, but it ultimately distracts from necessary structural changes. This strategy is used to discredit climate advocates by accusing them of hypocrisy for not leading austere, low-carbon lifestyles, fostering division and undermining the effectiveness of their messages. Lifestyle choices — which are closely tied to personal identity — become points of contention. This focus on individual actions can be harmful, as it can diminish support for system-level climate solutions and policy.41
CASE STUDY
The Crying Indian
The Crying Indian Public Service Announcement is a classic example of a deflection campaign where focus is shifted from regulatory reform onto individual action. The campaign was initiated by a consortium of American corporations including Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Anheuser-Busch, and Philip Morris, collectively named "Keep America Beautiful." In collaboration with the Ad Council and New York-based advertising giant Marsteller, they propagated the message of personal responsibility for environmental protection, downplaying the necessity of corporate accountability and systemic changes.
In the PSA, an actor dressed as a Native American sheds a tear after witnessing a littered river, implying that individuals are responsible for preventing pollution. In The New Climate War, Michael Mann argues that lifestyle alterations and consumer choices alone cannot substitute the need for infrastructural changes such as high-speed rail, renewable energy or carbon pricing. While there is value in advocating for individual action, it's crucial to balance the narrative by persistently pressuring politicians to enact climate-friendly policies — avoiding a divided community which inadvertently plays into the hands of fossil fuel interests.
According to John Marshall of the Potential Energy Coalition, misinformation can be tackled by being proactive and prepared.42 Our problem is not the lack of effective messages, but rather the underinvestment in educating the public. One striking statistic Marshall mentions in a conversation on the Outrage and Optimism podcast is that less than 20% of people realize that clean energy has become more affordable in the past decade, with the cost of solar dropping significantly. This is a significant communication gap rather than a message problem. There are moments throughout the year where the general public is more attuned to climate-related issues — and we need to be ready with the right messages during those times.
CASE STUDY
Getting personal
Greenpeace x Fenton Communications
In The Activist’s Media Handbook, David Fenton suggests that whenever it's appropriate, narratives should be personalized. Every policy has decision-makers behind it, often with images that are publicly accessible. Making stories character-driven can make them more engaging, simplifying complex issues for the public. Adopting this approach not only garners attention, but can also stimulate extended discourse. Fenton exemplifies this with his experience from the 1990s when he designed a climate change advertisement for Greenpeace, featured in the Washington Post. The ad prominently displayed a photo of the CEO of Mobil, accompanied by the caption, “This man can actually change the weather.”43
The fossil fuel industry has had a decades-long history of spreading misinformation to shape public perception and policy around climate change. By exploiting the public's understanding, financing campaigns, and delaying meaningful action, they have redirected climate narratives to focus on individual responsibility rather than corporate accountability. Combatting this misinformation will necessitate investment in public education to help people understand the reality, consequences, and solutions to the climate crisis. But fossil-fuelled misinformation is not the only challenge we’re facing: Greenwashing has permeated virtually every area of climate communications, and is a growing threat to sustainability efforts.
Source: Christine Arenas
Figure 17: Ads from the Informed citizens for the Environment, 1991. Source: The Guardian.
Figure 20: BP Ads on carbon footprint, published between 2004 and 2006. Source: The Guardian.
Figure 19: The Troll Army of Big Oil, by Climate Town.
Greenwashing
In recent years, greenwashing has risen for a number of reasons, including increased climate commitments, consumers seeking to buy more sustainable products, and employees feeling attracted to work for companies with strong sustainability credentials.
Keep reading- Hassol SJ. The Right Words Are Crucial to Solving Climate Change. Scientific American. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0223-64
- Solnit R. Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed. Keep them on the hook. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook. Published August 23, 2021. Accessed July 17, 2023.
- Meta. Our Approach to Climate Content. Meta Sustainability. Published November 4, 2022. Accessed August 1, 2023. https://sustainability.fb.com/blog/2022/11/04/our-approach-to-climate-content/
- Brulle R, Downie C. Following the money: trade associations, political activity and climate change. Clim Change. 2022;175(3):11. doi:10.1007/s10584-022-03466-0
- Dimitriadis D, Grostern J, Bright S. Revealed: Fossil Fuel Giants Are Using British Influencers to go Viral. DeSmog. Published July 27, 2023. Accessed August 1, 2023. https://www.desmog.com/2023/07/27/fossil-fuel-oil-gas-giants-shell-bp-using-british-influencers-to-go-viral/
- ExxonMobil Anti-EV Ad.; 2023. Accessed August 1, 2023. https://vimeo.com/845125155
- Yoder K. Big Oil spent $3.6 billion to clean up its image, and it’s working. Grist. Published December 24, 2019. Accessed August 26, 2023. https://grist.org/energy/big-oil-spent-3-6-billion-on-climate-ads-and-its-working/
- Youssef AB. Effectiveness and Constraints of NGOs on Climate Policies in Developing Countries: The case of Tunisia. ERF Policy Brief. 2021;(66).
- Kaufman L. Unmasking Dark Money: How Fossil Fuel Interests Can Undermine Clean Energy Progress. Kleinman Center for Energy Policy. Published June 20, 2023. Accessed August 26, 2023. https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/news-insights/unmasking-dark-money-how-fossil-fuel-interests-can-undermine-clean-energy-progress/
- Supran G, Oreskes N. The forgotten oil ads that told us climate change was nothing. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing. Published November 18, 2021. Accessed July 19, 2023.
- Kaupa C. Smoke Gets in Your Eyes: Misleading Fossil Fuel Advertisement in the Climate Crisis. Published online February 16, 2021. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3786647
- Wright C, Irwin R, Nyberg D, Bowden V. ‘We’re in the coal business’: Maintaining fossil fuel hegemony in the face of climate change. J Ind Relat. 2022;64(4):544-563. doi:10.1177/00221856211070632
- Bonneuil C, Choquet PL, Franta B. Early warnings and emerging accountability: Total’s responses to global warming, 1971–2021. Glob Environ Change. 2021;71:102386. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102386
- McCarthy A. Exxon disputed climate findings for years. Its scientists knew better. Harvard Gazette. Published January 12, 2023. Accessed August 21, 2023. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/
- Adomaitis N, Solsvik T. Oil and gas industry earned $4 trillion last year, says IEA chief. Reuters. Published February 14, 2023. Accessed August 21, 2023. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-gas-industry-earned-4-trillion-last-year-says-iea-chief-2023-02-14/
- Vaillant J. Opinion: As our forests burn, oil companies are doubling down on their old business models. The Globe and Mail. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-as-our-forests-burn-oil-companies-are-doubling-down-on-their-old/. Published August 29, 2023. Accessed September 4, 2023.
- Noor D. Big oil quietly walks back on climate pledges as global heat records tumble. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/16/big-oil-climate-pledges-extreme-heat-fossil-fuel. Published July 16, 2023. Accessed September 4, 2023.
- Figueres C. I thought fossil fuel firms could change. I was wrong. Al Jazeera. Published July 6, 2023. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/7/6/i-thought-fossil-fuel-firms-could-change-i-was-wrong
- Oreskes N, Conway EM. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Climate Change. Paperback edition, Nachdruck. Bloomsbury; 2022.
- Lineberry C. How Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” Awakened the World to Environmental Peril. History. Published April 22, 2022. Accessed August 8, 2023. https://www.history.com/news/rachel-carson-silent-spring-impact-environmental-movement
- Mann ME. The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet. First edition. PublicAffairs; 2021.
- UCSUSA. How Fossil Fuel Lobbyists Used “Astroturf” Front Groups to Confuse the Public. Union of Concerned Scientists. Published October 11, 2017. Accessed August 29, 2023. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/how-fossil-fuel-lobbyists-used-astroturf-front-groups-confuse-public
- Bottaro G. US fossil fuel sector ‘instrumental’ in sparking anti-ESG movement. SG Voice. Published May 22, 2023. Accessed August 27, 2023. https://www.sgvoice.net/strategy/research/34039/us-fossil-fuel-industry-instrumental-in-sparking-anti-esg-movement/
- Ward B, Bowen A. An analysis of the Trump Administration’s economic and policy arguments for withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate change. Grantham Res Inst. Published online 2020.
- Morgan D. U.S. Congress votes to block ESG investing, Biden veto expected. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/us-senate-poised-consider-blocking-biden-esg-investment-rule-2023-03-01/. Published March 2, 2023. Accessed August 27, 2023.
- Adams-Heard R. Texas Targets Wall Street in Fight Over ESG Investing. Bloomberg - Green Finance. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-15/texas-targets-wall-street-in-fight-over-sustainable-investing. Published June 15, 2021. Accessed August 27, 2023.
- Gelles D. The Texas Group Waging a National Crusade Against Climate Action. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/04/climate/texas-public-policy-foundation-climate-change.html. Published December 4, 2022. Accessed August 27, 2023.
- Cooke P. Fossil Fuel Groups ‘Spent Millions’ on Social Media Ads Spreading Climate Disinformation During COP27. DeSmog. Published January 19, 2023. Accessed August 1, 2023. https://www.desmog.com/2023/01/19/fossil-fuel-groups-spent-millions-on-social-media-ads-spreading-climate-disinformation-during-cop27/
- Ormesher E. Fossil fuel sector spent millions on ads to influence public during Cop27. The Drum. Published 2023. Accessed May 23, 2023. https://www.thedrum.com/news/2023/01/19/fossil-fuel-sector-spent-millions-ads-influence-public-during-cop27
- Worth K. In Shift, Key Climate Denialist Group Heartland Institute Pivots to Policy. FRONTLINE. Published November 2, 2018. Accessed August 27, 2023. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/in-shift-key-climate-denialist-group-heartland-institute-pivots-to-policy/
- Center for Media and Democracy. American Legislative Exchange Council. SourceWatch. Published April 20, 2023. Accessed August 27, 2023. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5738760-Full-List-of-Alec-Funders-1981
- Mandel K. Exxon quits ALEC. Think Progress. Published July 12, 2018. Accessed August 27, 2023. https://archive.thinkprogress.org/exxon-quits-alec-lobbying-group-020c0ce2dad1/
- Hassol SJ, Mann ME. Welcome to the apocalyptic haze of the new abnormal. There is nowhere left to hide. The Independent. Published June 9, 2023. Accessed July 19, 2023. https://www.independent.co.uk/us/voices/air-quality-index-nyc-fires-smoke-b2354703.html
- Knaus C. Disinformation and lies are spreading faster than Australia’s bushfires. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/12/disinformation-and-lies-are-spreading-faster-than-australias-bushfires. Published January 11, 2020. Accessed August 31, 2023.
- Dembicki G. Google let Daily Wire advertise on ‘climate change is a hoax’ searches. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/27/daily-wire-google-ads-climate-crisis-deniers. Published January 27, 2023. Accessed May 23, 2023.
- Shell. Truck Driver | Great Things Happen When We Move #MoveWithShell.; 2021. Accessed September 16, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymjkC23GUfU
- Supran G, Oreskes N. The forgotten oil ads that told us climate change was nothing. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing. Published November 18, 2021. Accessed July 19, 2023.
- Westervelt A. Fossil fuel companies donated $700m to US universities over 10 years. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/01/fossil-fuel-companies-donate-millions-us-universities. Published March 1, 2023. Accessed May 31, 2023.
- Supran G, Rahmstorf S, Oreskes N. Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections. Science. 2023;379(6628):eabk0063. doi:10.1126/science.abk0063
- Lamb WF, Mattioli G, Levi S, et al. Discourses of climate delay. Glob Sustain. 2020;3:e17. doi:10.1017/sus.2020.13
- Mann ME. The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet. First edition. PublicAffairs; 2021.
- Marshall J. John Marshall: 3 strategies for effectively talking about climate change. TED Talk. Published March 2021. Accessed September 16, 2023. https://www.ted.com/talks/john_marshall_3_strategies_for_effectively_talking_about_climate_change
- Fenton D. The Activist’s Media Handbook: Lessons from Fifty Years as a Progressive Agitator. Earth Aware Editions; 2022.
