Fossil fuel industry disinformation: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "2022 US Congress Hearing on FFID : On 28 October, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives (Committee on Oversight and Reform) called a number of Big Oil figureheads to discuss fossil fuels and climate change: Darren Woods - CEO of ExxonMobil David Lawler - CEO of BP America Inc. Michael K. Wirth - CEO of Chevron Corporation Gretchen Watkins - President of Shell Oil Company Mike Sommers - President of American Petroleum Institute Suzanne Clark - President and CEO of U.S...") |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
2022 US Congress Hearing | = 2015 UOCS Report = | ||
In 2015 the [[Union of Concerned Scientists]] published a [https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf 56 page report] titled | |||
''The Climate Deception Dossiers: Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal Decades of Corporate Disinformation''.<ref>https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf</ref> | |||
= 2022 US Congress Hearing = | |||
On 28 October, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives (Committee on Oversight and Reform) called a number of Big Oil figureheads to discuss fossil fuels and climate change: | On 28 October, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives (Committee on Oversight and Reform) called a number of Big Oil figureheads to discuss fossil fuels and climate change: | ||
Darren Woods - CEO of | *Darren Woods - CEO of [[Exxon Mobil]] | ||
David Lawler - CEO of BP America Inc. | *David Lawler - CEO of [[British Petroleum|BP]] America Inc. | ||
Michael K. Wirth - CEO of Chevron Corporation | *Michael K. Wirth - CEO of [[Chevron]] Corporation | ||
Gretchen Watkins - President of Shell Oil Company | *Gretchen Watkins - President of [[Shell Oil]] Company | ||
Mike Sommers - President of American Petroleum Institute | *Mike Sommers - President of [[American Petroleum Institute]] | ||
Suzanne Clark - President and CEO of U.S. Chamber of Commerce | *Suzanne Clark - President and CEO of [[U.S. Chamber of Commerce]] | ||
At the Committee’s hearing in October 2021, fossil fuel executives finally admitted under oath that climate change is real, that burning fossil fuels contributes to it, and that this is an existential threat to the planet. Yet none of them would pledge to end their financial support for efforts to block meaningful action on climate change. The Committee’s investigation has shown that, rather than outright deny global warming, the fossil fuel industry has “greenwashed” its record through deceptive advertising and climate pledges—without meaningfully reducing emissions. Documents obtained by the Committee show: | At the Committee’s hearing in October 2021, fossil fuel executives finally admitted under oath that climate change is real, that burning fossil fuels contributes to it, and that this is an existential threat to the planet. Yet none of them would pledge to end their financial support for efforts to block meaningful action on climate change. The Committee’s investigation has shown that, rather than outright deny global warming, the fossil fuel industry has “greenwashed” its record through deceptive advertising and climate pledges—without meaningfully reducing emissions. Documents obtained by the Committee show: | ||
Contrary to what their pledges imply, fossil fuel companies have not organized their businesses around becoming low-emissions, renewable energy companies. They are devoted to a long-term fossil fuel future. | '''Contrary to what their pledges imply, fossil fuel companies have not organized their businesses around becoming low-emissions, renewable energy companies. They are devoted to a long-term fossil fuel future.''' | ||
Despite BP previously rebranding itself as “Beyond Petroleum,” internal documents highlighted how carbon capture and storage (CCS), one of the energy technologies touted by the company, could “enable the full use of fossil fuels across the energy transition and beyond.” | *Despite BP previously rebranding itself as “Beyond Petroleum,” internal documents highlighted how carbon capture and storage (CCS), one of the energy technologies touted by the company, could “enable the full use of fossil fuels across the energy transition and beyond.” | ||
An internal Shell email discussing carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) warned an executive, “We want to be careful to not talk about CCUS as prolonging the life of oil, gas or fossil fuels writ large.” | *An internal Shell email discussing carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) warned an executive, “We want to be careful to not talk about CCUS as prolonging the life of oil, gas or fossil fuels writ large.” | ||
Chevron pays lip service to a “just transition” to cleaner fuels but provided talking points to an executive asserting that “[o]il and gas” are the “lower carbon solutions that ensures a just transition.” | *Chevron pays lip service to a “just transition” to cleaner fuels but provided talking points to an executive asserting that “[o]il and gas” are the “lower carbon solutions that ensures a just transition.” | ||
'''Big Oil’s climate pledges and green advertising focus on unproven technologies the companies have privately admitted are decades away from implementation.''' | |||
Internal documents show that Exxon and Chevron sought to water down statements by the industry-led Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) to “remove language that potentially commits members to enhanced climaterelated governance, strategy, risk management, and performance metrics and targets” and to avoid any “explicit commitment for OGCI companies to align their advocacy with their climate related positions”—including advocacy for the Paris Agreement. | *Although Exxon spent at least $68 million advertising its research into algae-based biofuels, notes from an investor presentation obtained by the Committee show this technology is “[s]till decades away from the scale we need.” | ||
Shell has touted its “Sky scenario” as an ambitious path to achieve netzero emissions, but internal emails emphasize this is “not a Shell business plan” and has “nothing to do with our business plans.” | *One Exxon public affairs manager warned that implying in an advertisement that algae can be deployed on a mass scale would be misleading, and “might create some angst with the research folks who know that.” | ||
'''Oil and gas companies have tried to create the impression that they are taking ambitious steps to reduce emissions—without actually doing so.''' | |||
*Internal documents show that Exxon and Chevron sought to water down statements by the industry-led Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) to “remove language that potentially commits members to enhanced climaterelated governance, strategy, risk management, and performance metrics and targets” and to avoid any “explicit commitment for OGCI companies to align their advocacy with their climate related positions”—including advocacy for the Paris Agreement. | |||
*Shell has touted its “Sky scenario” as an ambitious path to achieve netzero emissions, but internal emails emphasize this is “not a Shell business plan” and has “nothing to do with our business plans.” | |||
Internal Shell messaging guidance—which was developed to “insulate Shell” from lawsuits about “greenwashing” and “misleading investors” on climate change—calls on employees to emphasize that net-zero emissions is “a collective ambition for the world” rather than a “Shell goal or target.” The guidance urges Shell employees, “Please do not give the impression that Shell is willing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to levels that do not make business sense.” | Internal Shell messaging guidance—which was developed to “insulate Shell” from lawsuits about “greenwashing” and “misleading investors” on climate change—calls on employees to emphasize that net-zero emissions is “a collective ambition for the world” rather than a “Shell goal or target.” The guidance urges Shell employees, “Please do not give the impression that Shell is willing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to levels that do not make business sense.” | ||
Internal documents show that in 2019, Exxon scrubbed a public statement about an executive’s speech at a private conference to remove a reference to a plan to increase production in the Permian basin by “1000% within 5 years.” | '''Big Oil relies on accounting gimmicks, tricky language, and delay tactics to claim the mantle of climate leadership while continuing to be a primary cause of an ongoing climate catastrophe.''' | ||
After Shell posted on Twitter asking others what they would do to reduce emissions, a communications executive wrote privately that he agreed this could be seen as “gaslighting” the public, explaining: “We are, after all, in a tweet like this implying others need to sacrifice without focusing on ourselves.” | |||
Not only did all of the fossil fuel companies fail to meet the subpoena deadline, they have continued to withhold documents at the heart of this investigation—including board materials, detailed advertising budgets, and internal communications regarding the industry’s advocacy efforts. For example, Exxon improperly redacted and withheld materials prepared for its Board of Directors. Chevron refused to produce more than 8,000 pages of responsive materials, including board materials, instead placing versions in an electronic reading room the company controlled, and redacting portions of those documents. Shell, BP, the Chamber of Commerce, and API also all redacted and withheld documents. Some of these documents were withheld based on assertions that they are “confidential” or “sensitive” or subject to “First-Amendment” or attorney-client privileges—none of which provide a valid basis to withhold responsive information in response to the Committee’s subpoenas. [ | *Internal documents show that in 2019, Exxon scrubbed a public statement about an executive’s speech at a private conference to remove a reference to a plan to increase production in the Permian basin by “1000% within 5 years.” | ||
*After Shell posted on Twitter asking others what they would do to reduce emissions, a communications executive wrote privately that he agreed this could be seen as “gaslighting” the public, explaining: “We are, after all, in a tweet like this implying others need to sacrifice without focusing on ourselves.” | |||
Not only did all of the fossil fuel companies fail to meet the subpoena deadline, they have continued to withhold documents at the heart of this investigation—including board materials, detailed advertising budgets, and internal communications regarding the industry’s advocacy efforts. For example, Exxon improperly redacted and withheld materials prepared for its Board of Directors. Chevron refused to produce more than 8,000 pages of responsive materials, including board materials, instead placing versions in an electronic reading room the company controlled, and redacting portions of those documents. Shell, BP, the Chamber of Commerce, and API also all redacted and withheld documents. Some of these documents were withheld based on assertions that they are “confidential” or “sensitive” or subject to “First-Amendment” or attorney-client privileges—none of which provide a valid basis to withhold responsive information in response to the Committee’s subpoenas. | |||
=Pyrolysis Feedstuff= | |||
<https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Smoke-Fumes-FINAL.pdf> "SMOKE AND FUMES: THE LEGAL AND EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR HOLDING BIG OIL ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE CLIMATE CRISIS" Center for International Environmental Law (November 2017) | |||
= Lobbying Complex = | |||
As reported by the Guardian in July 2023: | |||
<blockquote>More than 1,500 lobbyists in the US are working on behalf of fossil-fuel companies while at the same time representing hundreds of liberal-run cities, universities, technology companies and environmental groups that say they are tackling the climate crisis... | |||
The breadth of fossil-fuel lobbyists’ work for other clients is captured in a [https://fminus.org/ new database] of their lobbying interests which was published online on Wednesday... | |||
It shows the reach of state-level fossil-fuel lobbyists into almost every aspect of American life, spanning local governments, large corporations, cultural institutions such as museums and film festivals, and advocacy groups, grouping together clients with starkly contradictory aims... | |||
“The worst thing about hiring these lobbyists is that it legitimizes the fossil fuel industry,” (James) Browning (who put together the database for a new venture called [[F Minus]]) added. “They can cloak their radical agenda in respectability when their lobbyists also have clients in the arts, or city government, or with conservation groups. It normalizes something that is very dangerous.”<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/05/double-agent-fossil-fuel-lobbyists</ref></blockquote> | |||
= Think Tanks = | |||
[[Atlantic Council]] - substantial funding from [[Chevron]], with overlapping & revolving board directorships (including chairs) for over a decade | |||
= Sources = | |||
Latest revision as of 19:26, 13 December 2023
2015 UOCS Report
In 2015 the Union of Concerned Scientists published a 56 page report titled The Climate Deception Dossiers: Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal Decades of Corporate Disinformation.[1]
2022 US Congress Hearing
On 28 October, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives (Committee on Oversight and Reform) called a number of Big Oil figureheads to discuss fossil fuels and climate change:
- Darren Woods - CEO of Exxon Mobil
- David Lawler - CEO of BP America Inc.
- Michael K. Wirth - CEO of Chevron Corporation
- Gretchen Watkins - President of Shell Oil Company
- Mike Sommers - President of American Petroleum Institute
- Suzanne Clark - President and CEO of U.S. Chamber of Commerce
At the Committee’s hearing in October 2021, fossil fuel executives finally admitted under oath that climate change is real, that burning fossil fuels contributes to it, and that this is an existential threat to the planet. Yet none of them would pledge to end their financial support for efforts to block meaningful action on climate change. The Committee’s investigation has shown that, rather than outright deny global warming, the fossil fuel industry has “greenwashed” its record through deceptive advertising and climate pledges—without meaningfully reducing emissions. Documents obtained by the Committee show:
Contrary to what their pledges imply, fossil fuel companies have not organized their businesses around becoming low-emissions, renewable energy companies. They are devoted to a long-term fossil fuel future.
- Despite BP previously rebranding itself as “Beyond Petroleum,” internal documents highlighted how carbon capture and storage (CCS), one of the energy technologies touted by the company, could “enable the full use of fossil fuels across the energy transition and beyond.”
- An internal Shell email discussing carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) warned an executive, “We want to be careful to not talk about CCUS as prolonging the life of oil, gas or fossil fuels writ large.”
- Chevron pays lip service to a “just transition” to cleaner fuels but provided talking points to an executive asserting that “[o]il and gas” are the “lower carbon solutions that ensures a just transition.”
Big Oil’s climate pledges and green advertising focus on unproven technologies the companies have privately admitted are decades away from implementation.
- Although Exxon spent at least $68 million advertising its research into algae-based biofuels, notes from an investor presentation obtained by the Committee show this technology is “[s]till decades away from the scale we need.”
- One Exxon public affairs manager warned that implying in an advertisement that algae can be deployed on a mass scale would be misleading, and “might create some angst with the research folks who know that.”
Oil and gas companies have tried to create the impression that they are taking ambitious steps to reduce emissions—without actually doing so.
- Internal documents show that Exxon and Chevron sought to water down statements by the industry-led Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) to “remove language that potentially commits members to enhanced climaterelated governance, strategy, risk management, and performance metrics and targets” and to avoid any “explicit commitment for OGCI companies to align their advocacy with their climate related positions”—including advocacy for the Paris Agreement.
- Shell has touted its “Sky scenario” as an ambitious path to achieve netzero emissions, but internal emails emphasize this is “not a Shell business plan” and has “nothing to do with our business plans.”
Internal Shell messaging guidance—which was developed to “insulate Shell” from lawsuits about “greenwashing” and “misleading investors” on climate change—calls on employees to emphasize that net-zero emissions is “a collective ambition for the world” rather than a “Shell goal or target.” The guidance urges Shell employees, “Please do not give the impression that Shell is willing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to levels that do not make business sense.”
Big Oil relies on accounting gimmicks, tricky language, and delay tactics to claim the mantle of climate leadership while continuing to be a primary cause of an ongoing climate catastrophe.
- Internal documents show that in 2019, Exxon scrubbed a public statement about an executive’s speech at a private conference to remove a reference to a plan to increase production in the Permian basin by “1000% within 5 years.”
- After Shell posted on Twitter asking others what they would do to reduce emissions, a communications executive wrote privately that he agreed this could be seen as “gaslighting” the public, explaining: “We are, after all, in a tweet like this implying others need to sacrifice without focusing on ourselves.”
Not only did all of the fossil fuel companies fail to meet the subpoena deadline, they have continued to withhold documents at the heart of this investigation—including board materials, detailed advertising budgets, and internal communications regarding the industry’s advocacy efforts. For example, Exxon improperly redacted and withheld materials prepared for its Board of Directors. Chevron refused to produce more than 8,000 pages of responsive materials, including board materials, instead placing versions in an electronic reading room the company controlled, and redacting portions of those documents. Shell, BP, the Chamber of Commerce, and API also all redacted and withheld documents. Some of these documents were withheld based on assertions that they are “confidential” or “sensitive” or subject to “First-Amendment” or attorney-client privileges—none of which provide a valid basis to withhold responsive information in response to the Committee’s subpoenas.
Pyrolysis Feedstuff
<https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Smoke-Fumes-FINAL.pdf> "SMOKE AND FUMES: THE LEGAL AND EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR HOLDING BIG OIL ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE CLIMATE CRISIS" Center for International Environmental Law (November 2017)
Lobbying Complex
As reported by the Guardian in July 2023:
More than 1,500 lobbyists in the US are working on behalf of fossil-fuel companies while at the same time representing hundreds of liberal-run cities, universities, technology companies and environmental groups that say they are tackling the climate crisis...
The breadth of fossil-fuel lobbyists’ work for other clients is captured in a new database of their lobbying interests which was published online on Wednesday...
It shows the reach of state-level fossil-fuel lobbyists into almost every aspect of American life, spanning local governments, large corporations, cultural institutions such as museums and film festivals, and advocacy groups, grouping together clients with starkly contradictory aims...
“The worst thing about hiring these lobbyists is that it legitimizes the fossil fuel industry,” (James) Browning (who put together the database for a new venture called F Minus) added. “They can cloak their radical agenda in respectability when their lobbyists also have clients in the arts, or city government, or with conservation groups. It normalizes something that is very dangerous.”[2]
Think Tanks
Atlantic Council - substantial funding from Chevron, with overlapping & revolving board directorships (including chairs) for over a decade