Climate Disinformation and Obstruction Perpetuated by Big Oil
By Kendall Chappell, July 5, 2023
Just as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has obstructed climate policies and awareness for decades, oil companies have similarly come under fire for spreading misinformation on the causes of climate change and what they’re doing to stop it.
In recent years, oil and gas companies have claimed to champion climate action. Behind the scenes, however, these same companies are advocating for increased use of natural gas. In the wake of President Biden’s approval of the ConocoPhillips oil project in Alaska and the conclusion of Congress’s Big Oil climate disinformation investigation, oil companies and their greenwashing are gaining public attention.
Companies like BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell have all committed to achieving net zero emissions and endorsed a low carbon future. Their ads, which picked up right before the congressional hearing on Big Oil and the climate crisis, emphasize a “lower carbon” future and decreasing “the carbon emissions intensity.” However, these terms are purposefully used to mislead the public on their goals and the actual impact of their actions.
While the term “low carbon” sounds good for climate action, these companies have emphasized recently that it really just means investing in natural gas and carbon capture. These are both false solutions—in reality, carbon capture has been found ineffective on many occasions. The storage capacity is not permanent and can lead to gas leaks. One such project in Algeria, costing $2.7 billion, was suspended after seven years due to concerns about how well sealed the carbon dioxide was and movement of the trapped gas underground.
Furthermore, carbon capture alone is not sufficient to end the climate crisis. Without also cutting or ending drilling as a whole, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will continue to increase. In order to truly stabilize our climate, negative emissions are required where feasible. Thus, while carbon capture may be useful in reaching that goal, without eliminating sources of carbon dioxide it will be impossible to even reach net zero emissions.
These companies also promote natural gas as the “environmentally friendly” alternative. The American Petroleum Institute (API), a notorious oil and gas based lobbying group, has said in their ad campaign that increasing natural gas exports “offers a solution to help lower the world’s carbon footprint.” While natural gas emits less pollutants than oil and coal, it consists of mostly methane rather than carbon dioxide. Methane is more potent than carbon dioxide, and long-term has a warming effect as much as 80-90 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. In BP’s campaign objectives, they specify that committing to methane reductions is a way to “secure support for gas as a natural low carbon fuel.” Ultimately, their goal is to “advance and protect the role of gas—and BP—in the future of energy conversation.'' They recognize that methane leakage in natural gas is dangerous for their desire to use natural gas for as long as possible—thus, to get ahead of this issue, they plan to lead on tackling methane emissions. They also want to emphasize the need for natural gas in the transition period to work with renewable energy.
These aren’t the only ways in which oil industry figures undermine the climate crisis while claiming to champion the cause—congressional investigators found several documents where officials edited or completely changed public statements to ensure nothing they said could be painted as a commitment. For example, Exxon documents showed they pressured the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, an industry group, to remove language from a policy statement in 2019 that “could create a potential commitment to advocate on the Paris Agreement goals”—the final version made no mention of the Agreement.
Private emails from a Shell employee, on the other hand, said the company’s announced goal of net zero emissions “has nothing to do with our business plans.” Shell documents also emphasized to employees not to “give the impression that Shell is willing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to levels that do not make business sense.” Curtis Smith, a spokesman for Shell, said in a statement that Shell’s net zero scenarios are not “meant to represent Shell’s current business plan.” When oil industry executives acknowledge that burning their products drive climate change, while continuing to emphasize their support for what they call ‘clean energy’ and financially supporting anti-climate lobbying, their hypocrisy is on full display.
All in all, oil companies and lobbying groups spend over tens of millions of dollars per year on advertisements, disinformation on policy, litigating against policies, and campaign contributions to politicians who support the industry. According to Public Citizen analysis, “the 29 members of Congress who issued statements denouncing the Biden administration’s pause on leasing received a combined $13.4 million over their careers from oil and gas interests.”
As it relates to the 2021 infrastructure bill, Exxon was in contact with senators like Joe Manchin weekly to try to eliminate the rules on limiting greenhouse gas emissions and taxes on oil companies. These efforts were successful—the final version did “little to curb planet warming emissions.” Its companion legislation, the Build Back Better Bill, which became the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), faced similar resistance. Ultimately, while the final version was momentous for climate action, it did little harm to oil and gas companies. It reinstated “2,700 square miles of Gulf leases that had been withheld,” ensuring oil companies can continue expanding. It also “prohibits leasing of federal lands and waters for renewable energy unless the government has offered at least 2 million acres of public land and 60 million acres in federal waters for oil and gas leasing during the prior year.” Finally, the IRA significantly reduced any taxes on oil and gas industries, instead giving them tax breaks for things like carbon capture and storage.
Trade Associations
Shell, despite leaving the lesser known “American Fuel and Petrochemical Society” in 2019 based on “misalignment” as it relates to climate policy, continues to be a part of the American Petroleum Institute, the US Chamber of Commerce, and other related trade associations with anti-climate positions.
Similarly, in 2021, despite claiming to disagree with the American Petroleum Institute’s stance on climate change, BP also stated they would stay with the trade association based on “progress” the association had allegedly been making. BP is also in the US Chamber of Commerce.
ConocoPhillips is part of both the US Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute. In 2022, ConocoPhillips’s Board of Directors rejected a shareholders request for full disclosure of the company’s direct and indirect lobbying activities and expenditures—this would have included lobbying through a trade organization, like the American Petroleum Institute. The company’s shareholders also voted against new emissions reductions targets that year.
Exxon boasts on its website that the American Petroleum Institute is “the largest individual recipient of Exxonmobil lobbying funds” — specifically, Exxon expended at least $10 million in 2021 to the American Petroleum Institute for lobbying on issues like energy and the environment and regulation. They also contribute to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
These companies use the American Petroleum Institute to divert negative attention from any one company. Then, they can continue to pretend to champion environmental policy and act like they are working against the American Petroleum Institute from within, while allowing the group to oppose any climate legislation meant to reduce emissions. One of the American Petroleum Institute’s past lobbyists went on to serve on the Council of Environmental Quality in 2005, but was forced to resign “after tampering with government climate assessments to downplay scientific evidence and global heating and to emphasize doubts.” He now works at Exxon.
These companies rotate as the chairman of the American Petroleum Institute’s Board of Directors. (In 2016, ConocoPhillips’s chairman and CEO Ryan Lance was elected chairman of the American Petroleum Institute’s Board of Directors. In 2018, ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods was elected chairman. In 2022, Chevron Chairman and CEO Mike Wirth was elected chairman for a 2 year term.) However, while these oil companies continue to claim they want to push the American Petroleum Institute towards supporting climate friendly solutions, they are largely the ones in control of the organization.
Despite the API’s more recent claims to support climate action through things like a price on carbon and carbon capture, this organization is one of the most prolific in commenting on climate action oriented regulations, weighing in on environmental cases through amici briefs, and releasing statements opposing environmental action in congress. The API has received an F grade from Influence Map on its climate policy, and spent $2 million on lobbying and advertising in the first half of 2021 alone to oppose climate provisions of Biden’s Build Back Better plan.
When explaining its continuing support for the American Petroleum Institute, many of these companies claim the API champions climate solutions and cite its support for carbon pricing. However, according to an undercover reporter who spoke to Kieth McCoy, a senior lobbyist with Exxon, their support for carbon pricing was just a “great talking point” that will never happen. He also “admitted that Exxon funded ‘shadow groups’ to misrepresent and deny climate science in order to sow doubt and stall regulation,” in an effort to protect their “investments” and “shareholders.” Specifically, Exxon “spent at least $30 million funding climate denial groups, like the Heartland Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Heritage Foundation.” This article goes into further detail on Exxon’s history of climate denial and lobbying.
Ultimately, despite oil companies' surface-level support for various climate policies, they are only saying what is necessary to stay in business and maintain the status quo long-term. Behind the scenes, they rely on organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute to advocate for anti-climate policies.
Change The Chamber is a bipartisan coalition of over 100 student groups, including undergraduates, graduate students and recent graduates.