Climate talks started in 1995, fossil fuel industries still stalling

Lobbyists have been hard at work on this since the beginning. Having now reached a point where denial is an untenable position, delay is the attempt underway.

Surely 30 years is enough delay?

The Lobbyists have definitely earnt their salary, but their cause is not right.

Below is a list of the top 6 fossil fuel companies, alongside a ranking of A to E saying how good or bad they are in terms of living up to the Paris climate accords (or indeed campaigning against.

1. Exxon Mobil – given a D measuring corporate lobbying against Paris Agreement goals. While the company states its support for Net Zero by 2050, it appears unsupportive of many forms of climate regulation. It also retains an extensive network of memberships to industry groups which lobby to block or weaken climate policy globally. The company is Big Oil’s biggest spender on political and social issue ads on Facebook in the US. Many of these ads are aimed at encouraging voters to actively support the fossil fuel industry.
   • Recent examples of ExxonMobil’s Facebook ads includes:
     • Promoting “natural gas” as a solution to reducing CO2 emissions, despite it being made up mostly of methane which is a significantly worse greenhouse gas.
     • Promoting itself as part of the climate change solution, through carbon capture and storage.
   • The company has spent $4,590,172 on political and social issue ads on Facebook so far this year, which have collectively recorded 114,564,686 impressions.
2. Chevron – Chevron scores an ‘E+’ based on its behaviour and lobbying. The company appears to be opposing many forms of climate-motivated regulation, particularly renewable fuel standards, whilst actively pushing a US energy policy agenda that accelerates oil and gas production. It also retains memberships to several industry associations engaged in obstructive climate lobbying.
   • In the weeks leading up to COP26, Chevron committed to an ‘aspiration’ of net zero emissions by 2050 from its operations, though there has been no communication on whether it supports a net zero by 2050 goal for society.
   • Chevron’s CEO has repeatedly stated support for a long-term role for oil and gas and has frequently pinned this continued role for oil and gas on population growth – this is not only incompatible with virtually every climate initiative, but is also incompatible with Chevrons own promises
   • The company – which promotes itself as “the human energy company” – presents itself as part of the solution to climate change through the development of biofuels. It also notably focuses on its role in pursuing a “lower-carbon future” – as opposed to low carbon – in this Facebook ad.
3. BP (British petroleum) scores a ‘D+’ for its climate policy lobbying. The company states its support for Net Zero by 2050, and its top line statements on climate appear to have improved in recent years – especially in 2020 with the arrival of the new CEO Bernard Looney. Its public messaging focuses heavily on its role in a net zero world, including its renewable business and its solar energy projects. However, these messages relate to a relatively small part of the company’s overall business model. The rest of the company continues to suggest there will be a long-term role for hydrocarbons in some sectors of the economy.
4. Royal dutch shell: Shell scores a ‘C-’ in InfluenceMap’s system of measuring corporate lobbying against Paris Agreement goals. It states its support for Net Zero by 2050 and has become more positive across different areas of climate policy, although it continues to lobby for policies to advance fossil fuel production and consumption, particularly gas. It also retains membership to various trade groups that directly contradict Shell’s own position. Its public messaging focuses strongly on trying to shift perceptions of itself as an oil company to one that is helping the economy transition away from fossil fuels and achieve net zero – including in the aviation sector (this is absurd, as it would go out of business in its current mode, should this happen) However, Shell has announced it will appeal a court ruling in the Netherlands that requires it to cut emissions by 45% by 2030. They put out a statement in 2023, which states that they are on target to halve emissions from their own activities by 2030 – ignoring the fact that in actual fact, they are supplying fossil fuels that will emit large amounts of emissions when used exactly as shell intends.
5. The American Petroleum Institute (API) – The API scores an ‘F’ for its climate policy lobbying. It appears to be broadly hostile to progressive climate policy. It does not seem to fully support the need to drastically cut emissions to limit global temperature increase to below 2C and appears to be more interested in pushing a deregulatory agenda over ambitious climate action. The API continues to emphasize the importance of oil and gas to the American economy and opposes measures to limit fossil fuel development. Furthermore, it also appears to not support several other policies intended to cut emissions such as renewable fuel standards and carbon taxation. The organization’s CEO Mike Sommers said this year that ‘mandates get us nowhere’ and that the surest way to end the COVID-19 economic recovery was with ‘more regulations, more taxes, more restrictions on access’ to federal lands and waters for oil and gas development. The API is a significant advertiser on Facebook, spending $2,304,324 on political and social issue ads so far this year. These ads have resulted in 94,322,259 impressions. It has paid for more than 300 ads targeting individual lawmakers during the Build Back Better negotiations.
   • Some examples of its ads include:
     • Its recent campaign during the Build Back Better negotiations against ‘anti-industry legislation’.
     • Its promotion of ‘natural’ gas as the solution to reducing CO2 emissions – despite it being made up of mostly methane, which is a far more dangerous greenhouse gas in the short term.
6. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce
   • The US Chamber of Commerce scores an ‘E-’ in InfluenceMap’s system for measuring climate lobbying. While the Chamber updated its climate position statement to a nominally more positive stance in 2021, it opposed early policy measures advanced by the Biden administration shortly thereafter. While President Biden prepared to announce a new Nationally Determined Contribution to the Paris Agreement, the Chamber released a paper highlighting the continued importance of coal and fossil gas in the energy mix. It has lobbied in broad opposition to the US Build Back Better Act, the country’s “last best chance at climate policy,” including criticizing its climate provisions, opposing the measures needed to pay for them, and earlier this summer, advocating to weaken the Clean Energy Standard which was later incorporated into the bill.

To say that it is misleading to suggest that you support something and then fight against it all the way, is an understatement. These companies are disgusting, and I am pleased to say that to the greatest extent that I can, I am not directly supporting any of them. It is very true, that it the tangled market of the UK it is impossible at the current time to be sure that you are not supporting one of these companies (directly or indirectly).

What can you do?

• Drive electric (this even running on the dirtiest electricity, is cleaner than driving a fossil fuel car)
• Pay to go on a clean electric tariff (even better, install solar panels – ours are working, we just need to pay someone to connect them). While at the current time, we pay £5 to guarantee all our electricity is from green sources, this fee is unlikely to be required for ever.
• Heat your home without gas – we have made several moves on this front.
  • 1. insulate – the effect of this is going to vary depending on how efficient your house is and how leaky
  • 2. install a heat pump – While a water source heat pump is cheaper, it is harder to install, and can cost far more and require more space. As such, it is generally only highly useful in large houses (though moves in vertical heat extraction holes may help with this)
  • 3. Install a thermal solar panel. We have this on our roof, and are eager to get it connected to our tank, this should cut heat pump costs by between 50-80% over the year
  • NB while all this looks expensive, we are looking at a payback time of 3-5 years. After this, our average fuel bill should be under 10% of what it was before.

These 3 activities are capable of dropping the average UK carbon footprint by well over half. Indeed, these 3 will drop the houses carbon footprint to near zero. There are other ways for you to help but this is where I am leaving things for today