In 2015, newspapers covered the emerging story of Exxon’s (previously ExxonMobil) climate change denial history in which it admitted knowing of the harmful effects of its products on the climate, over 40 years ago. Exxon actively tried to cover up this knowledge by engaging in a decades-long campaign of denial and deceit towards the general public, and the US government. This ‘discovery’ had been known to political science and environmental science scholars for a while but had now been brought to the public eye and brought light to the massive cracks in the system of the industry’s influence on public policy, and the legitimacy of such influence. The campaign these companies began all those years ago has since seen its growth but also consequences in successive climate disasters and a severe lack of effective climate policies.
By the late 1970s, fossil fuel companies were aware of the impact of their products and attended congressional hearings in which the topic of carbon emissions contributing to the greenhouse effect, as well as other climate science was discussed. In attendance of these hearings were some of the major fossil fuel companies who have since taken a major role in diminishing the science and actively deceiving the public of the real facts at hand. BP, Exxon and Peabody Energy were the forerunners in actively stopping legislative action on ‘green’ legislation, as well as deceiving the public. These companies were part of the conception of climate denial, which over the next two decades infiltrated the US government at both federal and state level, in preventing key legislation for tackling the worst aspects of climate change and to weaken climate-related policies.
The structure of the fossil fuel industry lends itself to a few companies controlling most trade and funds, as well as a history of links to the state. The research shows the immense control a few fossil fuel companies hold on the industry: ‘30% of all industrial emissions since 1850 can be traced to just 20 investor- and state-owned companies’. This concentration of wealth and power helps to present the influence of the industry on the government and general public in a more realistic light. The industry contributions to US Republicans was up to 80/20 versus contributions to the Democratic party by the start of the Bush government . Additionally, George W. Bush received over $1.5 million in direct contributions from the industry: The tie between Republican administrations and the fossil fuel industry is significant. The literature is conclusive on the impact of climate-denying fossil fuel companies and their impact on the Bush and Clinton administrations’ action against climate-positive legislation. Consequently, the Bush inauguration came to be seen as the final nail in the coffin for a US government in support of climate action.
The CTTs (Conservative Think Tanks) were a queen on a chess board for furthering the climate skeptic ideal to the broader public, allowing for wider support of anti-green government policies. They were funded by a variety of fossil fuel companies, with Exxon taking a leading role, as they shared core values on free enterprise and unfettered economic growth (For more information on the political right and climate skepticism, check out Jara’s blog). These think tanks as well as others, were key in distributing the knowledge the fossil fuel industry wanted. They produced and distributed a range of climate denial material throughout different media (For more information on the impact of the media on climate skepticism, check out Jeanne’s blog.)
Contrarian scientists are funded by fossil fuel companies to promote the climate change skeptic view that the industry wanted, and gave such views ‘legitimacy’ due to their links with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center. The think tank NIPCC (a corporate-funded, climate denial, counter publication of the IPCC reports) used a consistent argument seen within the climate skeptic realm which reiterates the hypothesis of natural climate change and the impact of human-instigates climate change is overstated. This continues to reign a key argument in the field of denial despite continuous scientific evidence against it. Thus, CTTs and other think tanks shared the false information funded by the fossil fuel industry and brought such views to the general public, which in turn infiltrated US government ideals and policies.
The collection of literature on the topic of climate denial finds a common agreement on the deceitful practices by the fossil fuel industry in the last few decades. The forerunners of the denial campaign companies provided the US with a strong basis of strategies to build its decades-long crusade within its sphere of influence, including the government, against climate change action. In turn, the US has seen push back on ‘green’ policies on both state and federal levels throughout the years. (If you need a break from ineffective government action, check out Morgane’s blog for a more optimistic government approach to climate change.)
Hi Emily, thank you so much for writing your blog on such an interesting topic! Although I had known that the Republican Party has always promoted the idea of climate change denial, I had no idea about the influence of the fossil fuel industry. It makes me sad to see how corrupt and profit oriented the US government and the entire fossil fuel industry seems to be, and how little they seem to care about the necessity to protect our environment.
One question you might be able to answer is, do you know whether European governments have acted in a similar way in the past? Do you know what impacts the fossil fuel industry has had on for example the British government?
Hey! The main countries that I have seen written about for allowing the fossil fuel industry to direct policy are the UK and Australia. Both, but more prominently at the minute is Australia, have deep roots and connections to the fossil fuel industry mostly through lobbying. The UK has less of a connection to conservative think tanks, however, private companies are prominently known for influencing government policy through bribes. The fossil fuel industry is a large part of this. From my research, I didn’t see many other European countries called out for this behaviour, but as the systems run fairly similarly in which this type of behaviour is allowed, I would imagine they have a level of influence, but definitely not as great as in the US. I hope this answers your question!
Hi Emily, your post was extremely enriching to me, particularly given the closeness between our two subjects of research – I focused on the phenomenon of greenwashing by firms! I, too, describe this kind of practice as nothing less than deceiving. With my research I had come to the conclusion that the lack of policies and regulation -to control these dishonest practices by firms- was due to a sort of “turning a blind eye” by governments in favor of the market system and competition. After reading your post, it now seems that not only did I rightfully believe so, but that the case is actually even worse – I am referring to the part where you talked about the infiltration of companies at all levels of the US government. How can we, then, expect clear and strict governmental policies, when governments are secretly complicit in this kind of firms’ deceitful behavior? What is the solution? Do you think focusing on raising awareness and including these kind of issues in our climate activism can be enough? I don’t know whether you have formed your opinion on this. In any event, thank you for this enlightening post!! Nina
Hi Nina! For your first question in strict governmental policies, I would say there needs to be a complete overhaul of the system for there to be transparency in government actions to the public. However, in the US especially, this is impossible. So, I say the best solution to avoid such governmental influence would be more accountability on the members in the government, and for their responsibilities to only be towards representing the public, and not being able to have ties to private investors. This is still radical especially for the US, however, I belive it would be the only way to stop such behaviours. For your question on raising awareness and activism, I don’t believe this would be sufficient for effective change. Climate activism has been around since the 1960s and 70s in the US, yet we still have these problems. I would say governmental change from the top down is the only way to see effective results. Thanks for your questions and I hope I’ve answered them!
Thank you for your post, I really enjoyed reading it, and I love your writing style! I found that it tackles an issue which is often overlooked but that needs to adressed if we are to tackle the climate crisis effectively. You meantioned these firms giving huge donations to presidential campaigns. This would obviously be a huge incentive for the politician to act in the interest of these forms. Unfortunately, in the US such free donations by firms are allowed and there is little to no regulation. Do you see a solution to this issue, if so what would you propose?