The Hidden Truth Behind Climate Deception
In the 1950s, scientist Dr. Charles David Keeling was measuring carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere in Hawaii when he noticed that their concentration was rising. His observation ignited a wave of research into the changing environment, prompting questions about our shifting atmosphere. Since Dr. Keeling’s discovery, carbon dioxide levels have increased six fold.
After decades of investigation, scientists were able to confidently assert that human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, were driving atmospheric changes. Moreover, these changes were directly contributing to climate change.
This revelation spurred a surge in public awareness and led to heightened government recognition and increased regulatory measures designed to limit further increases in average global temperature. None of this could have come as a surprise to Exxon however as their own scientists had predicted, in the late 1970s, the link between burning fossil fuels and global warming with “shocking skill and accuracy.” They just failed to tell the public.
By 1988 Shell had come to many of the same conclusions as Exxon, which they outlined in their own internal report, The Greenhouse Effect.
If we take their findings together, Exxon and Shell had predicted a near doubling of carbon dioxide levels by 2030, which they anticipated would lead to global temperature rises, flooding of low-lying land and agricultural farmland, sea level rises, and habitat loss. The outlook made for grim reading.
The Rise of Renewables Was The Long Term Plan
In the 60s and 70s, in an economic climate with soaring energy needs, exploring renewable energy sources was an obvious next step for fossil fuel companies — especially as the US looked to become energy self-sufficient.
Exxon, Shell, and other major oil companies began investing in renewable energy as a strategy to diversify their portfolios and reduce their dependence on fossil fuels. This shift was partly driven by the price volatility associated with oil markets, particularly after the formation of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 1960.
Geopolitical risks, such as conflicts in the Middle East and the oil crises of the 1970s, further exacerbated these fluctuations, which caused oil prices to soar and highlighted the need for more stable energy sources to ensure long-term energy sustainability. This strategic move was also driven by the need to future-proof the fossil fuel industry against potential regulatory restrictions and shifts in public and environmental attitudes.
Exxon at the time even ran an advertising campaign proclaiming, “Energy for a strong America,” showcasing solar energy alongside coal and nuclear power.
Reaganomics Heralds Short Termism
The birth of Reaganomics in 1982 changed everything. It heralded the rise in popularity of the stock market with Reagan’s presidency emphasized tax cuts, deregulation, reduced government spending, and a focus on free-market principles
This set in motion a stock market boom, collectively creating an economy that encouraged companies to pursue short-term financial gains. Short-termism is fueled by a focus on short-term trading and performance metrics that emphasize immediate results, as investors favored quick returns, and markets expected fast gains. In reality, this meant companies prioritized immediate profits over sustainable practices, delivering immediate results to an expansive, and often impatient investor base.
At the same time the energy crisis of the 1970s was followed by an oil surplus in the 1980s. Discoveries of new oil reserves in non-OPEC countries eased concerns about the U.S. oil supply. By the late 1980s and early 1990s, the pressure to be energy self-reliant had subsided and oil companies began to divest from renewables, corporate myopia had set in. They could now focus on immediate financial gain, by producing more and more crude oil.
The chairman of Exxon at the time, Lee Raymond, encouraged an end to the company’s experimental research as well as defunding their solar investments, because they were less profitable in the short term.
Corporate Deflection, Deception & A Clever Little Con Called the Carbon Footprint
It was around the same time that fossil fuel corporations began to roll out a well funded climate change ‘misinformation’ campaign.
In 1997, Exxon’s Raymond denounced the claim that humans had any effect on climate change and therefore deemed the reduction of carbon emissions unnecessary. Other major oil companies, such as Chevron and Shell, also fueled climate denial by donating to organizations like the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), which actively promoted misinformation about climate science. By the early 2000s, corporations began shifting accountability for rising carbon dioxide emissions firmly onto consumers instead.
BP and The Carbon Footprint
A prime example of this is British Petroleum’s (BP) carbon footprint campaign, which launched BP’s carbon calculator in 2004. This tool was marketed as a way to empower consumers to understand their impact on greenhouse gas emissions. However, it subtly shifted responsibility away from oil producers and onto individuals. This approach echoes the “Keep America Beautiful” litter campaigns of the 1970s, which were sponsored by major plastic polluters like Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. Both initiatives gave the impression of advocating for environmental responsibility while diverting attention from the systemic issues caused by large corporations.
Twenty years later, BP’s carbon calculator remains a prominent concept in environmental discussions and continues to be a key element of corporate climate action.
Undermine Science
Over the years, growing mistrust in American institutions has fueled a rise in public skepticism. By the mid-1990s, trust in government was notably low, with only a third of Americans believing it could be relied upon to act in the public’s best interest. Additionally, fewer than a third felt that politicians cared about public opinion, and less than half viewed government officials as honest.
This distrust has been exploited by fossil fuel companies, which have funded campaigns to cast doubt on scientific findings. ExxonMobil for example has invested tens of millions of dollars into groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, The Heartland Institute, and the Heritage Foundation — that spread misinformation and undermined scientific consensus by promoting discredited, non-peer-reviewed research.
Similarly, the GCC played a key role in spreading climate misinformation and resisting regulatory measures. Supported by fossil fuel interests, the GCC’s efforts intensified doubts about climate science, delaying action on climate change and amplifying public confusion and skepticism.
Between 2003 and 2010, over half a billion dollars — much of it from undisclosed sources — was funneled into organizations promoting climate denial. These efforts included creating faux grassroots organizations and social media accounts, which, supported by conspiracy theorists and outdated scientific arguments, spread misinformation widely.
As climate change has become increasingly evident, the rhetoric has shifted. While outright denial is less common, new arguments downplay the severity of climate change and dismiss proposed solutions as unnecessary or unfeasible. These actions collectively help to spread misinformation and delay meaningful climate action, reflecting a broader pattern where corporate pledges and public commitments often lack the substance needed for real change.
Driving Change in Oil Through Public Pressure
Oil companies have faced pressure to cut their emissions but have largely continued to resist significant changes, opting instead to make minimal adjustments to protect their profits. Despite this reluctance, recent regulatory developments have compelled them to adopt new practices. These regulations include advertising bans, state-wide carbon taxes, and new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) restrictions aimed at improving air quality. The EPA’s stricter standards enforce greater accountability and transparency. As a response to these pressures, large oil companies such as Shell began to incorporate sustainable language in annual reports in 2004.
BP, Chevron, Shell, and ExxonMobil — are all competitive with each other. This means that if one company changes its practices for the better, the rest are likely to follow. One method of pressure is advocacy campaigns, which create substantial pressure on oil companies to adopt greener practices by publicly spotlighting their environmental issues. Despite their general reluctance to make significant changes, these campaigns can compel companies to reconsider their approaches.
A notable success was the aggressive “Shell No” campaign against Shell’s Arctic drilling plans. This campaign, which included public protests, legal challenges, and media scrutiny, compelled the company to reconsider and ultimately scale back its Arctic operations. Additionally, targeted websites and environmental rankings add to the pressure, motivating companies to adjust their practices to maintain competitiveness and improve their reputation.
As oil companies face increasing scrutiny and regulatory demands, they are gradually adopting more sustainable practices to align with these pressures and stay competitive in the industry. While change may appear to be happening slowly, it can happen.
