NEW DELHI: A new report reveals how big and powerful oil and gas companies had spun unscientific narratives over the past five decades to derail the global energy transition’s journey towards clean fuel. Over that time scale, cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases by these fossil fuel companies accounted for as much as 18% of the world’s total CO2 emissions.
The report, “How the Oil Industry Has Sustained Market: Dominance Through Policy Influence – A Historical Analysis of the Oil and Gas Playbook Against Renewables and Electric Vehicles,” by the UK-based independent environment think tank InfluenceMap, investigated the strategies adopted by the fossil fuel industry to block science-based climate policy action. Their strategies undermining energy transition away from fossil fuels to zero-carbon alternatives such as renewable energy and electric vehicles, had three prongs: scepticism over alternatives, policy neutrality, and raising questions over energy security and affordability.
The report underlines that the world's most powerful oil and gas industry associations developed a playbook to oppose, weaken and delay the global energy transition and has been using it since 1967. They formed powerful associations of fossil fuels companies across the globe to peddle their narratives.
The spin doctoring began with the American Petroleum Institute (API), which represents all of America’s oil and natural gas industry. Fuels Europe (FE) and Fuels Industry UK (FIUK) picked up the thread and pushed the narrative in their respective regions. They all likely succeeded in delaying the energy transition and continue to pose a serious threat to policy progress on climate change, the report contends.
The new report identifies and analyses the three broad categories of arguments these associations consistently used in their advocacy, all of which contradict science-based policy as set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the
International Energy Agency. The lobby employed narratives to oppose various climate policies, despite the fact that the scientific community, policymakers, and the public advanced their understanding of the climate crisis and its causes.
The analysis utilises a dataset compiled by Dario Kenner, a visiting research fellow at the University of Sussex. It includes over 50 detailed instances of the API, FE and FIUK where these unscientific narratives were used in their advocacy against alternatives to fossil fuels between 1967 and 2021. Additional data from 2021 to 2023 was collected by InfluenceMap to ensure that the analysis is up-to-date. The entire dataset was then studied to identify narrative trends.
The earliest evidence in the dataset from 1967 to 1992, relates solely to the API where it can be seen using all three narratives. Evidence in the dataset for FE and FIUK begins in 1993 and 2013, respectively. “Many oil and gas companies justify their significant scope 3 emissions by pointing to consumer demand, claiming it's beyond their control,” said Tom Holen, InfluenceMap program manager for the Energy Transition at InfluenceMap.
“However, this report challenges this narrative by uncovering a strategic playbook designed to protect and sustain the societal and market forces favouring fossil fuels. This long-standing use of misleading narratives has likely delayed the energy transition for decades and continues to pose a serious threat to climate policy progress," he added.
Unscientific narratives used by fossils fuel companies
1 Solution Skepticism: Systematically downplays the potential impact and viability of alternative energy sources, casting doubt on their efficacy while emphasising challenges and uncertainties. It includes arguments that stir skepticism around issues associated with the use of fossil fuels
2 Policy Neutral: Used to oppose policy that promotes solely alternatives to fossil fuels. Instead, it promotes consumer choice, market solutions and minimal government intervention
3 Affordability and Energy Security: Stress on the importance of maintaining cost-effective and secure energy supplies. Fossil fuels are presented as central to both causes, while a shift to technology alternatives is framed as a significant risk