If you ever had a sneaking suspicion that there was something duplicitous about the way oil and energy companies stay among the highest emitters of greenhouse gases and opening oil fields while committing to reducing emissions, welcome to the world of saying one thing and doing another. Oil companies don't own the duplicity domain of course - we all do it. Oil companies just have a pile more money and a lot more to lose. So they have refined the art of managing conflicting narratives better than pretty much anyone else.Because corporate disclosure on climate lobbying and branding activity specifically is limited, InfluenceMap, a UK based NFP, has devised a methodology to calculate corporate spending, using publicly available disclosures. Their extensive research has uncovered that the world's 5 biggest public oil companies spend around $USD400 million annually on climate related brand management and climate lobbying. Since the Paris agreement was signed in 2015, this amount has totalled over $USD1 billion.
Big global oil companies now represent only 5.5% of the S&P Index - down from 16 percent 10 years ago. The big (oil) energy companies are under siege, across the full extent of their operations and the attacks are broad ranging and relentless, particularly with institutional funding following public opinion as the activities that drive climate change are exposed. Campaign groups like Greenpeace have targeted oil and gas companies for years, but better information dissemination and putting pressure on strategic influence points is starting to have significant impact.IN THE FACE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, SUPERANNUATION & SOVEREIGN FUNDS ARE OUTING DISINGENUOUS CORPORATE BEHAVIOUR AND EITHER DEMANDING MORE SUPPORTIVE CLIMATE COMMITMENTS OR SIMPLY REFUSING TO INVEST. AT THE SAME TIME, FUNDS ARE LITERALLY GOING TO GREENER PASTURES, PROPPING UP THE GROWING RENEWABLES INDUSTRIES - COMPETITORS WHO SEEM TO BE SPRINGING UP LIKE WEEDS, ALONG WITH THEIR COMPARATIVE LEGITIMACY. At the same time, big oil and energy companies continue to spend billions on marketing their legitimacy, but it's how they manage their real agenda that is slowly being exposed.
Lobbying per se has been around as long as someone was in charge and climate lobbying is no different - although the quantum of money involved, the range of influence and complexity of strategies is eye watering. Climate lobbying is about the intention to delay, control or block policies that tackle climate change. Led by Shell and BP, the total annual spend of the top five biggest public companies in the world last year was $USD201 million - on climate lobbying alone.
Since the Paris Agreement, the big oil companies have aligned much of their public narrative to support more urgent climate action - supporting the Agreement and calling for a price on carbon, promoting investment in climate change initiatives. At the same time, (in just one example), the same companies are lobbying against parts of policy and regulations designed to put a meaningful price on carbon. By being obstructive to parts of a policy, the whole policy is effectively stalled or rendered toothless. All the while, there is no indication that the overall objective isn't supported - at least not outside lobbying strategy meetings. THE PROBLEM WITH THE WAY LOBBYING WORKS IS THAT IT'S COMPLEX. WHILE YOU MAY THINK IT'S JUST ABOUT EMPLOYING SOME LOBBY GUY TO INFLUENCE WHAT GETS DEBATED ON THE FLOOR OF PARLIAMENT, THAT'S JUST ONE SMALL PART OF IT. MOST OF THE REAL WORK GOES ON IN THE NETWORKS, PEAK BODIES AND OTHER INFLUENCE GROUPS THAT BIG COMPANIES ARE INVOLVED IN. InfluenceMap examined the contrary positions of the top 5 USA oil & gas companies (Shell, Total, BP, Chevron and Exxon) and reported on their actual activity versus their stated positions on carbon tax, emission trading and green house gas emissions standards. They used over 10,000 pieces of evidence around the different company's engagement with both climate policy publicly and on the other hand, their obstructive messaging towards climate policy and the use of trade associations in bolstering their position. The activities of Total, commented by InfluenceMap is just one example, but illustrates the point."Total has voiced it's support for an international agreement on climate change, which includes placing a price on carbon. However, it has a senior executive on the board of the American Petroleum Association (API), an organisation that views the climate change summit in Paris as driven by 'narrow political ideology'. Total is also a member of CEFIC (a powerful European chemicals trade body) that has resisted progress on the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). Despite Total's stated support for limits on green house gas emissions form he power sector, its executive, Bernard Claude, is on the board of the American Chemistry Council, which opposes the US Clean Power Plan's greenhouse gas targets."
The good news is that the climate is changing (sorry) and it isn't just InfluenceMap blowing the winds of exposure. There are as many powerful groups joining the climate fight as there are subverting it. And it's not just the powerful that are important, it's the collective strength of increasing public awareness and curiosity that is bringing about change.
Australia's Investor Group on Climate Change ($AUD2 trillion in assets under management) is an excellent example of how this commitment plays out and their mission states: "...recognise that climate change will impact our investments, that there is an economic transition underway and it is accelerating. We support a response that is founded in a science-based assessment of the carbon constraints required to avoid dangerous climate change. We acknowledge that investors are key agents in facilitating an efficient transition."
At a grass roots level, pretty much every minute of the day on social media and on more traditional television networks, climate influenced activity is reported, analysed, shared and discussed. The tipping point in social action has arrived.
One lawsuit (Rhode Island vs Exxon, BP and others) launched in July 2018, alleged that "various oil companies had created a public nuisance in the state and failed to adequately warn customers, consumers and regulators about the risks posed by their products.
The lawsuit by the Democratic attorney general follows similar cases by U.S. cities and local governments, arguing the production of fossil fuels had led to rising tides that damaged shorelines, roads and other properties requiring remediation.
The lawsuit contended that the companies sought to refute scientific findings regarding how greenhouse gas pollution was causing climate change, and failed to prevent the harm that would result from consumers’ using fossil fuel products.
The lawsuit said that companies also violated the state’s Environmental Rights Act by polluting and destroying natural resources in Rhode Island."
There is undoubtedly a tension between the amount of oil based products that are needed to literally fuel a hungry world and the responsibilities of those who provide them. The responsibility to act isn't a game and it's not ok to line the pockets of a few for the cost of most. Which of the oil companies makes the first move to invest their extensive funds, while they have them, in a way of doing business that respects everyone, is going to be interesting. My money is on Shell, whose long term investment in scenario planning must have envisaged this moment a long time ago. Let's hope someone postures, "What if we supported climate action instead of subverting it. Then what?"