Before the world’s most powerful descended on Davos, Switzerland, this week, the World Economic Forum surveyed its members on the global risks confronting the planet. At the top of the list of what keeps global leaders up at night in the near term was not the spread of geopolitical conflict, but misinformation and disinformation, which ranked as the highest threats over the next two years.
The picture shifted when they were asked about risks over a 10-year horizon; climate change then loomed as the greatest threat. The reality is that the short- and long-term threats identified in the report are all related.
The worsening climate crisis requires strong policy action by governments that in turn are acting in an environment in which misinformation is clouding clear consensus from the scientific community on climate. Misleading, strategic communications in this sphere are part of a wider program, spearheaded by the fossil fuel value chain – including some of the largest representatives of the gas and oil companies worldwide – to delay government action. Despite this, non-fossil-fuel companies are beginning to raise their voices in recognition that government action is needed to develop greener business models. But, to make more progress, we need to have a clear understanding of the tactics that make the fossil fuel sector so successful in holding back action on climate policy.
Last year, InfluenceMap uncovered revealing strategy documents that have since been removed from the website of the International Gas Union (IGU), which describe themselves as the spokesperson for the gas industry worldwide, representing 150-plus groups and 90% of the global gas market.
The documents stated that climate represents an “existential threat to the gas value chain” and went on to describe the IGU’s two-pronged approach. First, to focus their narrative efforts on dispelling concerns about gas as a fossil fuel, separate from coal and oil, while defending and enhancing the role of gas. Second, they would concentrate their considerable lobbying efforts to delay or stop any climate-related government policy that would have a negative impact on the gas business. They made it clear that they intend to achieve these goals by using their considerable resources to tap into a sophisticated communications network that seeks to influence key thought leaders and to exploit social and other media to “promote positive sentiment toward, and broaden the definition of gas.”
The IGU laid out a list of priority targets, including financial institutions such as the World Bank and the Asian, African and Islamic development banks; the UN climate summit (COP) process; non-governmental organizations such as the Environmental Defense Fund and the Rocky Mountain Institute; and think tanks and data providers such as McKinsey and Boston Consulting Group.
InfluenceMap data shows how the IGU’s 150-plus members, including oil majors and national-level gas industry associations, have implemented this strategy globally. In Europe, communications strategies appear to focus on the “greening of gas,” in which “fossil gas” is presented as part of a broader category of “gases” that includes “low-carbon” and “decarbonized” gas. In Africa, parts of Asia and South America, communications focus on the issues of energy poverty and air pollution and how gas can solve them.
The IGU and the wider fossil fuel sector has been successful at delaying climate action using these tactics for three reasons.
First, they are collaborative. They are willing to sideline the competitive issues they have, and they lobby and communicate collectively, using one strategy and voice.
Second, the fossil fuel industry sees climate as an existential threat not so much to the planet as to its sector, and therefore, it’s sharply focused on its goal of stopping any government policy that would adversely affect its business.
Finally, the sector has built considerable institutional infrastructure around climate-policy influencing over the last few decades, targeting the capture of organizations noted in the IGU list and also co-opting cross-sector business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This is in addition to their own powerful industry groups, like the American Petroleum Institute.
Funding is not necessarily the key to these successes. Clearly, larger fortunes exist elsewhere – in tech, finance and beyond. But this funding is not being deployed collaboratively, or with the razor-sharp focus on influencing policy that is required. In addition, climate-policy advocates are starting from behind, as the fossil fuel’s lobbying infrastructure has been years in the making and is both expensive and difficult to replicate quickly.
However, things are changing fast. There is reason to believe we are seeing the beginning of the end of fossil fuel dominance over governments’ climate agendas globally. Non-fossil-fuel companies are waking up to the need for governments to act on climate. The rest of the corporate sector, which has made strong climate commitments, has a key ally – that is, the scientific consensus around climate solutions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is getting ever more specific about the role of renewables and electric vehicles in society, as well as climate solutions like carbon capture.
The consensus is clear. Fossil fuels need to be phased out and renewables scaled up. The positive corporate climate movement needs to be more collaborative and more strategic, using science-based narratives to its advantage. Armed with the truth, focused and collaborating effectively, the businesses of the future can prevail.
Dylan Tanner is the executive director of InfluenceMap, an independent climate think tank.
