New InfluenceMap research finds that the oil and gas industry has used a playbook of narratives and arguments to systematically oppose, weaken, and delay the energy transition since at least 1967. Analysis of historical data on engagement with climate advocacy from three of the most powerful oil and gas industry associations in the United States and Europe – the American Petroleum Institute (API), FuelsEurope, and Fuels Industry UK – finds that these groups have for decades been using the same playbook in their advocacy against renewable energy and electric vehicles.
This narrative playbook, which is found to contradict science-aligned policy, appears to have been highly impactful. Over the years of its deployment, EV and renewable growth has been stifled, while the Carbon Majors database shows that the cumulative emissions associated with the sale of the associations' members fossil fuel products have grown significantly. Between 1950 and 2022, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from all the companies that hold a membership with at least one of the industry groups to be 350 billion tonnes, of which 320 billion tonnes were from CO2 emissions. This equates to approximately 18% of the world's total cumulative CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry in 2022.
Three distinct narratives can be traced across 51 separate instances of the associations’ advocacy against fossil fuel alternatives between 1967 and 2023. These narratives include “Solution Skepticism,” which has been in use for 56 years, “Policy Neutrality” for 34 years, and “Affordability and Energy Security” for 51 years. Despite advancements in understanding the threats posed by the climate crisis, these narratives persist as of 2023. They represent a continuation of historical climate science denial tactics that have been prevalent within the fossil fuel industry, as documented by Inside Climate News and research published in Nature Climate Change.
All three narratives are found to be misaligned with IPCC recommendations. For example, “Solution Skepticism” downplays the impact and viability of alternative energy sources and infrastructure to undermine the potential of cleaner energy in communications to policymakers. However, the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report emphasizes that transitioning from fossil fuels to renewables contributes significantly to broader sustainable development goals and that the alternatives are fully viable. (AR6, WG3, Mitigation of Climate Change, April 2022).
Some of the world’s largest oil and gas companies are still paying a high premium to participate in industry associations that may no longer represent them on climate policy. The API appears misaligned with much of its membership, having achieved the lowest possible InfluenceMap score of “F.” meanwhile, Shell, Chevron, and Exxon have disclosed that they pay between $5 million and $12.5 million per year to hold a membership with the API. Despite this apparent misalignment, it remains unclear to what extent these companies endorse the API's positions and advocacy on electric vehicles and renewable energy policy.
Analysis of the emissions created by the members of each association reveals significant climate impacts as they simultaneously use the playbook to maintain the status quo. Many oil and gas companies with high scope 3 emissions have excused their contributions to climate change on the basis of consumer demand for their products, which they claim is outside industry control. This report challenges that argument, revealing a strategic industry playbook to protect and preserve the societal and market forces that favor fossil fuels. Use of these narratives over the last 30-50+ years has likely contributed to delaying the energy transition and continues to pose a serious threat to policy progress on climate change.
This report shows that even faced with mounting scientific evidence over decades, the oil and gas industry have pushed ahead with a damaging messaging strategy they developed as early as the 1960's. It shows the crucial need for increased awareness of the delaying tactics of fossil fuel companies from policymakers if they are to successfully drive the energy transition forward at the pace we need.
This report investigates a key influencing strategy used by the fossil fuel industry as part of its agenda to block science-aligned climate policy action. This strategy, which focuses on undermining a transition away from fossil fuels to zero-carbon alternatives such as renewable energy and electric vehicles, can be seen as an important component of a wider campaign against climate action that goes at least as far back as the late 1960s. This campaign has had a significant negative impact on the ability of governments, globally, to address the climate crisis.
The anlysis utilises a data set compiled by Dario Kenner, a visiting research fellow at the University of Sussex. Dario Kenner’s dataset includes over 50 detailed instances of the American Petroleum Institute, FuelsEurope, and Fuels Industry UK's opposition to green technologies, including renewable energy and electric vehicles (EVs) dating back to 1967.
This report analyses the nuanced messaging strategies found in these documents. The research builds on previous analysis of historical fossil fuel industry lobbying that has highlighted the use of climate science denial tactics. It identifies a range of additional highly influential and misleading narratives that have been deployed by the oil and gas sector since the late 60s that are still in use today.
This analysis reveals how three oil and gas industry groups, the API, FuelsEurope, and Fuels Industry UK have used a set playbook of narratives and arguments to systematically oppose, weaken, or delay the transition away from fossil fuels to low and zero carbon alternatives in the US and Europe between 1967 and present day.
The three main arguments used by the industry groups against fossil fuels are:
1. Solution Skepticism: This narrative systematically downplays the potential impact and viability of alternative energy sources, casting doubt on their efficacy while emphasizing challenges and uncertainties. It includes arguments that stir skepticism around the issues associated with the use of fossil fuels.
2. Policy Neutrality: This narrative is 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: In this narrative, the industry stresses 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.
This research has found how these narratives persist over decades and are actively employed by associations today to resist renewable energy and electric vehicle policies. This is illustrated in the figure below.
The API's consistent messaging strategy
While the use of these narratives predates even the earliest IPCC reports, the narratives have shown remarkable consistency and are still in use today. Thus, it appears the growing consensus to act on climate has had little effect on the use of these narratives by industry players. All three are misaligned with science-aligned climate policy.
Solution Skepticm
The narrative of “Solution Skepticism” is misaligned with Science-Aligned Climate Policy, as it argues that alternatives to fossil-based technology and infrastructure is either unnecessary or infeasible. For example, in the API’s testimony to US congress in 1967, it stated that “We in the petroleum industry are convinced that by the time a practical electric car can be mass-produced and marketed, it will not enjoy any meaningful advantage from on air pollution standpoint. Emissions from internal-combustion engines will have long since been controlled.” While in January 2023 comments testimony before the New York State Senate Joint Public Hearing, the API stated that it was concerned that policies that incentivize thermal electrification and electric vehicles may “fail to adequately reduce emissions”.
By contrast, the IPCC's recent report emphasizes that transitioning from fossil fuels to renewables contributes significantly to broader sustainable development goals and that the alternatives are fully viable (AR6, WG3, Mitigation of Climate Change, April 2022).
Policy Neutrality
While seemingly a sensible principle, narratives concerning “Policy Neutrality” are utilized by the oil and gas sector in a way which is not consistent with science-aligned climate policy. These narratives are deployed by the sector to oppose or dilute technology-specific policy, often in an effort to insert alternative technologies that - despite being more favourable to the sector's interests - are not optimal from the perspective of emission reductions. For example, FuelsEurope was part of a 2022 joint letter to policymakers that advocated for the inclusion of “low carbon” fuels in the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), stating that “The inclusion would ensure a more effective level playing field among the various technological solutions available for heating vulnerable households and off-grid communities, in line with the European Commission`s commitment to a technology neutral approach and a just transition for all.”
The IPCC explains that high technology costs limit market adoption, and therefore, new technologies can struggle to compete with incumbent technology even if they would have positive societal impacts. The IPCC specifically highlights the role of "technology specific" policy as having "led to a greater use of less carbon intensive (e.g., renewable electricity) and less energy intensive (especially in transport and buildings) technologies," noting that the uptake of renewable energy sources globally is largely attributable to this form of policy. With regards to the buildings sector, in particular, the IPCC states that a combination of sufficiency, efficiency and renewable energy offers the best approach to decarbonizing buildings. (AR6, WG3, Mitigation of Climate Change, April 2022).
Affordability and Energy Security
Comparison of the narrative “Affordability and Energy Security” with Science-Aligned Climate Policy also reveals clear misalignment. In 2013, FuelsEurope (then EUROPIA) stated in its position on the EU 2030 Framework for Climate and Energy Policy that “Addressing security of supply concerns by promoting the increased use of indigenous renewables, with the aim of reducing fossil fuel bills, is misleading. Because of intermittency and decentralized deployment, they often negatively impact system balance, which is also a key element of security of supply. Later in 2023, the API used this narrative to oppose the transition to electric vehicles, stating in June 2022 comments to the US EPA that it “is concerned that the proposed rule could negatively impact U.S. energy security if vehicle technologies are shifted to ZEVs in the exponential rate that the proposal would likely entail, as it would increase the country's dependence upon foreign sources for needed minerals forgoing the use of existing U.S. resources”.
The IPCC's recent reports underscore that the development of renewable energy is a “crucial measure” for enhancing energy access and security and that electric vehicles can enhance grid stability. The reports also highlight the “economic inefficiency” created by fossil fuel subsidies, estimating that double the amount is spent on fossil fuel subsidies compared to renewables.
According to the Carbon Majors Database, the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions between 1950 – 2022 from all the companies that hold a membership with at least one of the three industry associations covered in the report is 350 billion tonnes, of which 320 billion tonnes were from CO2 emissions. This equates to approximately 18% of the world's total cumulative CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry in 2022.
The graph below details each instance of the API's opposition to alternatives to fossil fuels included in the dataset used for this analysis. This information is set against data tracking the United State's energy transition, showing fossil fuel vs renewable consumption and the total number of registered vehicles (vs registered electric vehicles) each year from 1950 to 2022. In addition, using data from Carbon Majors database, the graph also shows that the cumulative emissions of the API's members between 1950 and 2022 were approximately 320 billion tons. For context, the total annual GHG emissions of the US in 2021 equated to 5 billion tons.
The color coded dots on the graph indicate the use of one of the narratives identified in this analysis. Details including a summary, key quotes and a link to the original source can be viewed by clicking on the dots. The graphs also include 3 separate key metrics that can be used to give an indication of the progress of the energy transition, these can be toggled using the tabs along the top of the graph:
Comparison of Fossil Fuel and Renewable Energy Consumption (KTOE): This presents a comprehensive overview of the primary energy consumption from fossil fuels and renewables in the United States spanning the last five decades. The data utilized in this comparison is sourced from the US Energy Information Administration's database.
Total Association Cumulative Emissions (MMTCDE) Greenhouse gas emissions data from the Carbon Majors database has been used to determine the approximate emissions that each association’s members have produced over the course of the timeframe included in the analysis. Please see the methodology section of the full report for more details.
Number of Registered Vehicles Vs Electric Vehicles: Data for the number of registered vehicles is available at the U.S Department of Transportation while the number of Electric Vehicles can be found through the International Energy Agency's EV Outlook, including both plug-in hybrids (PHEV) and battery electric vehicles (BEV).
The graph highlights the likely impact that the API's decades-long influencing campaign has had on the emergence of key technologies needed for the US energy transition. While the use of fossil fuels has grown, progress on renewable energy and electric vehicles has remained slow. This has helped sustain a robust market for the fossil fuel products sold by API members which, in turn, has contributed to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions that amount to approximately 16.4% of the world’s total.
The graph below details each instance of FuelsEurope and Fuels Industry UK's opposition to alternatives to fossil fuels included in the dataset, alongside the narratives used. The graph also details the European energy transition progress, with fossil fuel vs renewable consumption and the total number of registered vehicles vs electric vehicles per year from 1990 to 2022. Using the Carbon Majors database, it is found that the combined cumulative greenhouse gas emissions from FuelsEurope and Fuels Industry UK’s members is also significant, growing by an approximate 92 billion tons of GHG emissions between 1990 and 2021, of which CO2 made up 87.6 billion tonnes. for context, the total amount of emissions produced in the European Union in the same time period is 505 billion tonnes.
Instructions on how to view the interactive can be seen above the previous graph. For Europe, data from Eurostat has been used to show the share of gross available energy by source (ktoe) and to determine the total number of passenger vehicles. Other metrics and sources remain the same.
The extent to which the members of the three industry associations covered in this report continue to endorse their engagement on electric vehicle and renewable energy policy is unclear. InfluenceMap's analysis of the policy advocacy of the three industry associations over the last three years shows that this is not aligned with the public positions stated by some of their largest members over the same time period. This is particularly the case of the API.
API membership appears to come at a premium. Shell and Exxon’s most recent disclosures showed that they both paid between $10,000,000 and $12,500,000 in annual membership fees, while Chevron disclosed it paid between $7,500,000 and $5,000,000. Some companies are therefore paying a high fee to remain members of the API despite this seeming misalignment with the group on climate policy.
Several member companies have published reviews of their industry associations to report on areas of misalignment on climate policy. However, these reviews suggest that the companies considered themselves to retain, at least, partial alignment with the API and the other industry associations covered in this analysis.
The figure below shows the relationship between the associations and their members as of January 2024, and how the majority of the largest oil and gas companies are members of multiple groups. Exxon, BP, Shell, and Philips 66 are members of all three associations.
As of March 2024, most key oil and gas companies hold a membership to more than one association
InfluenceMap’s Lobbymap platform for scoring and ranking companies and industry associations on their climate policy engagement positions and activities indicates the API is misaligned with its corporate members on climate policy engagement. The group scores the lowest possible score on InfluenceMap’s database (F), with an engagement intensity of 51%, indicating negative and highly active advocacy on climate-related policy.
The API appears to hold more oppositional positions on climate-related policy than it's members (Entity scores as of Q1 2024)
Some of these companies, particularly those headquartered in Europe, advocate in conflict with the API’s positions on policies related to alternatives to fossil fuels. Both BP and Shell now strongly support the electrification of light-duty vehicles, while BP, Shell, Equinor, and Repsol have all supported renewable energy policy.
On the other hand, it appears that these same companies are employing a “dual advocacy” approach to their climate policy engagement, as their alignment with the American Petroleum Institute (API) on matters concerning fossil fuel exploration and development remains steadfast.
A comparison of the LobbyMap profiles of FuelsEurope and Fuels Industry UK with their members reveals that, while the groups appear more aligned with their members than the API, there are still differences between the associations and their members regarding advocacy on alternatives to fossil fuels. The figure below shows a comparison of the associations scores and their members.
FuelsEurope and Fuels Industry UK appear more aligned with their members, but come in to conflict on certain policy issues (Entity scores as of Q1 2024)
Both FuelsEurope and Fuels Industry UK now frequently support the development of renewable and low carbon fuels and the decarbonization of transport; however, this is with the exception that products that may be derived from fossil fuels are included in the policies, such as hydrogen, LNG or recycled carbon fuels. Both groups have also continued to oppose any policy that aims to phase out ICE vehicles or promote solely EVs or renewable solutions: see here and here for examples.
Several members of FuelsEurope and Fuels Industry UKs appear to conflict with the groups on the electrification of transport. BP and Shell have both stated support for the electrification of light duty-vehicles, including the phase-out of internal combustion engines. Nevertheless, both BP and Shell found FuelsEurope and Fuels Industry UK to be aligned with their own climate and energy-related policy positions in their most recent most industry association reviews.
This research reveals the entrenched nature of the oil and gas industry's opposition to the alternatives to fossil fuels, revealing a decades-long playbook employed to hinder progress towards the transition.
It builds on previous analysis of historical fossil fuel industry lobbying that highlighted the use of climate science denial tactics. It demonstrates that a range of other narratives and arguments are still being deployed by sector to this day, despite contradicting the Science-Aligned Climate Policy analysis of the IPCC.
The analysis highlights the potentially seismic impacts that are associated with this influencing campaign, which that has enabled an expanded and sustained market for fossil fuel products at the expense of zero-carbon alternatives. The sale and use of these products has resulted in cumulative GHG emissions that now threaten to put global temperature rises on track for catastrophic climate impacts.
It is unclear the extent to which all the members of the oil and gas industry associations covered in this report continue to endorse their industry groups' tactics on electric vehicles and renewable energy policy, with some companies such as Shell and BP taking opposing positions publicly in recent years. On the other hand, the same companies continue to pay significant membership dues to these industry associations and have confirmed in their disclosures that they at least partially endorse their industry groups policy engagement strategies.