Vested interests 1: denial, doubt and delay

Despite scientists’ warnings, global emissions have continued to rise, as societies burn ever more fossil fuels. A key factor driving this trend is economic growth: the relentless increase in production and consumption.  

But another significant factor is the vested interests of those who benefit from maintaining the status quo, including fossil fuel companies.

In the next two steps, we will focus on the role and behaviour of fossil fuel companies and other stakeholders with vested interests.

Exxon knew 

In the 1970s, one of the biggest fossil fuel companies, Exxon (now ExxonMobil), hired top climate scientists to investigate the link between fossil fuels and global warming. Their findings confirmed that burning fossil fuels would heat the planet, and in fact predicted global warming trends with striking accuracy, as shown in the graphic below (Supran et al., 2023).

Adapted from Supran, Rahmstorf and Oreskes (2023).

View full screen version of image.

View full text description.

So Exxon knew about the catastrophic impacts harm of their products. And Shell, Chevron, and many other fossil fuel companies knew, too (Franta, 2021; DeSmog, 2023; UCUSA, 2019). But instead of acting on this knowledge, they concealed it – and even doubled down on fossil fuel production (Franta, 2021; Hall, 2015). Simultaneously, they denied climate science, attacked scientists, spread misinformation, and thus obstructed climate action, all to protect their profits and shareholder value (InsideClimateNews, 2015; Hall, 2015). 

“Doubt is our product”

Fossil fuel companies have long used covert tactics to protect their profits, knowing that public outrage would follow if their actions were exposed. They funded lobbying firms, advertising agencies, advocacy organisations, trade associations and think tanks to secretly pursue their interests, using tactics borrowed from the tobacco industry to undermine scientific findings and block climate policies (Oreskes and Conway, 2010). A key strategy was to promote scientific uncertainty about climate change. PR firms hired by fossil fuel companies even advertised with the slogan, “Doubt is our product” (Oreskes and Conway, 2010). This manufactured doubt aimed to create the false impression that scientists were divided, despite overwhelming consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity (Lynas et al., 2021). 

Fossil fuel company playbook

Over the years, fossil fuel companies have used a range of tactics to spread doubt or play down the industry’s impact on the climate.

Commissioning research that fabricates or amplifies doubt 

A major strategy of fossil fuel companies was to fund scientists who would exaggerate uncertainties around whether climate change is happening or whether humans are causing it, misleading the public into thinking the science was unsettled (Oreskes and Conway, 2011).

Lobbying and political capture

Through think tanks and pressure groups, fossil fuel companies heavily lobbied politicians to shape policy in their favour (HCOAD, 2014). This often included providing (or removing) funding for political election campaigns (HCOAD, 2014). A key example of successful lobbying was the USA’s rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, a key international climate agreement. US government officials later told a group of corporations that were working to stop climate action: 

“[The president of the United States] rejected Kyoto, in part, based on inputs from you.” (ClimateFiles, 2015) 

Mis-educating the public  

Co-optation of experts 

“A regulated firm or industry should be prepared whenever possible to co-opt these experts [by] hiring them as consultants or advisors, or giving them research grants and the like. This activity requires a modicum of finesse; it must not be too blatant, for the experts themselves must not recognize that they have lost their objectivity and freedom of action.”  
(Owen and Braeutigam, 1978; p.7, quoted in Franta, 2021; p.21) 

Decoding the PR strategy of the fossil fuel industry 

Victory Will be Achieved When 

• Average citizens “understand” (recognise) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the “conventional wisdom”. 
• Media “understands” (recognises) uncertainties in climate science. 
• Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current “conventional wisdom”. 
• Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy. 

It’s important to realise what this memo means (Mulvey and Shulman, 2015). The stated goal is that average citizens, media, and industry senior leadership “‘understand’ (recognise) uncertainties in climate science”. What this really means is that average citizens are successfully misled to believe that climate scientists are not sure whether climate change is happening, that it’s dangerous and is driven by fossil fuel combustion. In reality, over 99.9% of climate scientists are certain that this is the case (Mulvey and Shulman, 2015; Lynas et al., 2021). Similarly, the media “balance” the memo speaks of actually means that rigorous and impartial scientific perspectives are given the same coverage as the viewpoints that probably come from a co-opted scientists (Mulvey and Shulman, 2015; D’Angelo, 2019). By giving each ‘side’ equal coverage, they diminish the importance of real climate science.

Violence against front-line activists, communities and journalists 

Not all tactics deployed by vested interests are subtle. When people obstruct the interests of the fossil fuel industry (eg by protesting), they are often met with raw violence, ranging from harassment and intimidation to assault and even murder (Temper et al., 2020). In fact, more than 2,100 land and environmental defenders were killed globally between 2012 and 2023 (Global Witness, 2024).
 
Protests against fossil fuel infrastructure are also often met with police violence and repression, indicating that the state often sides with and forcefully defends the interests of the fossil fuel industry (Jones and Youngs, 2024).  

Why are fossil fuel companies knowingly wrecking the planet? 

Why do fossil fuel companies continue producing as much fossil fuel as possible, despite decades of knowing the devastating consequences for people and planet? The answer lies in their primary goal: maximising profits.

For these companies, profits take priority over everything else, including the wellbeing of people and the planet. Decisions like increasing fossil fuel production are driven by financial gains, even when they come at enormous social and environmental costs.

While individual greed plays a role, the problem is also deeply structural. Corporate decision-makers often benefit directly from profits and, in many cases, are legally required to pursue them. This system allows private companies to control critical services like energy supply in ways that serve their own interests rather than the needs of society or the environment.