SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Flares burning off gas at Belridge Oil Field and hydraulic fracking site which is the fourth largest oil field in California. (Photo: Citizens of the Planet/Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
Fossil Fuel Firms Spend Millions on Social Media Ads Against Climate Regulations While Portraying Selves as Green Heroes
"This is the playbook: deny, delay, confuse, blame 'consumers', spread economic fear, #greenwash, repeat."
Oct 10, 2019
Major fossil fuel companies and other big polluters are pouring millions of dollars into social media advertising that touts perceived green initiatives while working to undermine climate regulations, The Guardian reported Thursday.
According to The Guardian, which studied the advertising funding with InfluenceMap, major polluters have spent up to $17 million on social media advertising since May 2018.
" ExxonMobil spent $9.6m--by far the biggest sum--ConocoPhillips $910,000 and BP $790,000," the paper reported. "These ads include PR highlighting low carbon alternatives and at the same time involve direct lobbying against climate initiatives and the promotion of continued fossil fuel extraction in the energy mix."
\u201c@BP_plc @Furbs33 Maybe time to change your name to BS?\n\nThis is the playbook: deny, delay, confuse, blame 'consumers', spread economic fear, #greenwash, repeat.\n\n@facebook and @twitter: stop enabling #ecocide\n\nhttps://t.co/jGOJsJhrxH\u201d— bp (@bp) 1570204800
The report lists a number of initiatives the companies fought against, including a measure in Colorado restricting fracking by ensuring wells were 2,500 feet away from homes, schools, and hospitals. An astroturf campaign opposing the measure, Prop 112, received "$41 million by the oil and gas industry and its trade groups between January and December 2018, according to campaign declarations to the Colorado Secretary of State."
The Guardian reported that the money went into ad campaigns that had an effect:
BP gave Protect Colorado $300,000 in October 2018, a month after relocating its US onshore headquarters from Houston to Denver. The move was to help it tap the state's estimated reserves of 1.3bn barrels of oil and exploit increased production, which has made Colorado the country's fifth largest oil producer.
Guardian analysis of Facebook's ad disclosure platform reveals Protect Colorado had an influence reach of up to 3.3 million impressions in the weeks before the vote, in a state with a population of about 5 million people.
"We lost by 200,000 votes, so yes, 100% we believe the vote was swayed by the social media push they financed," said Prop 112 supporter Anne Lee Foster. "They created doubt. They exploited people's fears that the setback would mean big job losses."
\u201c"Oil and gas companies are spending millions of dollars on campaigns to fight climate regulations at the same time as touting their dedication to a low-carbon future." \n\nDon't be taken in by their #greenwash.\n\nhttps://t.co/K1zdFTeOWl\u201d— Friends of the Earth (@Friends of the Earth) 1570703349
Thursday's reporting is part of a larger study from InfluenceMap which details the extent to which large corporations are involved in determining climate policy.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Major fossil fuel companies and other big polluters are pouring millions of dollars into social media advertising that touts perceived green initiatives while working to undermine climate regulations, The Guardian reported Thursday.
According to The Guardian, which studied the advertising funding with InfluenceMap, major polluters have spent up to $17 million on social media advertising since May 2018.
" ExxonMobil spent $9.6m--by far the biggest sum--ConocoPhillips $910,000 and BP $790,000," the paper reported. "These ads include PR highlighting low carbon alternatives and at the same time involve direct lobbying against climate initiatives and the promotion of continued fossil fuel extraction in the energy mix."
\u201c@BP_plc @Furbs33 Maybe time to change your name to BS?\n\nThis is the playbook: deny, delay, confuse, blame 'consumers', spread economic fear, #greenwash, repeat.\n\n@facebook and @twitter: stop enabling #ecocide\n\nhttps://t.co/jGOJsJhrxH\u201d— bp (@bp) 1570204800
The report lists a number of initiatives the companies fought against, including a measure in Colorado restricting fracking by ensuring wells were 2,500 feet away from homes, schools, and hospitals. An astroturf campaign opposing the measure, Prop 112, received "$41 million by the oil and gas industry and its trade groups between January and December 2018, according to campaign declarations to the Colorado Secretary of State."
The Guardian reported that the money went into ad campaigns that had an effect:
BP gave Protect Colorado $300,000 in October 2018, a month after relocating its US onshore headquarters from Houston to Denver. The move was to help it tap the state's estimated reserves of 1.3bn barrels of oil and exploit increased production, which has made Colorado the country's fifth largest oil producer.
Guardian analysis of Facebook's ad disclosure platform reveals Protect Colorado had an influence reach of up to 3.3 million impressions in the weeks before the vote, in a state with a population of about 5 million people.
"We lost by 200,000 votes, so yes, 100% we believe the vote was swayed by the social media push they financed," said Prop 112 supporter Anne Lee Foster. "They created doubt. They exploited people's fears that the setback would mean big job losses."
\u201c"Oil and gas companies are spending millions of dollars on campaigns to fight climate regulations at the same time as touting their dedication to a low-carbon future." \n\nDon't be taken in by their #greenwash.\n\nhttps://t.co/K1zdFTeOWl\u201d— Friends of the Earth (@Friends of the Earth) 1570703349
Thursday's reporting is part of a larger study from InfluenceMap which details the extent to which large corporations are involved in determining climate policy.
Major fossil fuel companies and other big polluters are pouring millions of dollars into social media advertising that touts perceived green initiatives while working to undermine climate regulations, The Guardian reported Thursday.
According to The Guardian, which studied the advertising funding with InfluenceMap, major polluters have spent up to $17 million on social media advertising since May 2018.
" ExxonMobil spent $9.6m--by far the biggest sum--ConocoPhillips $910,000 and BP $790,000," the paper reported. "These ads include PR highlighting low carbon alternatives and at the same time involve direct lobbying against climate initiatives and the promotion of continued fossil fuel extraction in the energy mix."
\u201c@BP_plc @Furbs33 Maybe time to change your name to BS?\n\nThis is the playbook: deny, delay, confuse, blame 'consumers', spread economic fear, #greenwash, repeat.\n\n@facebook and @twitter: stop enabling #ecocide\n\nhttps://t.co/jGOJsJhrxH\u201d— bp (@bp) 1570204800
The report lists a number of initiatives the companies fought against, including a measure in Colorado restricting fracking by ensuring wells were 2,500 feet away from homes, schools, and hospitals. An astroturf campaign opposing the measure, Prop 112, received "$41 million by the oil and gas industry and its trade groups between January and December 2018, according to campaign declarations to the Colorado Secretary of State."
The Guardian reported that the money went into ad campaigns that had an effect:
BP gave Protect Colorado $300,000 in October 2018, a month after relocating its US onshore headquarters from Houston to Denver. The move was to help it tap the state's estimated reserves of 1.3bn barrels of oil and exploit increased production, which has made Colorado the country's fifth largest oil producer.
Guardian analysis of Facebook's ad disclosure platform reveals Protect Colorado had an influence reach of up to 3.3 million impressions in the weeks before the vote, in a state with a population of about 5 million people.
"We lost by 200,000 votes, so yes, 100% we believe the vote was swayed by the social media push they financed," said Prop 112 supporter Anne Lee Foster. "They created doubt. They exploited people's fears that the setback would mean big job losses."
\u201c"Oil and gas companies are spending millions of dollars on campaigns to fight climate regulations at the same time as touting their dedication to a low-carbon future." \n\nDon't be taken in by their #greenwash.\n\nhttps://t.co/K1zdFTeOWl\u201d— Friends of the Earth (@Friends of the Earth) 1570703349
Thursday's reporting is part of a larger study from InfluenceMap which details the extent to which large corporations are involved in determining climate policy.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.