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)
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 toThe 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.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
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 toThe 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 toThe 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.