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."
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."
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."
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.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just two days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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."
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."
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."
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."
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.