In the summer of 1997, a full-page advertisement appeared in The New York Times. It was a message from the Global Climate Coalition, warning about the economic dangers of the U.S. adopting the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Behind the seemingly innocent image of smiling children was a multi-million dollar campaign filled with questionable data, backed by some of the world’s most powerful companies. The Global Climate Coalition was essentially a front for the oil industry, designed to create doubt and confusion about climate action.
The real story begins decades earlier. In the 1970s, oil companies hired top atmospheric scientists to evaluate weather-related risks to their operations and assess the environmental impact of new projects. By the late 1970s, these scientists, along with their academic peers, concluded that burning fossil fuels increased atmospheric carbon, which would trap heat and raise surface temperatures. They warned that even a slight temperature increase could have catastrophic consequences, accurately predicting events like rapid Arctic warming and the melting of Antarctic ice sheets.
Throughout the 1980s, oil industry representatives frequently met to discuss these dangers, acknowledging the risks their products posed to humanity’s future. However, instead of alerting the public or shifting towards renewable energy sources, they chose to continue focusing on oil. In the late 1980s, as scientists raised alarms about climate change and public awareness grew, the oil industry launched a long-term, multi-billion-dollar public relations campaign to discredit the very science they had helped to develop.
The oil industry employed the same PR firms that had previously helped the tobacco industry mislead the public about smoking’s dangers. They lobbied government officials and secretly funded organizations like the Global Climate Coalition, which aimed to obscure the scientific consensus on climate change and humanity’s role in it. They attacked credible scientists and financed advertisements disguised as opinion pieces that exaggerated the uncertainty in climate models, using that uncertainty to dismiss the science entirely.
These “advertorials” captured readers’ attention with provocative titles. The industry also exploited lingering Cold War anxieties that equated government regulation with socialism. Thus, at a time when the world was ready to act, oil companies shifted the conversation away from the science and framed it as a debate about protecting freedom, turning a non-partisan issue into a contentious political topic.
After George W. Bush became president in 2001, oil lobbyists successfully influenced his administration to replace officials who supported mainstream science with those who opposed environmental regulations. When Bush withdrew the U.S. from the Kyoto Protocol, his administration credited the Global Climate Coalition with influencing that decision.
The oil industry’s public relations efforts did not stop with their Kyoto victory. They have continued to shape the climate conversation, promoting propaganda and co-opting climate language. For instance, British Petroleum popularized the term “carbon footprint,” effectively shifting climate responsibility from the industry to consumers. To this day, the industry significantly overstates its investment in green energies, such as biofuels, which constitute only a small fraction of their budgets. They employ numerous lobbyists who attend UN climate meetings and work to dilute the language of climate assessment reports.
While oil companies now acknowledge that burning fossil fuels contributes to climate change, they deny misleading the public, claiming their messaging has always reflected the scientific consensus. However, a substantial paper trail contradicts this assertion. As oil companies enjoy record profits, climate change costs the public billions each year, with extreme weather events and declining air quality resulting in millions of deaths annually. The culture of doubt fostered by the oil industry remains pervasive, polarizing the issue and delaying meaningful action.
However, it doesn’t have to remain this way. We can reclaim the conversation and change course, embracing renewable energies and sustainable practices to protect our planet and future.
Engage in a structured debate with your classmates. Divide into two groups: one representing the oil industry’s perspective and the other representing climate scientists. Research and present arguments based on historical actions and scientific evidence. This will help you understand the complexities and motivations behind climate change denial.
Analyze a case study on the oil industry’s influence on climate policy, such as the withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. Discuss in groups how public relations tactics and political influence were used to shape public perception and policy decisions. This will enhance your critical thinking and analytical skills.
Participate in a role-playing exercise where you assume the roles of various stakeholders, including oil executives, scientists, policymakers, and environmental activists. Discuss and negotiate a plan to address climate change, considering each stakeholder’s interests and concerns. This activity will improve your negotiation and empathy skills.
Conduct a research project on the potential of renewable energy sources to replace fossil fuels. Present your findings on the feasibility, benefits, and challenges of transitioning to renewable energy. This will deepen your understanding of sustainable practices and their importance in combating climate change.
Attend a workshop focused on analyzing media messages related to climate change. Learn to identify bias, misinformation, and the use of propaganda techniques. This will equip you with the skills to critically evaluate information and understand the role of media in shaping public opinion.
In summer 1997, a full-page ad appeared in *The New York Times*. The message, from the Global Climate Coalition, issued a serious economic warning about the U.S. embracing the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, behind the facade of smiling children was a multi-million dollar campaign supported by questionable data and backed by some of the world’s most powerful companies. The Global Climate Coalition was essentially a front for the oil industry, created to sow doubt and confusion about climate action.
The real story begins decades earlier. In the 1970s, oil companies employed leading atmospheric scientists to understand weather-related risks to their operations and assess the environmental impact of new projects. By the late 1970s, these scientists, along with their academic counterparts, concluded that burning fossil fuels led to an increase in atmospheric carbon, which would affect the climate by trapping heat and raising surface temperatures. They warned that even a slight increase in temperature could have catastrophic consequences and accurately predicted events such as rapid Arctic warming and the melting of Antarctic ice sheets.
Throughout the 1980s, representatives from the oil industry met frequently to discuss these dangers, acknowledging the risks their products posed to humanity’s future. However, instead of alerting the public or pivoting towards renewable energy sources, they chose to double down on oil. In the late 1980s, as scientists raised alarms about climate change and increased public awareness, the oil industry launched a long-term, multi-billion-dollar public relations campaign to discredit the very science they had helped to develop.
They employed the same PR firms that had previously assisted the tobacco industry in misleading the public about smoking’s dangers. Oil companies lobbied government officials and covertly funded numerous organizations like the Global Climate Coalition, which aimed to obscure the scientific consensus on climate change and humanity’s role in it. They attacked credible scientists and financed advertisements disguised as opinion pieces that exaggerated the uncertainty in climate models, using that uncertainty to dismiss the science entirely.
These “advertorials” captured readers’ attention with provocative titles. The industry also exploited lingering anxieties from the Cold War that equated government regulation with socialism. Thus, at a time when the world was ready to act, oil companies shifted the conversation away from the science and framed it as a debate about protecting freedom, turning a non-partisan issue into a contentious political topic.
After George W. Bush became president in 2001, oil lobbyists successfully influenced his administration to replace officials who supported mainstream science with those who opposed environmental regulations. When Bush withdrew the U.S. from the Kyoto Protocol, his administration credited the Global Climate Coalition with influencing that decision.
The oil industry’s public relations efforts did not cease with their Kyoto victory. They have continued to shape the climate conversation, promoting propaganda and co-opting climate language. For instance, British Petroleum popularized the term “carbon footprint,” which effectively shifts climate responsibility from the industry to consumers. To this day, the industry significantly overstates its investment in green energies, such as biofuels, which constitute only a small fraction of their budgets. They employ numerous lobbyists who attend UN climate meetings and work to dilute the language of climate assessment reports.
While oil companies now acknowledge that burning fossil fuels contributes to climate change, they deny misleading the public, claiming their messaging has always reflected the scientific consensus. However, a substantial paper trail contradicts this assertion. As oil companies enjoy record profits, climate change costs the public billions each year, with extreme weather events and declining air quality resulting in millions of deaths annually. The culture of doubt fostered by the oil industry remains pervasive, polarizing the issue and delaying meaningful action.
However, it doesn’t have to remain this way. We can reclaim the conversation and change course, embracing renewable energies and sustainable practices to protect our planet and future.
Climate – The long-term pattern of weather conditions in a particular area, including temperature, precipitation, and wind patterns. – The study of climate is crucial for understanding how global warming affects different ecosystems.
Change – A transformation or modification in the state or condition of something, often referring to environmental or societal shifts. – Sociologists examine how climate change impacts social structures and community resilience.
Industry – A sector of the economy that produces goods or related services within an economy, often contributing to environmental impacts. – The automotive industry is under pressure to reduce its carbon footprint by adopting more sustainable practices.
Fossil – Relating to the remains or impression of a prehistoric organism preserved in petrified form or as a mold or cast in rock, often used in the context of fossil fuels. – Fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, are major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions.
Fuels – Materials that are burned or consumed to produce energy, often derived from natural resources. – The transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources is a key focus in environmental policy.
Emissions – The act of releasing substances, particularly gases, into the atmosphere, often from industrial processes. – Reducing carbon emissions is essential for mitigating the effects of climate change.
Energy – The capacity to do work, often derived from physical or chemical resources, and a central topic in discussions of sustainability. – Renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, are vital for reducing dependency on non-renewable resources.
Science – The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. – Environmental science integrates various disciplines to address complex ecological issues.
Public – Relating to the people as a whole, often in the context of community engagement and societal impacts. – Public awareness campaigns are crucial for promoting sustainable practices and policies.
Relations – The ways in which two or more concepts, objects, or people are connected, often in the context of social dynamics and communication. – Effective public relations strategies are essential for environmental organizations to communicate their message and influence policy.
