.png){kind=small}
Climate change
How fossil fuel companies are destroying the planet for short term profit (and know they're doing it), why politicians and the media are not taking climate change seriously, and how we are all being lied to and manipulated to not care
The effects of man-made climate change are already here. Extreme weather is becoming more frequent and is affecting millions across the world. To prevent this, we need to collectively, drastically transform so many aspects of how the world is run and how we live our lives.
​
However, this is not happening quickly enough. Because while every year we break records for temperatures, the oil and gas industry are also breaking records for profits.
What the fossil fuel industry are doing right now
The impact of the rich on the planet
What politicians are doing about it?
Excuses politicians use for a lack of action... and why they're bullshit
Why is there a lack of political action?
The establishment response: COP
The role of the media: a mouthpiece for corporate interests
How bad is it now?​​
​
Since 1973, the planet has lost 73% of its wildlife population.
​
Scientists say that extreme weather events such as hurricanes, wildfires and flooding are getting more frequent and intense as a result of man-made climate change.
​
But there will be 1.2 billion expected climate refugees by 2050. The economic impact will also be huge. A study estimates climate change will cost $38 TRILLION by 2049.
​
Meanwhile, The big 5 oil companies, BP, Shell, ExxonMobil and TotalEnergies paid more than $100 billion to shareholders in 2022. And they still maintain record high cashflows, with shareholders making millions.
Fossil fuel companies knew 40 years ago they were destroying the planet, but covered it up
Fossil fuel companies have known for decades about the impact of their activity on heating the planet through greenhouse gas emissions. A report by Scientific American claims ExxonMobil knew about what fossil fuel extraction would do to the planet back in 1977. But instead of making their research public, they covered it up, defunded their research team and invested instead in misinformation campaigns.
Shell produced a similar report in 1985, which they also covered up.
In 1992, big fossil fuel companies and PR gurus met to create a campaign for climate change denial, and fossil fuel's impact. The definition of a conspiracy.
What the fossil fuel industry are doing now
Even though we know the facts of how human activity is destroying the planet, we're still doing it for the short term gain of immediate profit for oil and gas companies, which reached record-breaking levels in 2022-23. It is impossible to deny climate change is happening, so the next tactic of these corporations is to use any excuse necessary to delay the necessary action so they can squeeze the last bit of money out of exploiting the planet.
BP, in 2023 announced record-breaking profits as a consequence of hiking prices due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Despite these profits, they're now using the War excuse to roll back in their promises to invest more in green energy.
​
Heads of oil giants are also threatening that investment in green technology could be affected if governments applied too high windfall taxes on their profits. Equinor, who make most of their money from oil and gas extraction have also stated the that shifts to green energy generation will keep prices higher.
​
Furthermore, if fossil fuel giants were interested in addressing the climate emergency, they wouldn't fund climate change denial groups.
Greenwashing
Studies by InfluenceMap have found the big five fossil fuel companies, BP, Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and TotalEnergies, spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year pretending they support a green transition without any proof in business plans that they intend to do so.
​
In 2022, BP spent around £800,000 on social media ads to talk up their investment into green energy. The truth is, they spend more than double on investing in oil and gas investment than on renewables.
​
Shell and BP have been paying UK influencers to create viral greenwashing campaigns in an attempt to change how they are perceived among younger generations
​
There also use strategies to deflect blame away from them and onto individuals. Just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global carbon emissions. While we can all take actions to benefit the planet, the “carbon footprint calculator” was invented by BP to try and put an onus onto individuals. ​
The ultra-rich impact on the planet​
​
The richest are the biggest polluters. According to a report by Oxfam, the wealthiest 1% of the world’s population were responsible for more than twice as much carbon dioxide emissions as the 3.1 billion people who made up the poorest half of humanity from 1990 to 2015.
​
A major reason for this is the ultra-rich's use of private jets. The UK is the country in Europe where the most private jets take off: in 2022 there 90,256 flights, equivalent of one every 6 minutes, creating 500,000 tonnes of CO2.
Politicians also use private jets frequently. During COP26, Boris Johnson took a private jet from Glasgow to London, so he wouldn't miss a networking dinner with the head of the Telegraph. Liz Truss and Boris Johnson took separate private jets to Scotland to meet the Queen, coming from the same place and going to the same place.
Rishi Sunak used private jets more than any other Prime Minister, on average taking one flight every 8 days. Sunak argues that he uses them for efficiency because he's busy and important. However, trips are often frivolous, for example he took a private jet from London to Leeds for a photo opportunity in a hospital.
For context, here is a some graphs which show how much more polluting private jets are compared to other modes of transport.
What are politicians doing about it?
There has been inaction on environmental issues for years. While David Cameron was Prime Minister 2010-2016, he cut financial support for policies, such as insulation and renewable energy grants, which he described as "green crap".​ This has cost the average UK household £150 per year.
Decisions since then have included:
​
-
Onshore wind is effectively banned due to restrictive planning.
-
The commitment to outlaw new diesel and petrol cars by 2030 has been pushed back to 2035.
-
The home energy taskforce which would speed up insulation and boiler upgrades for homes, particularly in rented homes, has been scrapped by the Government in September 2023- a move which particularly benefits landlords.
​
The consequence of cuts, which has led to the decrease of home insulation rates, will have had a clear knock on effect in what the average person pays for their heating bills.
While environmental energy production has been throttled by government, they have been encouraging fossil fuels. OpenDemocracy found that the UK government handed more than £1 billion worth of permits to pollute the country for free, incentivising oil and gas companies even though these mega-wealthy corporations can well afford to pay for these permits.
​
The British government commissioned the International Energy Agency to conduct a report in 2021 exploring the consequences of new fossil fuel extraction. This report said any new oil, gas or coal development will cause deadly consequences to the planet. However, the UK Government ignored this and in July 2023 approved over 100 oil and gas exploration/extraction licenses.
​
In 2024, the Labour Party u-turned on a pledge to invest £28 billion on green projects if they get into power. Labour have also pledged that they will not withdraw any licenses that the current government have or will approve.
​
A green transition would not only save our planet, but also save public money in the short, medium and long term. And yet the public are regularly told lies as to why it is not possible or cannot be done quickly.
Excuses for the lack of action... and why they're bullshit​
We need to keep energy bills down
​
More oil and gas extraction will not bring bills down. Prices are set by markets which individual countries have no control over. It is also a increasingly scarce resource which will only get dearer. The only way to secure supply against price shocks is by using renewable, clean energy.
​
Schemes to invest in green energy have been defunded under the Conservative government. For example, decisions made from 2010 that were previously discussed have cost homes in England £150 per year.
A green transition is too expensive​/ bad for the economy
​
Over and above bills, a green transition will apparently cost the taxpayer too much money.
​
The establishment pretends to be on the side of the "ordinary" person by thinking of their bank accounts and portraying a green transition as an unnecessary luxury. This is all a lie.
​
Renewables are significantly cheaper than gas. While developing and rolling out the renewable energy would require investment, it is seven times cheaper to generate energy from renewables than oil.
An green transition is economically a smart investment and will make people's lives better. According to Citizen's Advice, insulating homes would cut energy bills by £24bn, save the NHS £2bn and cut new cases of childhood asthma by 650,000.
​
It would also create up to 725,000 new jobs which would be sustainable, i.e, not in the dying fossil fuel industry.
​
Not to mention, the cost of inaction will be far more expensive and maintaining the status quo. Prices will rise a lot more sharply when crops continue failing due to extreme weather and we have to welcome millions of climate refugees whose home countries are uninhabitable.
Energy security​
​
War in Ukraine has been used as an excuse to continue fossil fuel extraction. But the UK only gets 4% of its gas from Russia.
​
Oil extracted in the UK is done by international corporations. For example, the Rosebank oil field off the Shetland Isles that was approved in 2023 will be drilled by a Norwegian company. It will therefore not contribute to UK energy security.
We're already doing our bit... other countries pollute more and should do more
​
A frequent argument put to UK climate protesters is "why aren't you protesting in China?", even though groups such as Greenpeace do.
China is currently the country that produces the most emissions. However, there are countries such as Russia and the USA which produce more emissions per person. China has a population of 1.4 billion so logically they will emit more than smaller countries such as the UK which only has a population of under 70 million.
Current objections to UK further reducing emissions does not consider the historical emissions of wealthy countries and the impact this has had on heating the planet. 23 rich countries are responsible for half of all historical CO2 emissions, despite only making up 12% of the population.
There have always been changes to the climate. This is nothing new
​
The climate has changed throughout planet's 4.5 billion year existence. The difference now is that the changes are happening quickly. There is no natural explanation for the rapid heating of the planet. As discussed above, energy companies conducted research in the 70s and 80s which found their activity was heating the planet and predicted the ecological impact.
​
Another similar argument is that there have been heatwaves in the past which have not caused the same level of alarm in the media. But heatwaves in decades past have been anomalies in a global context. As the graph below shows, the UK heatwave in 1976 was very different to the 2022 heatwave, where temperatures everywhere were higher.
The attempt at an establishment response: COP
COP is a United Nations organised event, which brings world leaders together every year to discuss what actions individual countries will take to reduce their emissions and slow down man made climate change. There have been 27 of these meetings as of 2022, and they don’t seem to have achieved much.
Shockingly, the oil and gas industry have significant presence at this event and get the opportunity to mingle with/ influence world leaders . And every year, the number of fossil fuel lobbyists increases. The President of COP28, is CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company.
Why is there a lack of political action?​
There is a close relationship between many politicians and oil and gas companies.​
​
One specific example is that former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's family has close family financial ties to Shell, through his father-in-law's IT mega-corporation Infosys. Also, in August 2023, shortly before Sunak opened hundreds of new licenses for fossil fuel extraction in the North Sea, Infosys signed a $1.5 billion deal with BP.
​
Many energy companies, and those who make their money in the industry donate generous sums to politicians.​ In addition, 10% of donations to the Tory party come from the property industry. Incidentally, housebuilding companies have saved billions due to the Tory Government's delay to imposing low-carbon building regulations.
​
Fossil fuel companies spend a lot of money and effort lobbying Government ministers. Just three oil and companies: Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil met with Government almost 100 times from 2019-2021. These companies advise on the UK's Net Zero strategy. We also know that ExxonMobil funds influential think-tank the Policy Exchange which are skeptical of net-zero strategies and directly advises Rishi Sunak.. ​​
Many politicians are rich, so taking action against the climate change would affect not only their bank balances, but also how they live their lives.
​
Efforts to make societies more equal go hand in hand with tackling the climate crisis. For example, wealth taxes, as well as raising revenue that can go towards green investment. The status quo in politics prioritises making the wealthy wealthier, which is why status quo defenders try so hard to derail and distract from climate change action.
There is a lack of political will among more powerful countries as they're not exposed to the worst consequences. Meanwhile the most exposed countries struggle to be heard due to the apathy of those with the resources to mane meaningful change.
Significantly, there pressure from billionaire-backed media to ignore the climate crisis.
The role of the media: a mouthpiece for corporate interests ​
​
Much of the media, particularly those backed by the super-wealthy, do not support actions to slow down climate change. Their agenda is clear: the status quo makes them money, so will do anything to prevent change. This includes manipulating the 99.9% to ignore the looming catastrophe the planet faces.
​
Many underplay the impact of climate change. Some go as far as peddling conspiracy theories, which conveniently perfectly align with the interests of the powerful corporations and billionaires. ​
As well as manipulating public opinion on climate change, the billionaire-backed media also want to turn the public against those protesting establishment inaction. Look at these headlines to see how activists are treated, all for wanting the planet to have a future.
Protestors are portrayed as radical disruptors, even terrorists, by the establishment, who are causing more people to turn against the climate movement because they’re taking things too far.
But when the media refer to protesters as "warriors" and "clowns" it is no surprise to see members of the public getting angry, even going as far as assaulting protesters and running them over with their car.
The next culture war... Don't fall for the establishment lies
​The elites are threatened by the protests. Changing the world for the benefit for the planet would also fight injustice in so many aspects of our lives. Climate action will make the lives of 99.9% of the world better.
​
“GDP measures everything, except that which makes life worthwhile.” Robert Kennedy
In our society, anything worth doing has to be tied to economic value. GDP, the figure tied to a country’s economic success.
​
However, when people do fall for the lies, remember that this is exactly what the establishment wants. Economic value is more important than the quality of life for the majority. If you are angry that people believe the propaganda, do not fall into the divide and rule trap the establishment wants you to do.
