“You don’t have to prove that the facts are wrong, you just have to call them into question. Then they shift from the scientific to the public debate. Instead of asking ‘What are we going to do about this established problem?’, the question becomes whether the problem exists at all.” An accurate description of covid scepticism? It could be, but that is not what Giuliana Gentile is talking about. In a room in Tapijn 11, we spoke to the Italian PhD candidate about how oil and gas companies have been influencing the climate debate and climate policy for decades.
For a long time, their strategy was to deny that the use of fossil fuels (and the resulting CO2 emissions) causes climate change – despite the fact that those same companies had been aware of that fact for at least fifty years, says Gentile. “The oil industry commissioned some of the research itself and is well aware of the consequences of its action. But people simply chose to deliberately ignore it, in favour of profits.”
Until by the turn of the century, evidence of climate change was so strong, that there was no use denying it any longer. The solution? Readily admitting that climate change does exist, while in the meantime, doing everything they can to slow down the transition to sustainable energy, says Gentile. “That’s how they try to remain relevant.”
Misleading
Earlier this year, she published an article in the journal Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews together with Amsterdam professor of sustainability Joyeeta Gupta. It involved a literature review and careful analysis of all the sustainability reports published by Shell since 2005. It’s practically a how-to guide of underhand tactics: lobbying governments, spreading misinformation, employing people who work for the very institutions which are supposed to audit you. And calling the science itself into question.
Oil companies like to present themselves as greener and more sustainable than they actually are. And that, says Gentile, is sometimes done in very subtle ways. “BP changed its name from ‘British Petroleum’ to ‘Beyond Petroleum’, which gives a very different impression. In its annual reports, Shell has started replacing the word ‘oil’ with the much more neutral-sounding word ‘energy’. Or take their Instagram account, it’s full of wind turbines and solar panels, which might lead you to think that Shell is heavily investing in renewable energy. Meanwhile it only makes up a very small percentage of their investments. That is misleading.”
Equally misleading is what she calls “techno-optimism”. “That is the almost fanatical belief that we don’t have to tackle the climate crisis, because eventually, there will be a technological solution. In the meantime, we can just carry on producing fossil fuels and CO2 emissions.” But surely, technological climate measures could be valuable? “Absolutely,” she agrees, “but thinking technology can help us is not the same as making ‘technology’ wholly responsible for tackling climate change, as if there is nothing else we might need to change.”
Shift responsibility
Essentially, she says, oil companies are trying to shift their responsibilities to governments and consumers. “The headline becomes ‘Our customers emit more CO2 emissions when using our products than we do when making them’. Or, ‘The International Energy Agency says that governments must change their policies to prevent more CO2 emissions in the future’. In other words, someone else has to do the hard work. Consumers often all too easily fall into that trap, too: ‘If the government isn’t going to do anything, then neither am I.’ That is a natural reaction, it’s scary to face the reality of the climate crisis. But for a company, it’s a deliberate decision, and that is much worse, because they have a much greater impact.”
The question of why the delay tactics remains. Profit, she says, and fear: “Climate measures threaten the companies that caused the crisis. These strategies are how they try to remain relevant.” So, evil intentions? Gentile laughs. “When I started examining the Shell reports, I was completely focused on proving the bad intentions of companies that sought to delay climate measures. But the more I looked into it, the more I realised that they were trying so hard to justify the continued existence of an inherently outdated industry. I almost started to pity them. The reality of the climate crisis is distressing for everyone. But when you are part of the root cause, any measures to combat it are naturally scarier. Don’t get me wrong, oil companies are not on the brink, they’re still incredibly profitable. But they know that things are changing, and the fact that they’re manipulating their public image proves that. They are more vulnerable than ever.”