Search Climate Insights Directory

The report details a corporate campaign to implement municipal preemption laws that block local governments from accessing courts to recover climate-related damages. It identifies a 'triumvirate' of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, ALEC, and NAM as the primary architects of this strategy, drawing parallels to previous industry efforts to avoid liability in the tobacco and opioid sectors. The document outlines specific legislative tactics used to stifle litigation and provides a framework for municipal leaders to recognize and repeal such preemption laws, while suggesting proactive legislative measures to protect local legal autonomy.

The report argues that the climate pledges of major oil and gas companies are 'empty promises' designed to deceive the public. It finds that none of the analyzed companies' plans meet the standards required to limit warming to 1.5°C, as they often exclude Scope 3 emissions, rely on unproven carbon capture technology, and continue to invest in fossil fuel exploration and production.

The document alleges that BP knew about the devastating consequences of fossil fuels as early as 1991 but engaged in a campaign of deception to protect profits. It highlights the contrast between BP's 'Beyond Petroleum' branding and its actual capital expenditures, noting that the company spent $12 billion on oil and gas in 2002 compared to $45 million in solar. The briefing also criticizes BP for pioneering the 'carbon footprint' concept to shift responsibility to consumers and for implementing a 'net zero' ambition that excludes an estimated 46% of the carbon it extracts, including joint ventures with Rosneft.

The Center for Climate Integrity asserts that the American Petroleum Institute (API) spent decades coordinating a campaign of deception regarding the dangers of fossil fuels despite early internal research predicting catastrophic climate events. The document claims API has evolved from outright denial to 'greenwashing' and continues to lobby against climate legislation and federal leasing moratoriums while providing political cover for its member companies.

The Center for Climate Integrity asserts that ExxonMobil possessed internal knowledge of the catastrophic impacts of fossil fuels as early as the 1970s while simultaneously funding a decades-long campaign to discredit climate science. The statement highlights a discrepancy between internal scientific consensus and public advertorials, the use of 'shadow groups' to oppose government action, and the company's current production plans which contradict the goals of the Paris Agreement.

The Center for Climate Integrity presents evidence that Chevron and its predecessors were aware of the catastrophic effects of fossil fuels as early as 1980 but funded campaigns to discredit climate science and sow public uncertainty. The document highlights a contradiction between Chevron's public claims of leadership in clean energy and its actual investment patterns, noting that only 0.2 percent of annual capital expenditure was spent on low-carbon energy between 2010 and 2018. Additionally, it points to patents filed by Chevron and Texaco in 1974 for drilling equipment designed for warming Arctic conditions, suggesting the company prepared for the physical impacts of climate change while publicly denying them.

The Center for Climate Integrity asserts that the Chamber of Commerce has known about the dangers of fossil fuels since the 1980s but spent decades sowing doubt about climate science. The statement highlights the Chamber's role in the Global Climate Coalition, its lobbying efforts to weaken EPA regulations, and its financial support for politicians who oppose climate action, including funding a study used to justify the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.

The document argues that Shell engaged in a campaign of deception regarding climate change despite internal reports as early as 1988 warning that impacts could be the greatest in recorded history. It highlights a contradiction between Shell's public net-zero pledges and its financial investments, noting that between 2010 and 2018, only 1.3% of capital expenditures went to low-carbon projects. Furthermore, the briefing asserts that Shell's nature-based offset plans are unrealistic, requiring forest planting on a scale comparable to the size of Spain or Brazil.

The document provides evidence that major fossil-fuel companies had internal knowledge of anthropogenic climate change as early as the 1950s and 1960s, yet spent decades funding disinformation to manufacture public doubt. It details how these companies protected their own infrastructure from sea-level rise while publicly denying the science, and argues that current 'greenwashing' and 'carbon footprint' narratives continue this pattern of deception.

The brief contends that fossil fuel companies have engaged in a long-term strategy of deception, shifting from explicit denial to framing climate change as a manageable 'risk' and shifting responsibility to individual consumers. It provides evidence that companies like BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell promote themselves as clean energy leaders while maintaining massive investments in fossil fuels and funding third-party organizations to undermine climate science.

A August 2021 survey of 561 registered voters in Nevada indicates that a majority of respondents are worried about climate change and believe oil and gas companies should bear significant financial responsibility for climate-related infrastructure costs. The data shows that 68% of respondents believe oil and gas companies are not paying their fair share of climate costs, and 61% approve of the Nevada Attorney General suing these companies for misleading the public. After receiving more information about industry disinformation and local impacts, the percentage of respondents holding oil and gas companies more responsible for climate change increased from 28% to 42%, and those who believe the industry should be most responsible for infrastructure costs rose from 14% to 34%.

The July 2021 poll indicates strong support among Pennsylvania likely voters for holding oil and gas companies legally accountable for climate change damages. A majority of respondents believe these companies are not paying their fair share of costs and that businesses and large corporations are the primary cause of climate change. The poll also tests the impact of various messaging strategies on public support for litigation, finding that arguments regarding corporate disinformation and public health costs generally increase support for suing oil and gas companies.

The Center for Climate Integrity asserts that a leaked video of senior Exxon lobbyist Keith McCoy proves ExxonMobil systematically lies about climate science, its products' role in the climate crisis, and its commitment to climate solutions to protect its profits.

Attorneys General from Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia have urged US Attorney General Merrick Garland to withdraw or reverse Department of Justice (DOJ) amicus briefs filed during the previous administration. These briefs supported fossil fuel defendants in climate litigation, arguing that state-law claims were preempted by federal law or should be removed to federal court. The signers argue these positions undermine efforts to hold companies accountable for a "decades-long deception campaign" regarding climate dangers and contradict President Biden's pledge to support plaintiff-driven climate litigation.

A March 2021 poll of 640 registered voters in Washington State shows high levels of concern regarding climate change and strong support for holding oil and gas companies financially responsible for climate impacts. A majority of respondents (73%) believe oil and gas companies are not paying their fair share of climate costs, and 61% support suing these companies for damages. After receiving additional information about industry disinformation, the proportion of respondents who believe oil and gas companies should be most responsible for upgrading state infrastructure rose to 37%.

The Center for Climate Integrity calls on President-elect Joe Biden to fulfill campaign promises by appointing a Department of Justice leadership committed to climate accountability and establishing a new DOJ division to support plaintiff-driven litigation against fossil fuel companies.

The poll indicates strong support among Ohio likely voters for suing oil and gas companies for climate-related damages, a sentiment that increases when respondents are provided with information about corporate disinformation. It also reveals significant opposition to House Bill 6, with a majority supporting its repeal, and shows that a majority of respondents believe human activities are affecting the climate.

The July 2020 poll of 600 likely voters in Maine shows strong support for suing oil and gas companies for climate-related damages, with 69% of statewide respondents supporting such action post-messaging. A significant majority of respondents (80% statewide) expressed concern about current climate impacts, primarily citing health risks. The data indicates that providing information about the industry's historical knowledge of climate change and its local economic impacts increases the likelihood of support for legal accountability.

The poll reveals that a majority of likely voters in North Carolina believe oil and gas companies should bear some or all of the costs for protecting communities from climate change. While 69% of respondents are worried about climate change, there is significant partisan division regarding the responsibility of the oil and gas industry and the urgency of climate action compared to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The document presents a collection of 36 internal and public documents from 1963 to 2017, detailing how the oil industry—specifically Exxon, Shell, Mobil, and the American Petroleum Institute (API)—understood the link between fossil fuels and global warming decades ago. It argues that despite internal consensus on the potential for 'catastrophic' impacts, these companies pivoted in the late 1980s to a strategy of manufacturing doubt, funding denier groups, and misleading the public and policymakers to protect their business models.