Search Climate Insights Directory

The document serves as a resource guide for the Canadian education system to counter the influence of corporate interests in climate curricula. It categorizes a wide array of vetted materials across themes such as climate science, Indigenous perspectives, civic engagement, and climate justice. Additionally, it lists advocacy networks, including For Our Kids and the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, which work to remove industry-sponsored materials from schools.

The synopsis asserts that the petroleum industry was unequivocally warned of climate change by 1968 and that internal documents from companies like Exxon show a stark contrast between their internal scientific certainty and their public campaigns of disinformation. It highlights that while these companies protected their own infrastructure from rising sea levels and warming, they funded 'AstroTurf' organizations and misinformation plans to ensure the public viewed climate science as uncertain. The document also notes that attribution science now allows for the tracing of specific climate impacts to individual companies, providing a legal basis for accountability.

The document outlines how chemical manufacturers exploit regulatory gaps and use disinformation to maintain the sale of harmful products, providing case studies on PFAS, BPA, benzene, and pesticides to illustrate these tactics.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) explicitly rejects the 'chemtrails' conspiracy theory, stating that aircraft vapor trails are composed of water vapor and are not related to weather modification or solar geoengineering.

Clean Creatives calls on Netflix to implement fossil-free procurement criteria for its agencies and urges Dentsu, which recently secured a $190 million partnership with Netflix, to offramp all fossil fuel clients.

Clean Creatives urges The North Face to address the conflict between its goal of becoming climate positive and the fact that its agencies work for fossil fuel polluters and climate deniers. The document specifically cites Edelman as an agency working with Shell and Charles Koch, arguing that such partnerships allow polluters to promote misinformation and obstruct climate action. Clean Creatives notes that over 900 agencies have already pledged to stop working with fossil fuel companies.

The report 'Toxic Accounts' by Clean Creatives examines how BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell shifted their marketing strategies from 2020 to 2024. The analysis finds that these companies moved away from net-zero ambitions and 'greenwashing' toward a strategy of 'fossil fuel dominance,' emphasizing energy security and the indispensability of oil and gas. The document details the use of 'false solutions'—such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), blue/gray hydrogen, and certain biofuels—to justify continued fossil fuel production. It highlights specific campaign evolutions, such as BP's shift from 'greening companies' to 'energy security' and ExxonMobil's 'Breaking Free' anti-EV campaign, arguing that these narratives delay the clean energy transition to prioritize short-term shareholder returns.

Clean Creatives calls on Microsoft to stop its agencies from working with fossil fuel polluters, noting that firms like Edelman continue to work with Shell and Charles Koch despite scientific pledges.

A group of over 100 sustainability experts and advocates is publicly demanding that Edelman, the world's largest PR firm, drop all fossil fuel clients, including ExxonMobil and Shell. The signers argue that Edelman's work for these companies spreads climate denial and misinformation, which obstructs government action and contradicts the firm's stated commitment to the Paris Agreement.

A collective statement by over 450 scientists calling on PR and advertising agencies to drop fossil fuel clients, arguing that industry misinformation campaigns are a primary barrier to necessary government climate action.

Over 400 scientists have called on Hill+Knowlton Strategies and its parent company WPP plc to drop fossil fuel clients, arguing that representing companies like Saudi Aramco and ExxonMobil is incompatible with the agency's role in leading public communications for the COP27 UN climate talks. The signatories claim the agency has enabled disinformation campaigns and that its clients' plans to increase production contradict the goals of the UNFCCC.

The document outlines five steps for media agencies to refuse pitching for Shell, citing the company's decision to freeze renewable energy investments, its history of denying climate science despite internal knowledge since 1989, and the fact that clean energy investments comprise less than 2% of its capital expenditures. It also warns agencies about the reputational risks associated with Shell's history of human rights abuses and misleading advertisements.

The document alleges that Wavemaker has spent over two decades helping Chevron mask its environmental and human rights record through misleading advertising. It highlights Chevron's toxic waste dumping in the Ecuadorian Amazon and pollution in Richmond, California, as evidence of the company's actual impact, contrasting these with its public image campaigns.

A group of creators and experts argues that Edelman's simultaneous representation of COP30 hosts and at least 10 fossil fuel polluters, including Shell, creates a conflict of interest that threatens the integrity of climate communications. The signers call on UN leaders and the Brazilian government to ensure COP30 updates are untainted by oil industry influence, suggesting Brazil should terminate its relationship with Edelman if the firm does not drop its fossil fuel clients.

The report details how fossil fuel companies have historically used advertising to spread climate disinformation and currently engage in 'greenwashing' to mislead consumers about their transition to clean energy. It highlights a surge in global climate litigation, noting that as of May 2021, there were 1,841 cases across 39 countries. The document warns advertising agencies that they are not immune to litigation and may face talent loss or financial penalties for their complicity in these campaigns. It provides case studies of legal actions against BP, Shell, and other 'Big Oil' companies to illustrate the growing trend of holding polluters accountable for deceptive trade practices and human rights violations.

The report argues that climate change and armed conflict act as mutually reinforcing drivers of harm, creating a polycrisis that disproportionately affects vulnerable populations. It highlights how climate change serves as a 'threat multiplier' by exacerbating resource scarcity and instability, while military activities contribute significantly to global greenhouse gas emissions and environmental degradation. The document emphasizes the resulting collapse of health systems and the emergence of infectious diseases in conflict zones. It calls for integrated climate, health, and peacebuilding strategies, including a transition to renewable energy and greater military accountability for emissions, to break this cycle of harm.

The document asserts that the defendants had internal knowledge of the link between fossil fuels and global warming as early as the 1950s but spent decades funding disinformation and public relations strategies to manufacture doubt. It highlights a contradiction where companies publicly denied climate change while privately adjusting infrastructure, such as oil rigs and pipelines, to account for rising sea levels.

Climate Strategies' 2026-2029 strategy focuses on bridging the gap between research and policy to drive systemic climate change mitigation and adaptation. The organization identifies five strategic impact areas: transitioning oil- and gas-dependent economies, enhancing nature-based food systems, empowering the global majority, governing carbon and climate innovation technologies, and countering climate obstruction. To achieve these, the organization plans to transform its business model by enhancing horizon scanning, diversifying its membership, engaging the private sector through blended models, and strengthening its Secretariat's operational capacity.

The document argues that broadcast meteorologists are uniquely positioned as trusted scientific sources to combat climate misinformation. It advocates for the use of 'psychological inoculation'—exposing audiences to misinformation techniques before they encounter them—and the 'Fact-Myth-Fallacy-Fact' structure to effectively educate the public. The guide details the FLICC taxonomy of science denial (fake experts, logical fallacies, impossible expectations, cherry picking, and conspiracy theories) and provides specific debunking scripts for ten common climate myths, such as the claim that the sun is the primary driver of current warming or that climate models are unreliable.

The document argues that television meteorologists are uniquely positioned as trusted scientific sources to combat climate misinformation. It introduces 'psychological inoculation'—exposing audiences to the techniques of disinformation to build cognitive resistance—and provides a specific 'Fact-Myth-Fallacy-Fact' structure for debunking. The guide details the FLICC taxonomy (Fake experts, Logical fallacies, Impossible expectations, Cherry picking, and Conspiracy theories) and applies it to common climate myths, such as the claim that the sun causes current warming or that climate models are unreliable.