Search Climate Insights Directory

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) is calling for a ban on fossil fuel advertising, comparing the industry's deceptive marketing to that of Big Tobacco. The briefing details how fossil fuel emissions cause tens of thousands of premature deaths in Canada, contribute to childhood asthma, and exacerbate climate-related health crises like extreme heat and wildfires. It specifically accuses the Pathways Alliance of misleading the public about emissions and net-zero goals, noting that actual oil sands emissions may be 64 times higher than reported. CAPE advocates for a regulatory framework similar to those implemented in France, Norway, and the EU to protect public health and accelerate the energy transition.

The document outlines a strategy for challenging fossil fuel misinformation in Canada by filing complaints with Advertising Standards Canada and the Competition Bureau of Canada. It provides a detailed comparison of these two avenues, step-by-step filing instructions, and templates for writing complaints. Additionally, it offers guidance on reporting deceptive ads to social media platforms and Google, while highlighting common 'red flags' of greenwashing such as vague language and misleading imagery.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) and other applicants argue that the Canadian Gas Association (CGA) has engaged in greenwashing by marketing natural gas as a clean and affordable energy source. The document asserts that natural gas has a lifecycle climate impact comparable to coal, causes significant indoor and outdoor pollution, and is less affordable than heat pumps, especially as carbon pricing increases. The applicants request a Competition Bureau inquiry, a public retraction of the claims, and a $10 million fine.

The report details seven greenwashing tactics used by the fossil fuel industry: paltering, carbon offset deception, aspirational claims (petro-science fiction), vague buzzwords, double dipping, nature rinsing, and outright lies. It argues that these practices delay climate action and policy changes. The document provides examples of regulatory actions in the UK, EU, and Norway, and calls for a comprehensive ban on fossil fuel advertising in Canada, similar to the restrictions placed on the tobacco industry.

The document outlines a series of global efforts to combat greenwashing from January 2021 to March 2023. Key events include the introduction of legal sanctions in France, the UK CMA's Green Claims Code and industry investigations, and specific legal challenges against brands like H&M, Adidas, and Allbirds. It also highlights the role of the Changing Markets Foundation in exposing misleading claims and the impact of regulatory bodies in Norway, the Netherlands, and Australia on corporate sustainability reporting.

The statement warns that adopting GWP* would allow the livestock industry to greenwash emissions and undermine the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C target. It recommends maintaining GWP100 or GWP20 for reporting and mitigation policies.

The report examines the carpet industry in Europe, finding that despite sustainability claims, the vast majority of carpets end up in landfills or incinerators. It highlights a significant gap between the environmental commitments of leading manufacturers like Interface and Desso and their actual recycling rates, which are estimated at 1.5% and 3% respectively. The document identifies specific systemic failures in France's events sector and Germany's waste management infrastructure, and calls for immediate regulatory action, including the inclusion of carpets in the Eco-design Directive.

The guide advises agency staff to build diverse internal coalitions and leverage existing company values regarding sustainability and social justice to advocate for the termination of fossil fuel client contracts. It emphasizes that an agency's client list is the primary driver of its carbon footprint, noting that a single oil company contract for the holding company IPG produced more carbon than the entire global holding company. Recommended actions include identifying supportive leadership, using non-confrontational questioning to highlight business risks, and utilizing staff-wide forums like townhalls or Slack to organize. The document links the fossil fuel industry to systemic racial injustice, arguing that commitments to racial justice are inconsistent with working for companies that disproportionately harm marginalized communities.

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.

The report argues that the UAE used extensive PR campaigns to rebrand itself as a climate leader to secure the hosting of COP28, while simultaneously planning to expand oil and gas production. It identifies 18 agencies that worked for the UAE, COP28, ADNOC, or Masdar between 2021 and 2023, noting that many of these firms simultaneously held contracts with major fossil fuel polluters. The document details specific tactics used to manipulate public opinion, including the editing of Wikipedia pages by COP28 staff and the use of AI-generated social media bots for astroturfing. It concludes by calling on the creative industry to stop working with fossil fuel clients to support a genuine energy transition.

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.

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.

The report details the efforts of Clean Creatives South Africa to encourage agencies and individuals to pledge to decline work for fossil fuel companies. It highlights South Africa's high carbon intensity and vulnerability to climate change, while listing specific agencies that maintain contracts with fossil fuel entities. The document criticizes 'greenwashing' practices by companies like TotalEnergies and Sasol, and calls for the creative industry to stop rewarding fossil fuel advertising campaigns.

The report presents the 2024 South African F-List, detailing 42 contracts between local agencies and fossil fuel clients, and highlights the reputational risks of such partnerships. It critiques the role of PR in masking the environmental and health impacts of companies like Sasol and TotalEnergies, while calling for industry awards like The Loeries to stop rewarding fossil fuel advertising.

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 green bond market experienced rapid growth between 2013 and 2016, with total emissions reaching USD 81 billion in 2016. The market is increasingly dominated by the private sector, with corporate and bank emissions rising from less than 1% in 2010 to 66% in 2016. While mitigation projects—specifically clean energy, energy efficiency, and low-carbon transport—receive approximately 75% of funds, financing for adaptation grew from less than 1% in 2011 to 5% of total emissions, driven largely by US municipalities. China emerged as a leading market, projecting to be the largest globally. To support the Paris Agreement, the Climate Bonds Initiative targets annual green bond emissions of USD 1 trillion by 2020. The document recommends that governments implement national capital mobilization plans, apply international standards like the Green Bond Principles and Climate Bonds Standard, and develop national verifier networks to reduce market friction and prevent greenwashing.

The Climate Bonds Initiative offers technical assistance to institutions to improve the credibility and comparability of transition investment frameworks, reducing greenwashing risks. Their review process utilizes the 'Five Hallmarks for a Credible Corporate Transition' and aligns with international taxonomies and market principles. The service includes tailored guidance and the possibility of public endorsement for frameworks that meet core principles for credible transition finance.

The report identifies six key mechanisms that taxonomies use to manage the transition of high-emission activities: periodic review of evolving criteria, forward-looking criteria, gradation, specific measures, sunset dates/phase-out guidelines, and transition plan requirements. It analyzes these mechanisms across different taxonomy archetypes—binary, 'traffic light', mixed, and standalone—and provides case studies from the EU, Australia, Singapore, Rwanda, and China to demonstrate their practical application. The document emphasizes that while no single mechanism is inherently superior, their credibility depends on robust governance, science-based pathways, and the avoidance of carbon lock-in.

The report analyzes the role of taxonomies in climate transition finance, identifying six specific mechanisms used to define and evaluate transitional activities. It examines different taxonomy archetypes—binary, traffic-light, and mixed—and provides case studies from the EU, Australia, Singapore, Rwanda, China, and others to illustrate how these mechanisms are integrated to ensure credible decarbonization pathways.

The report identifies six core mechanisms used by taxonomies to manage the transition of hard-to-abate sectors: revision of criteria over time, forward criteria, shading, measures, sunset dates, and transition plan requirements. It analyzes these mechanisms across different taxonomy archetypes—binary, traffic light, and mixed—using case studies from the EU, Australia, Singapore, Rwanda, and China to demonstrate how static criteria can be used to assess a dynamic decarbonization process.