290: Delay, Deny, Derail: inside the fossil fuel lobby’s playbook at COPs

Tom : [00:25:06] Yeah. So the intersection there is so complete that actually there's no way to do it is what you're saying. And that's what we had on the panel. Paul, you got to vote.

Paul Dickinson: [00:25:14] Just an awareness. I think you describe it perfectly, Christiana. But we can increase awareness that, you know, sometimes you'll meet people who will be expressing opinions that sort of seem to be the nation's opinions. Perhaps they are, but they're also expressing business opinions. And the counter voice to all of this is just for everyone to be super aware of, of the dangers, the risks and the science.

Tom : [00:25:33] Yeah. And of course so, so totally understand. And I think the panel agreed with you and completely with you that Christiana, in terms of the challenge and difficulty of this, but it has been considerable, right? I mean, the degree of drag this is created on our collective efforts. So that actually happened on the evening as well. The panel looked back and considered the victories of the lobby over the last decade. Let's listen.

Pilita Clarke: [00:25:54] What actual influence do you think the lobbyists have been able to have from the fossil fuel industry over the years? What have been the really big victories?

Joanna Depledge: [00:26:02] Maybe I'll start with the kind of earlier history kind of covered by the play. I think they've had several victories. And here again, I'm not talking just about the fossil fuels, but about the entire ecosystem. As you put it, a predominantly US force is overwhelmingly US, not exclusive, but overwhelmingly, I think the first victory was ensuring that there was no voting rule in the negotiations. And you cover that Joe and Joe very well, so that almost all decisions have to be taken by consensus. And that's had a profound, and I think, permanent effect on what has been agreed in the negotiations. I think their second victory was in the 1990s. Us public opinion on climate change, and also the opinion of the Republican Party had not yet formed. It was not yet fully defined. These were these were early times. And I think these lobbies that we're talking about, they managed to define the terms of climate change in an anti action way through their attacks on basically undermining the science, which we saw, and also through this massive what we call now fake news misinformation campaign pre Coto and then after. And I think Kirsten and I both have newspaper clippings about that if you're interested later. And that was the second victory. The third victory was ensuring that the Kyoto Protocol was never ratified with the US. And I don't think that was a given. Yeah, I think that was a deliberate strategy which they succeeded in doing. And so overall, I think they have suggested in basically delaying Laying and diluting, and I think they have succeeded in that. They have not succeeded in destroying, but they have delayed and diluted in, in cahoots with Saudi Arabia and others very importantly.

Pilita Clarke: [00:27:49] And would you agree with that or.

Kirsty Hamilton: [00:27:51] Yeah. No, no, I think that is definitely the case. I mean, I would say one thing that they did very successfully was, you know, for a long time, maybe 1 or 2 decades, not at the negotiations per se, but around it was deliberately create doubt about the integrity of climate science. I mean, I worked in New Zealand for the first half of the 90s. I was also going to negotiations as well, but I was there and the industry lobby brought over. There were five very well-known climate denying scientists, and they were brought over in 1990, 91, 92, 94 and 95 with a deliberate intent to sow doubt on science. So they did that. Now that has been overcome. But that took a long time. And, you know, and there was an also a well publicized leak of a $2 million campaign deliberately to undermine climate science post Kyoto in the United States, where a sign of victory was that anyone promoting Kyoto would be seen as out of touch with reality. So I think that they've they've succeeded. But the thing is, they haven't succeeded, have they? Because we have, as people said in the earlier panel, we have got science integrity. Although there's been a difficult recent IPCC meeting, we have got the science integrity and foundation has been maintained. And I think, as others have said, implementation policies nationally have varied. But in total they have produced the kind of growth and renewable energy and solutions to climate change and shifts to some extent in the financial sector. So they have achieved some things, but they haven't won.

Tessa Khan: [00:29:32] Can I just add to that in terms of, I think, the evolution of the story that the fossil fuel industry has been trying to tell, as you said, I think in the 90s and for at least ten years after that, the focus was very much on undermining the science, on obfuscating facts, on creating doubt in people's minds about, you know, the extent to which there was a scientific consensus around climate change. I think what we're seeing now is a massive narrative push to position, accepting that climate change is real, that the oil and gas industry is going to be the one that drives the energy transition, and that that way they still manage to send to themselves in negotiations, in political and policy discussions. And, you know, their promise is that if you just let us evolve our businesses, we will lead you to the clean energy future that we all agree is necessary, when actually, what we've seen in the last few years is record profits by the oil and gas industry in the last three years, and a decision by them to double down on oil and gas production, to pay off their shareholders to pay down their debt and actually weaken their renewable energy targets to drop their investments in clean energy. So that is, I think, a very clear and useful, in my view, moment in that we now know exactly what we're dealing with. But the industry is going to be continuing to push this idea that you can't possibly pull your policy support for what we're doing. You can't leave us out of the room when you're talking about the way that we evolve our energy industry, because we're so central to how that will happen, and that clearly isn't true.

Tom : [00:31:05] So it's fairly sobering to acknowledge the challenge of this situation that we can't they can't exclude them. But the impact has obviously been very considerable. It's a tempting question to ask what kind of world we might live in, had they not had such a prominent role either, if you want to have a crack at that.

Christiana : [00:31:19] Yeah. I would like to ask a different question. What kind of a world would we have if they had actually done what they said they were going to do several years, which was to promote the energy transition. Let's just remember, there is a choice here. There is a very important critical choice that they have made, and they could have made a different choice.

Paul Dickinson: [00:31:48] I'm going to tell you about what happened when someone did make a different choice. And that was the great nation of China. And, you know, BYD launched a car just the other week that charges up 250 miles in five minutes. It's amazing this can be done. You know, renewables, energy have become incredibly cheap as a result of Chinese manufacturing. Genius. So in a certain sense, I would say we can sort of see to me that the answer to your question, Tom, is not having these debates about the science. You know, if the doctor goes to you and says, you know, you've got these terrible problems, the tests are saying, we've got a real problem. And then there's some enormous industry saying, oh, no, you haven't got a problem. Don't worry about it. Doctors are wrong. The scientists are the doctors, and I don't think we're ever going to be able to forgive the negative impact of of that betrayal of, of the trust in sort of rationality in the face of incredible risk.

Tom : [00:32:39] Yeah. Well, I hear you there. And the risk obviously is mounting all the time as we get closer and closer to tipping point. So I think what we need to do probably now is look at how the fossil fuel industry is trying to make their influence felt today, which is remains considerable. That has evolved from the historical perspective. Let's get into that after the break. Welcome back everyone. So just before the break, Tessa Khan highlighted the tactics and role of the fossil fuel lobby and how they've shifted over time as the international context has moved on. But they're still here and they're still having their voices heard. So let's start off with a clip in which Tessa speaks to some of the ways that these lobbies are continuing to influence decision makers today.

Pilita Clarke: [00:33:22] In the play, the the Don Perlman character actually is incredibly good at making changes in the actual documents in the decisions. Is that something that you think is still going on at cops today, or is in fact the fossil fuel lobbying tactics changed quite a bit since then?

Tessa Khan: [00:33:42] I think the fossil fuel lobby's tactics have evolved, their narratives have evolved, but I'd say the overall effect that they have, both at the multilateral and at the domestic level has stayed the same. So the fossil fuel lobby at the moment operates through multiple different realms. They have direct access to politicians. You know, the head of the oil and gas industry lobby. Their headquarters are a short stroll from Downing Street in the Houses of Parliament in the UK. There are members, dozens of members of Parliament who hold shares in fossil fuel companies. We also know that currently the industry realizes, especially now, that there is a government in the UK that is a little bit less susceptible, let's say an energy secretary in the UK that's a little bit less susceptible to direct lobbying by the industry. They're now very focused on shaping the information environment around decision makers and the people who influence them. That's something that the industry has always been very good at. I mean, as we've heard, they fund think tanks. They run advertisements. But, you know, at the moment they're sponsoring events by magazines that are on the soft left, that we know that Labour Party decision makers attend and pay attention to. They drop ads on podcasts that are listen to political influences. You know, they have very sophisticated ways of basically shaping the entire narrative ecosystem around decision makers so that it's more subliminal than their preferred method, which is just meeting with them behind closed doors. At this moment in the UK, that's a slightly less viable approach for, as I said, I think within the Energy Department, but they've got a whole range of other tactics that they're able to deploy.

Tom : [00:35:25] So, Paul, I think this takes us into your home territory, if I may. I mean, this is something that you are one of the world's deepest thinkers, I would actually say, on the ways in which corporate lobbying is affecting the policy development sphere. Or rather not, you know, not allowing it to develop. How do you see this space and how should we think about the role of corporate lobbying at this moment?

Paul Dickinson: [00:35:50] I mean, you know, there's this Brian Eno quote, there's no genius there. Genius. All I've ever had the opportunity to do is hang out with brilliant people. David Cureton wrote the book When Corporations Ruled the World, which I read and had a big impact on me. There's been a history of developing this kind of thing. You, Tom, when you were working at CDP, you led work to look at trade associations and how business used trade associations to try and influence policy.

Tom : [00:36:13] At Christiana Instruction. So that was that's that's where the whole thing comes.

Paul Dickinson: [00:36:16] Thank you Christiana. And why wouldn't you have done it? I'm just. But team it's a team. It's a team. But then, you know, that work has also been taken to another whole level. Bye bye. Friend of the show, Dillon Dylan Tanner and others who started the incredibly influential and influential bit of a pun, their incredibly effective NGO influence map that's been mapping. I was in a meeting just the other week where Ed Collins influence map showed how the gas industry globally has been used, unified messaging to try and make sure governments kind of go in the direction they want to go. Dylan was on the show lifelines versus deadlines with us. Fiona MacLean a miniseries, do look out for it. And some brilliant people like Senator Sheldon Whitehouse was on there. Naomi Oreskes so, so essentially what you know, we can all see that it's inexplicable that there would be humanity ignoring massive problems without this, this, this lobby effort. There really are far, far too many people to mention. And I think we all know it as well. You know, little kids know that the corporations have this enormous influence over us. The question is really how we organize ourselves against it, because it's so difficult to match those commercial resources, you know, the billions that are put on one side of the debate.

Paul Dickinson: [00:37:25] What do you do? There's a great little joke in the in the play where the intervals you remember, they say interval drinks are sponsored by BP and they are being ironic, but they're referring to the fossil fuel sponsorship of the arts. And, you know, just just one other thing I'd say here, which I think is incredibly important. The people in the industry need to recognize that this has to stop. You know, we're all I'm sorry to keep going on about it, but I'm desperately worried about fossil fuel authoritarianism. Some people I really admire are saying that we're in danger of sort of losing democracy in the United States. When you're filling up your car with gas, when you're flying long haul, when you've got, you know, your heater burning gas in your home, when you're cooking, you might be funding. There's nothing out of democracy. Just think about that for a minute. And that's, I think, the strongest argument for dealing with this, this overwhelming lobby.

Tom : [00:38:11] And I think, I mean, this isn't specifically related to the fossil fuel, but you talked about those early days when we were working at CDP on corporate disclosure of lobbying practices. And I remember, Paul, you and I went to see a very progressive business in London, the chief sustainability officer, and we walked in and and this person was giving us all of the details of all the great stuff they're doing and why there's a leader. And then one of us said, well, do you also realize that you are a member of the British Confederation of British Industry and that's a member of Business Europe in Brussels, and they are lobbying night and day against the legislation and regulation that you claim would support you. And his jaw hit the floor. Actually. So I think there's also a disconnect sometimes between corporations and what's being done through this lens of trade associations. And it's slightly different to fossil fuels, but it just illustrates how complicated it is.

Christiana : [00:38:56] True. But it's not complicated to understand where political financing for campaigns comes from. And that is particularly evident in the United States, where campaigns at all levels, at all levels, all electoral levels in city and states certainly national for the presidency or or for Capitol Hill seats are financed by the oil and gas industry at the price of loyalty if you get elected. And that has has been true for a long time and is just horribly true of this election that we have just went, oh my goodness

Paul Dickinson: [00:39:38] Yeah. And just a point on that. You know, there isn't any money to be made, you know, picking on transgender people. There isn't any money to be made picking on dirt and, you know, kind of opposing equality and inclusion. There isn't any money to be made even by deporting people, you know, illegal immigrants or whatever you want to call them. But but there is an opportunity for a perspective that wants to gain national political power to sow all of these prejudices together into a campaign and then say, drill, baby, drill. And so, you know, this question about what can people do? And I actually think one of the most important things you can do for climate change right now is to protect democracy, to keep the open society, to keep the universities open, to stop law firms being intimidated in every single level. I think the climate change fight, certainly in the United States right now is the democracy fight. And we shouldn't. We shouldn't be afraid to link the two of them. They're exactly the same thing right now.

Tom : [00:40:31] Yeah, I completely agree with your points about defense of democracy. Al Gore, great friend of the podcast, former guest, made similar comments to what you just said many times. And in fact, Christiana, I think you were just recently on stage with Al and Lawrence in Paris at the Climate Reality Training. And I believe next week we're going to have some substantive elements of that conversation. So Al and Lawrence will be back on the podcast next week.

Christiana : [00:40:56] And one of the levers to do that, Paul, is my current pet topic that we can hopefully move to, which is climate litigation.

Tom : [00:41:05] Absolutely. In our recent episode on climate mitigation, we looked at how the law can be used to hold polluters to account. And Tesla touched on what this might mean for fossil fuel companies.

Tessa Khan: [00:41:13] There's already a huge body of law that's developed that is sufficient to express, I think, a binding obligation on national Governments at a national level to take climate change seriously. And it's not just law that's been developed through the UN climate process, it's human rights law. It's all of the ways in which people's rights are affected by government inaction on climate change. So there have been dozens of lawsuits already brought against national governments to try to enforce more mitigation action, in particular in line with 1.5 degrees, and other ways in which you can determine a standard that governments have to meet in order to protect their citizens and residents within their country. So that's a really important body of litigation that's already developed and will continue, I think, to to gain momentum. On the other hand, there is also a huge amount of focus on the fossil fuel industry. And now we have science that makes it very clear the extent to which every single one of the carbon majors, the largest oil and gas companies, have contributed to the current concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, you can get down to a decimal point percentage in terms of demonstrating that responsibility.

Tessa Khan: [00:42:30] We also have science that can demonstrate exactly the extent to which climate change played a role in the escalating intensity of a cyclone, or a drought or a flood. And so I think increasingly, we are going to see efforts to draw a straight line between the actions of oil and gas companies, not just in emitting greenhouse gases, but also in stopping a global energy transition and doing everything in their power to lobby against that and the impacts that people are feeling right now. You know, we've just in the last couple of weeks, there's been a really important hearing in a German court in a case brought by a Peruvian farmer who lives in the Peruvian Andes. His village is at imminent threat of being flooded by glacial melt. And he's taking to court RWE, the biggest German energy company, Attributing basically €20,000 worth of damage on the basis of Iowa's contribution to climate change since the start of the Industrial Revolution. So there are all sorts of innovative legal tactics that are being developed to particularly pin accountability on the fossil fuel industry.

Pilita Clarke: [00:43:38] Yeah. And what about the Greenpeace loss in North Dakota just the other day? I mean, is that a worrying sign or is it an outlier? That doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Tessa Khan: [00:43:48] It's definitely not an outlier. It's an escalation of efforts that the fossil fuel industry has been undertaking for decades to silence environmental defenders and human rights defenders. And in countries like the Philippines and in Brazil, you know, that's extended to assassinating environmental defenders. This is a lawsuit in the US that's designed to bankrupt Greenpeace for, you know, totally baseless. But what these companies know is that if you're taking on an NGO and I say this as someone who runs an NGO, you know, all you have to do is tie them up in paperwork and court fees to divert their efforts from doing anything else. And that's a very effective way of shutting down public protest. And, you know, we call these lawsuits SLAPP suits because they are strategic lawsuits against public participation. They exist as a class, and it's really up to governments to regulate so that those sorts of lawsuits, which are clearly meant to intimidate and silence people, aren't allowed to proceed.

Tom : [00:44:45] Obviously, we recently did an episode all about this where we spoke to Laura Clark, the CEO of Client Earth, and we looked at the ways in which NGOs are using the law to hold fossil fuel companies to account. But there are also examples of it going the other way. And I think either of you want to share on the legal lever and how well it's being used in this arena.

Christiana : [00:45:04] Well, as we said in that discussion previously, we're still in our diaper stage of using climate litigation to hold companies accountable. But but it is coming. It is definitely coming. And companies I think, are getting more and more concerned about that, which is why they put more and more money into trying to prevent it. Exactly.

Paul Dickinson: [00:45:27] Yeah. And I think, you know, you could argue that these enormous lawsuits for damages, particularly from US states like California, have driven fossil fuel companies to get to the sort of very edge of reason in terms of their response to, to this challenge. But, I mean, it is working. And, you know, that famous overused phrase often attributed to Gandhi. You know, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. The fight has got really, really big. Yeah. And I just want to endlessly echo your comments, Christiana, when the house of cards does fall, that's the moment when we see the fingerprints of the fossil fuel industry on this. And litigation is actually a great way of, um, documenting actions and putting them on record because, you know, it may be that the lawsuit of 2025 doesn't necessarily succeed, but there might be enormous damages in 2035 paid based on the paperwork that was assembled in 2025.

Tom : [00:46:19] Okay, great. So I mean, fantastic, how wonderful to have this conversation and to be able to bring you, our wonderful listeners, this second part of the evening that we had at the Conduit Club last week after we all went to the play Kyoto. We have said it before, but to just say it again, this play is astonishing. It really is an enormous contribution and moves us forward. We would recommend everyone to go and see it. Since our podcast went out last week. I have no idea if you've influenced ticket sales, but I tried to get tickets to go and see it again and I couldn't get any more tickets, so I don't know if there's any left available, but if there are, I would encourage you to try and find them.

Christiana : [00:46:53] I tried to go for a second time because I really wanted to see it a second time, completely sold out. And so thanks to a couple of people backstage, I was squeezed in and I sat at the sound table because there was there was no real theatre seats available. And it it was actually quite a different perspective to see the sound engineer working away, standing because he had ceded his seat to me, and I was so much more aware of the amazing, amazing sound quality of that place. So whether you're there for the plot, whether you're there for the theatrics, whether you're there for the sound, it is really an amazing play. And they so deserve an award on Sunday.

Tom : [00:47:38] They so deserve an award.

Paul Dickinson: [00:47:40] Hold the mirror up to nature. That's what they did so perfectly.

Tom : [00:47:42] This is the first of three plays. So one on Kyoto, next on Copenhagen, which, as you said, I think to the shows when we were together, that sort of writes itself, Christiana, with the drama inherent.

Paul Dickinson: [00:47:51] No problem finding the dramatic arc.

Tom : [00:47:53] There. And then the third one on Paris, and I'm looking forward to seeing Christiana play herself at some point on the stage in the West End.

Paul Dickinson: [00:47:59] So I think Kyoto was tragedy and maybe Copenhagen is comedy. What would Paris would be?

Christiana : [00:48:05] Victory after a lot of work.

Tom : [00:48:10] All right. Thank you friends. Lovely to see you. Thanks for listening, everybody. We'll see you next week.

Christiana : [00:48:14] Bye bye.