SPOTLIGHT EDITION

Welcome back to COP, LOOK, LISTEN. As we head into the final days of negotiations, everyone is asking the same question: ‘can we get a deal that includes a fossil fuel phase out?’ Vested fossil interests have managed to block this language at prior summits and the fight continues to divide parties in Dubai.  One key strategy is to “push non-transformative solutions” to the climate crisis - often referred to as “false solutions”. Perhaps the most contentious of these is Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).

Why Does This Matter?

On Day 1 of the summit, InfluenceMap reported that over 80% of corporate engagement on CCS was at odds with IPCC guidance, tracking over 600 examples from 2021-2023. 

These arguments are used to weaken Net Zero targets and justify continued use of (or even expanded investment in) oil, fossil gas and other polluting fuels for decades to come.

Shockingly, they found that 16 of the G20 countries have adopted positions on CCS that mirror fossil fuel companies. Needless to say, roadmaps from the International Energy Agency, IPCC and others state the exact opposite must happen to keep global warming within a liveable threshold. 

In today’s Special Edition we examine how the fossil fuel lobby is using its incredible wealth and influence to land these talking points online - at the exact moment the fate of ‘phase out v. phase down’ hangs in the balance at COP28. 

Below is a summary of key findings, but the full research is well worth a read. You can access the report on our website here, alongside other Special Editions and bulletins from the past 10 days.

FINDING OF THE DAY

There are 475 carbon capture and storage (CCS) lobbyists at COP28, despite the technology consistently failing to deliver or meet expectations. Nonetheless, when mapping advocacy efforts online we found that:

• Fossil fuel companies are investing heavily in ads around CCS and other false solutions. Google searches for “carbon capture and storage” in the US and UK show paid-for greenwashing from Chevron, ExxonMobil, Saudi Aramco and BP before any reliable or scientific sources. Enbridge advertises on Youtube for CCS and Shell features among the top “organic” results presented by the platform for that language.

• Chevron has spent a potential $1.8m on TikTok ads, many of which push false solutions like CCS, their ‘renewable gasoline blend’ and so-called ‘efficient’ fossil gas extraction. They have garnered 188 million views on just 34 sponsored videos, heavily centring women and people of colour as hosts in their content. In one video promoting CCS, Chevron even includes the hashtag “#edutok” – a term initially linked to a formal program and in-app challenge to ‘democratise e-learning’ across various topics.

• ‘Organic’ social media activity is minimal. What does exist is driven mostly by industry promotion, as well as political figures praising or opposing the technology. Non-paid-for posts about CCS rarely gain traction, meaning that those with cash to spend can often control the narrative on this issue.

Here’s a sneak peek of ads shown by Google, Meta and TikTok. Check out our report for plenty more.

We estimate that Chevron has spent at least $1.8m on TikTok ads to date. The production value of the videos themselves is far less, but their simple, uncomplicated style suits the platform. We couldn’t find a single mention of “climate change” on their entire channel, by the way.

We ran Google searches for “carbon capture” in the US and UK and found up to four separate ads were shown first. These were usually from fossil fuel companies, appearing before a Wikipedia link or scientific sources such as MIT. Ironically, this was a far simpler way to find fossil fuel ads than actually using Google’s woeful Ads Transparency Center.

Taken together, these findings are concerning.  Discussion around false solutions is dominated by the fossil fuel industry and millions seem to be exposed through advertising, sponsored content or other astroturfing techniques. This sets a dangerous precedent, whereby oil and gas companies can set the narrative on what climate action or a ‘viable pathway’ looks like going forward.

Climate science is complex and many of us are desperate for a good news story:  futuristic-sounding fixes like ‘sucking carbon out of the air’, or vocabulary such as “nature-based solutions” often fit the bill - even though the science is shaky at best.

Action 

Unfortunately, those who genuinely want to solve the climate crisis struggle to compete with the sheer spending power of the fossil fuel lobby. That makes it more vital than ever to have governance, transparency and accountability regimes that insulate policymaking from corporate influence. It’s also why we need far more stringent criteria and safeguards around fossil fuel ads - especially now, at this pivotal juncture. Public understanding needs to be informed by the science, not warped by special interests. 

There’s a lot more to unpack in our mini-report, including: how users on X are incorrectly linking CCS to the World Economic Forum (again); how Chevron is ‘woke-washing’ its TikTok content; and how Meta is failing to label ads in its library consistently. Check it out here.

That’s it for today. As we head into the chaos of final negotiations, our thoughts are with all the dedicated climate advocates working hard in Dubai and beyond. Hang in there! 

If you have any investigative leads CAAD should explore, or want to find out more about our research and intel during the summit, please email contact@caad.info. We also have team members on the ground in the UAE who are available for interviews and side-events as useful.

Click here to unsubscribe | Sent to: pnewell@climatenexus.org

CAAD, www.caad.info, United Kingdom