Welcome back to COP, LOOK, LISTEN. We’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: COP28 has more fossil fuel lobbyists than any in history. At least 475 of them are working for the carbon capture and storage (CCS) industry. But what are they trying to achieve? We dug into the public reports and documents of multiple lobby groups to see what they might be promoting in the halls of Expo City. Turns out, instead of viewing CCS as a last resort strategy for “hard-to-abate sectors”, some groups approach it as a lifeline to justify continued expansion of fossil fuels.

P.S. This is a carbon capture double-header. Yesterday we covered how false solutions (mainly CCS) have been promoted across social media before and during COP28. In case you missed our Special Edition, go read it here.

FINDING OF THE DAY

Some pro-carbon capture and storage (CCS) lobbyists, according to public documents, have been pushing three key narratives:

• Mission Implausible: Framing CCS as some combination of safe, proven, reliable, scalable and/or inevitable. In reality, CCS is a risky process that consistently fails to deliver or meet expectations.

• Show us the money: Admitting that projects are slow moving and expensive, but seemingly to pitch for further government subsidies and accelerated permitting processes. 

• All together now: Encouraging alliances, including with governments, to “build public support” for the technology.

Let’s dive deeper. Some groups’ messaging was fairly neutral, but across others we found a common playbook. Below we share some instructive examples from three major groups. The Global CCS Institute (GCCSI) and the CCS Association (CCSA) include many Big Oil companies like ADNOC, BP, Chevron, Equinor, TotalEnergies and Shell. Pathways Alliance are not listed in the COP28 delegates list, but are an influential entity with a strong focus on CCS, composed of the largest oil sands companies in Canada.

Mission Implausible

The Pathways Alliance website states that its focus is “to reduce the environmental and social impacts of oil sands operations through collaboration and innovation, and earn Canada’s place as "the world’s preferred supplier of oil". It also claims it will “help drive the transition to a sustainable energy future … with net-zero emissions from oil sands operations.”

To state the obvious, Canada cannot be the “world’s preferred supplier of oil” while also phasing out oil production - an essential shift outlined by scientific bodies such as the IEA and IPCC. What’s more, a focus on decarbonising “operations'' indicates no intention to reach net zero under crucial scope 3 emissions. Scope 3 emissions include the actual burning of its fossil fuel products.

Even worse, GCCSI explicitly admits in its 2021 Global Status of CCS report that CCS is unproven as a means for reducing the effects of a company’s emissions. However, it still recommends that big polluters pursue such routes to improve public and shareholder perceptions of their business activities (see screenshot 1).

Screenshot 1, from GSSCI's Global Status of CCS report, 2021.

Show Us The Money

A recent study by the University of Oxford found that a CCS-dependent pathway to Net Zero would be ‘highly economically damaging’. Models estimate an extra $30 trillion in costs compared to other approaches. Despite this, pro-CCS groups are keen for public funds. Pathways Alliance says that “With anticipated co-funding from governments, our member companies plan to invest $24.1 billion by 2030” in CCS projects. CCSA’s "manifesto" goes one step further. It requests that the UK government deliver on a former £20 billion pledge to the CCS industry in a “timely” manner.

The groups we analysed also urge governments to roll back regulations for permitting in the name of streamlining CCS project construction, as shown in examples in screenshots 2 and 3.

Screenshot 2, from CCSA's "Manifesto" 2023

Screenshot 3, from GSSCI's Global Status of CCS Report, 2021

All together now

Finally, pro-CCS groups seem to understand the need for public buy-in. According to GCCSI, “in the past, unsuccessful community engagement and local opposition have contributed to cancellation or relocation of some CCS projects” (2023). In order to actualize its pledges to develop CCS in the UK, CCSA requested that the government works to “build public support” through “local and national engagement”. (screenshot 4).

Screenshot 4, from CCSA's "Manifesto" 2023

Action 1

The intentions of some of the CCS lobby at COP28 and beyond seem to be hidden in plain sight. Anyone committed to keeping warming within 1.5 degrees will need to strategise around the major narratives shown above, including a probable increase in public relations efforts. Most importantly, we need to push for understanding that CCS is not a silver bullet technology.

Action 2 

CCS may play a specific role in "hard-to-abate" sectors, but it is not a mop to clean up all emissions or a way to justify expanded burning of fossil fuels. Any group suggesting that CCS can fulfil such a big role - given the evidence we have today - is spreading misinformation. Those tasked with public education and outreach, as well as policymaker advocacy, should take note.

If you are a journalist that wants more information on this study, please contact us at contact@caad.info

GOOD TO KNOW

Denial is dead? Not quite. We’ve been monitoring outright climate denial across X, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok during COP28 and found that known ‘super-spreaders’ are less active this year than at previous summits. The bad news is that many have pivoted to the Israel-Hamas war instead and, in some cases, attacks on the trans community. Given these super-spreaders are mostly interested in profiting from the outrage economy, there is likely more attention (and therefore money) to be gained from such content this year. Indeed, some have seen a dramatic uptick in followers for doing so.

1,900 bots on X “likely connected to the UAE”. According to researcher Marc Owen-Jones, posts in this network continually praise COP28 president Sultan Al Jaber, the UAE and this year’s summit. They might be escaping detection due to a sophisticated approach unearthed by Owen-Jones. Alternatively, X might just be bad at detecting bot traffic these days.

OPEC at it again. We’re not happy about it, but Issue 3 of COP, LOOK, LISTEN saw it coming. OPEC has branded negotiations around a fossil fuel phase out a “politically motivated campaign” that will “put our prosperity at risk”. It explicitly asked its members to block any mention of such wording in COP28’s final text.

GREENWASHING TRACKER

Keeping up with the sheer quantity of fossil fuel industry greenwashing can be tough. We’ve got you covered. In today’s greenwashing tracker:

Until next time! (Which will be tomorrow.)

The CAAD team.
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