Report cover - title reads 'Strategies and Tactics to Curb the Fossil Fuel Industry'. Logo for Social Change Lab is top left. Photo of climate protestors kneeling in a row. They have black paint (representing oil) on their faces and are each holding a sign that collectively read 'Help End the Fools Fool Economy'.

Strategies and Tactics to Curb the Fossil Fuel Industry

By , , ,

Introduction

This report from the Social Change Lab maps the current tactics used to constrain fossil fuel expansion, and identifies what’s working. The key takeaway is there are multiple effective routes into this fight and the best outcomes often come when those routes converge.

From frontline blockades to courtroom battles, the resistance to fossil fuels is made up of many different tactics. The report identifies 16 of them, including consumer boycotts, public shaming, shareholder action, litigation, divestment, and cultural interventions.

Some are loud and disruptive; others are technical, slow-moving and behind the scenes. But all aim to exert pressure – financial, legal, social or reputational – on the fossil fuel industry and its enablers.

The diversity of these tactics is a strength. It means people with very different skills, values and risk profiles can take part. You don’t need to be willing to get arrested. You might be a lawyer, an artist, a data analyst, a union organiser, a journalist, or a trustee.

3 Pressure Points

Though the tactics currently being adopted are diverse, they fall into one of three overarching approaches:

  1. Squeezing the money
    Making fossil fuel expansion less profitable by targeting finance, insurance and investment.
  2. Reducing social licence
    Undermining the industry’s legitimacy and cultural acceptance.
  3. Protecting and enforcing
    Using the law and political mechanisms to constrain the industry and defend those who challenge it.

These strategies don’t compete, they reinforce one another. The biggest wins often come when multiple tactics are used in combination, forcing action from several directions at once. In the report, we also provide a deep dive of a particularly promising approach – targeting insurance companies.

Who is the Report for?

This report is designed to support both actors and funders in understanding which interventions are most likely to be effective. It offers a structured overview of tactics, outcomes and contextual considerations, drawing on evidence from existing approaches and similar efforts with parallel targets in the past. 

This report doesn’t offer a one-size-fits-all formula, but it does provide a strategic map based on evidence, analysis, and lived campaigning experience. 

For campaigners, the task is to choose a way to contribute. Whether filing legal challenges, crafting communications, or building local power, there is a place for your skills. The most effective campaigns are those that coordinate across roles, share intelligence, and make each other stronger.

For funders, the message is to invest where it counts. That means targeting pressure points like insurance, regulation and finance, but also backing the infrastructure that holds movements together. Fund the connective tissue. Fund the legal support, the conveners, the translation, the bail funds, the coordination. Fund the work that isn’t flashy but makes everything else possible.

Key Messages

  • Campaigning and activism has been effective in the past
    From tobacco to apartheid, committed, strategic actors working for progress have dismantled harmful industries. Those working to speed the end of the fossil fuel era can learn from history.
  • The movement is growing smarter
    New pressure points (like the proactive use of the law), bolder demands (like ad bans), and sharper coordination are starting to pay dividends. But there is still a lack of evidence – or conflicting evidence – about what works best.
  • There is no single silver bullet
    Effective movements use a mix of tactics: protests, lawsuits, lobbying, finance pressure, and coalition-building. Nothing works better in isolation. So a key message is to push for better and more collaboration between different actors: campaigns that unite frontline communities, lawyers, journalists and NGOs are more resilient. Given the importance of sticking with actions over the long term, this makes them more likely to be impactful.
  • The logic of some approaches, notably targeting the insurance industry, seems strong enough to merit much greater support.

Tactics Toolbox

The report provides a detailed look the different tactics. The purpose of these tactic sheets is to give more information to activists and their supporters about the different options available, find out more about who else is taking a similar approach, and form alliances. Each tactic sheet provides:

  • A description of how each tactic works with its theory of change,
  • Examples of when it has been effective in the past,
  • Details of groups currently using it,
  • Summary of its pros and cons,
  • The conditions when it is most likely to be effective,
  • Links to find out more about that tactic.

Contents

Deep Dives

In this section, we consider in more depth two approaches that could prove particularly effective.

These are –

1. Pressuring insurance companies – an economic pressure point for fossil fuels that works both to squeeze the money and to reduce social licence, and

2. The power of collaboration, where we show how diverse activists working together can amplify many approaches highlighted above. 

(i) Could insurance be the Achilles heel of the fossil fuel industry?

Insurance companies are a key leverage point in the fight against fossil fuel expansion

Insurers are critical gatekeepers for the fossil free industry. Major infrastructure like coal mines, oil pipelines, and gas terminals all require insurance for permits and financing; if insurers refuse coverage, these projects often cannot proceed​. This gives insurers exceptional power to stop new carbon-intensive developments at the source.

Insurers also pride themselves on assessing and managing risk, positioning themselves as society’s “risk managers.” This role creates a contradiction: on one hand, insurers are highly exposed, paying ever-growing claims for climate-driven disasters (floods, wildfires, storms); on the other, they continue underwriting and investing in the very fossil fuel activities driving those disasters​. For example, U.S. insurers held over $536 billion in fossil fuel assets in 2019 – investments that contribute to climate change risks which boomerang back as insured losses​. 

They are themselves acutely aware of this contradiction – and of the risks. A board member (Günther Thallinger) of Allianz  – one of the world’s biggest insurers, recently made the position extremely clear. He warned that global heating is fast approaching levels where the whole insurance industry becomes untenable because so much of the world will be uninsurable. No insurance, he says, “means no more mortgages, no new real estate development, no long-term investment, no financial stability.” In essence, without insurance, capitalism itself cannot function.  He is not an outlier. In their annual report, Zurich says it is “essential” for the world to reach net zero by 2050.

Activists highlight this hypocrisy: many insurers have already begun dropping coverage in high-risk areas (like wildfire-prone California or flood-hit Florida) due to climate extremes, yet they continue to insure new oil rigs and coal mines that worsen those extremes​. Unlike banks, insurers can’t pretend to escape the real world; if they misjudge rising climate risks, they go bankrupt paying claims. They know this reality all too well, as climate change has already caused over a third of insured disaster losses this century (about $600 billion)​.

Insurers are uniquely aware that continuing to underwrite limitless fossil fuel expansion is ultimately unsustainable – both for the planet and for their own balance sheets. Activists know that targeting them goes for a key choke point: cut off insurance, and you cut off the lifeline for fossil fuel expansion​

Insurance companies have weak spots. Campaigners are applying pressure on a number of them
 

  1. Reputational risk
    Insurance companies highly value public trust and their image as responsible risk managers. Climate activists have made insurers’ fossil fuel involvement more visible, threatening their reputation. Extinction Rebellion warned it will not let insurers “fly under the radar”:  if they keep enabling coal and oil projects, “there will be reputational damage.”​ This public shaming can sway insurance company leaders and customers who don’t want to be associated with climate destruction.​
  2. Regulatory and legal pressure
    Regulators and lawmakers are increasingly scrutinizing insurers’ climate risks. In California, a watchdog petition is urging authorities to mandate disclosure of fossil fuel underwriting and even impose fees on insurers who continue to back high-carbon projects​. The European Union is discussing higher capital requirements for insurers holding risky, stranded fossil assets​. These measures make insuring fossil fuels less attractive and more costly. Insurers also fear litigation if they’re seen as complicit in climate harms or if they misrepresent climate risks to investors
  3. Financial exposure to climate disasters
    Climate change is hitting insurers’ core business. Roughly a third of all insured losses from 2002–2022 (an estimated $600 billion) are attributable to climate change, and that share is rising​. In 2022 alone, US insurers paid out over $100 billion for climate-related catastrophes​. These mounting losses threaten profitability. A recent analysis found that for 28 top insurers, their climate-related losses (~$10.6 billion) almost equaled the premiums they earned from insuring fossil fuel clients (~$11.3 billion) in 2023​. In over half of those companies (including industry giants Allianz, AXA and Zurich), climate disaster losses actually exceeded the fossil fuel premiums​. Insuring fossil projects is already a losing proposition for many insurers – a glaring weak spot.
  4. Small revenue share from fossil fuel underwriting
    Insuring fossil energy is a tiny part of most large insurers’ business (often under 2% of total premiums). Most of their portfolios are in car, home and health insurance. Dropping fossil fuels would barely dent their own revenue but could have a major impact on the fossil fuel sector. This low dependence makes it easier for insurers to walk away and many European insurers have already acknowledged this: virtually all have stopped underwriting new coal, and some (like Zurich and AXA) are exiting new oil and gas projects as well​. When faced with public pressure, sacrificing 1–2% of revenue is a cheap price for avoiding toxic publicity and long-term climate risks.

How pressure on insurance companies can lead to carbon reduction

Activists’ ultimate goal when pressuring insurers is to force a meaningful reduction in carbon emissions by stopping fossil fuel projects from seeing the light of day. If insurers withdraw coverage, fossil fuel projects cannot secure financing or permits, and will be delayed or cancelled outright. When insurers un-insure a new coal mine or oil pipeline, this raises the odds that the project becomes a stranded asset (never built or never operated at full capacity). The carbon stays in the ground.

This chain reaction is not just theory. It has been evidenced in practice. For example, in the case of the huge Adani Carmichael coal mine in Australia. Due to its huge carbon impact and fierce pressure from the #StopAdani movement, more than 70 financial institutions – including 40 insurers – withdrew from or refused involvement in the project. This mass pull-out (no insurer wanted to be the last one insuring a notorious coal mine) delayed the project for years and forced Adani to scale down its ambitions.

Even an insurer that initially provided cover, Probitas, announced it had ceased its Adani involvement after sustained activist inquiries​. This highlights how effective sustained pressure can be.

Similarly, 15+ insurers bailed on the Trans Mountain tar sands pipeline in Canada, to the point that the operator had to request permission to keep its remaining insurers secret (to prevent further drop-outs)​. While Trans Mountain is still proceeding, campaigners significantly raised its costs and highlighted the project’s frailty – a warning to investors of a potential stranded asset.

The coal sector as a whole has seen dramatic shifts due to insurer action. By 2022, so many insurers had exited the coal business that new coal mines and plants in many regions struggled to find any insurance at all. Dozens of insurers (representing over 60% of the reinsurance market) now refuse to cover new coal projects, effectively making coal expansion “uninsurable” in much of the world​. Reuters have reported that some coal companies, cut off by insurers, have had to set aside millions for self-insurance – a last resort that makes operations more costly and risky​.

​Insurers have been pressured to change in other harmful industries as well. A notable parallel is the tobacco industry. In 2016, French insurance giant AXA announced it would divest about €1.8 billion from tobacco companies, citing the “tragic” health impacts of smoking and its duty as a health insurer to support public well-being​. AXA not only sold off tobacco stocks but also pledged to stop new investments in the sector, and it called on its peers to follow suit​. This ​was a landmark moment: an insurer voluntarily withdrawing support from a profitable industry on ethical and risk grounds. Likewise, some insurers have limited or excluded coverage for asbestos and risky chemicals after public outcry and liability concerns.

These precedents show that insurance companies can be moved by public pressure and moral arguments, especially when the business case (long-term risk vs. short-term gain) supports a shift.

Who is working on this approach?

This strategy of targeting insurance is being spearheaded by a number of organizations and movements worldwide. Foremost is the Insure Our Future campaign – a global coalition of over two dozen groups dedicated to pushing insurers out of coal, oil and gas​. Insure Our Future (originally launched as the Unfriend Coal campaign) includes environmental NGOs and frontline community organizations across many countries, including Reclaim Finance (a Paris-based finance watchdog), Public Citizen (U.S. consumer advocacy), Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and grassroots groups on the climate frontlines​. Each year, Insure Our Future releases a detailed Scorecard evaluating the world’s top 30 insurers on their fossil fuel policies​. It “names and shames” laggards and praises leaders, leveraging insurers’ concern for their reputation. The coalition also engages insurers directly with letters, petitions, and shareholder pressure, and it organizes public mobilizations like the Global Week of Action in late February 2024, which saw protests in 31 countries calling out insurers’ ties to fossil fuels​.

Reclaim Finance is a key player providing analysis and advocacy within Insure Our Future. They have published reports exposing insurers’ continued support for fossil projects and inconsistencies in climate commitments. For example, Reclaim Finance helped reveal that while many European insurers claim net-zero goals, some were still insuring controversial projects – spurring campaigns to hold them accountable​. Reclaim Finance’s work, alongside partners like Urgewald in Germany and Solutions For Our Climate in South Korea, has built the case that insuring expansion of coal and oil is incompatible with climate safety. 

​In the US, where insurers lag behind Europe in climate action, groups like Insure Our Future U.S., Rainforest Action Network, and Consumer Watchdog are active. They highlight how firms like AIG and Liberty Mutual continue insuring fossil fuels while raising homeowner premiums due to wildfire and hurricane losses​. Public campaigns, including shareholder resolutions and state-level hearings, have pressured US insurers to make their first-ever restrictions – for instance, Chubb’s 2023 decision to limit oil and gas drilling in certain sensitive areas came after engagement by RAN and others​.

A broad alliance is now working to turn the insurance industry away from backing fossil fuels. The movement has already pushed many leading insurers to exit coal and reconsider oil and gas. Their methods blend insider engagement (talks with insurance executives, investor pressure) and outsider activism (media exposés, rallies and legal petitions).

To date, notable outcomes include commitments from leading European insurers  (Allianz, AXA, Generali, Zurich, and others) to stop underwriting most new coal projects and to begin phasing out oil/gas expansion from their coverage​. Each announcement by a major insurer adds momentum and puts pressure on competitors to follow suit. The campaigners’ endgame is to make insuring any new fossil fuel project as unacceptable in the industry as insuring asbestos or cluster munitions – and they are rapidly moving in that direction. With a growing climate-conscious public behind them, challenging insurance companies represents a potentially high-leverage mechanism for constraining fossil fuel expansion. 

(ii) Why Collaboration Matters​

Groups engaged against fossil fuel companies span the tactical spectrum, from radical direct-action groups to insider advocates. Despite extensive evidence of the benefits of collaboration – amplifying resources, legitimacy and public support (Van Dyke, 2022) – these groups often struggle to work together.

How can those standing seeking to challenge the fossil fuel industry collaborate more effectively?

Case Study of Collaboration: The Anti-fracking Campaign in England 

The anti-fracking campaign in England (2011-2019) offers valuable lessons for other movements opposing fossil fuel expansion. What began as isolated village protests against hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) evolved into a coordinated national movement that pressured the government to impose a fracking moratorium in 2019​.

A wide range of actors united to challenge the nascent shale gas industry in England​: local residents, lifelong activists, the self-styled “anti-fracking nanas”, celebrities, and NGOs. Their tactics were just as diverse and included conventional protest, song and dance, petitions, opposition to planning submissions, insider advocacy, strategic litigation, and civil disobedience and law breaking. 

Despite this wide range of approaches, the campaign was widely praised for its collaborative character. Activists described a “perfect mixture of ingredients” , where different groups worked together towards a shared goal​.

Common challenges in activist coordination–ideological rifts, competition for resources, “Not In My Backyard” localism–were largely overcome by a strong sense of unity. As one participant put it, the movement avoided parochial mindsets by embracing a collective ethos: “We’re all in this together”​. The result was a campaign that not only stopped fracking but also became a “watershed moment” for environmentalists and communities, demonstrating the power of coalition-driven activism​ (Rowell, 2019).

We distil four key strategies employed during the campaign:

1. Activists united around a clear adversary and a common goal

    Nothing unites like a common enemy (Corrigall‐Brown and Meyer, 2010). In the anti-fracking campaign, the presence of a formidable external threat – government-backed shale gas development – was a powerful motivator for disparate groups to pull together​.

    When the UK Government overturned Lancashire County Council’s decision to reject local fracking applications, groups across the spectrum–local residents, NGOs, national networks–united in protest. One campaigner recalled: “I think it always helps to have a common enemy… when you know that the government’s not gonna cut you any favours…you may as well come out strong”. The movement’s narrative became one of ordinary people vs. powerful interests, which fostered solidarity across divides.

    The campaign also united around a concrete objective, a national fracking ban, which groups with varied ideologies could all endorse. Defining the stakes in simple, urgent terms can bring unlikely allies together.

    Once that immediate goal is won (pipeline cancelled, etc.), it is important to be mindful of maintaining this shared purpose. The anti-fracking coalition struggled to remain cohesive, post-victory.

    2. Campaigners invested in relationship-building across difference  

    Social movements today often bring together diverse constituencies–indigenous land defenders, rural landowners, urban climate strikers, scientists, etc. Building trust and solidarity among distinct groups can be crucial. During the anti-fracking campaign, the NGO Friends of the Earth spent time in communities listening to their concerns, holding regular meetings, supporting residents to build campaign strategies, and becoming part of the fabric of local life.

    ​Activists must also often bridge generational, racial, or class divides. The anti-fracking coalition was largely white and rural; newer movements have the opportunity to centre equity and include a wider range of voices.

    Activists should also be prepared to support allies even when the concerns are not directly connected to their own primary issue (for example, climate activists supporting workers likely to be displaced by the net-zero transition). This can strengthen the coalition fabric for when a big fight with fossil fuel interests inevitably comes.

    3. Resource sharing and “leading from behind”

    In the anti-fracking campaign, well-funded green organisations provided resources–funding, legal aid, research, media capacity– to grassroots and frontline groups, and trusted them to manage them, rather than micromanaging.

    Trust-based funding with minimal strings attached can empower local activists and build goodwill. In practical terms, this can mean simplifying grant reporting requirements, offering core support for organising efforts, and being willing to cover unglamorous needs (travel costs, meeting spaces, bail funds) that are vital on the ground​.

    Some larger NGOs use their clout to amplify local voices, rather than speak over them. During the anti-fracking protests in Lancashire, NGOs were credited with providing resources—legal support, funding, media training—without trying to control the direction of the movement. A local activist said NGOs had “done wonders…but they haven’t stepped in to claim credit.”

    The anti-fracking case showed that when locals feel ownership and credit for victories, the coalition stays strong.

    4. Activists prepared for the long haul and guarded against burnout

    The anti-fracking fight lasted many years. Other contemporary fossil fuel battles (like stopping major pipelines) are similarly protracted. NGOs can play a crucial role in sustaining movements over the long term, providing financial resources, staff support, and institutional stability that allow grassroots groups to stay engaged even through periods of fatigue.

    Sustaining a coalition over long periods also requires attention to morale and burnout. A division of labour helps prevent any one group or person from burning out – tasks can rotate, and different groups can step in when others need a rest. Activists are increasingly adopting self-care and collective care practices including debrief circles, counselling for trauma after harsh policing, and rotating spokesperson duties. Celebrating interim wins is also important to maintain momentum.

    The campaign’s ability to re-mobilise quickly in 2022, when fracking was briefly reintroduced, was in part thanks to the infrastructure built over time—including long-standing personal relationships.

    The English anti-fracking campaign highlights the potential of sustained, broad-based collaboration in resisting fossil fuel development. Its effectiveness stemmed not from a singular tactic or constituency, but from the ability of diverse actors to coordinate across differences, share resources, and maintain long-term engagement.

    This raises the question of how more effective coordination might be achieved among actors seeking to challenge fossil fuel interests.

    Access Full Report

    Explore Further

    Share Resource

    Share on LinkedIn

    Topics:

    Collection:

    Tags:

    Format:

    Language:


    © All Rights Reserved

    Contact a Commons librarian if you would like to connect with the author

    Topics