Tactics Used by Fossil Fuel Companies to Suppress Critique and Obstruct Climate Action

Introduction 

Climate activists have often engaged a wide range of tactics in their efforts to bring down fossil fuel emissions and halt climate change. But what about the tactics used by fossil fuel companies to obstruct climate action and suppress critique?

If activists are to stand up against these powerful forces, understanding their strategies and tactics is important.

Drawing on the work of Lacy-Nichols and colleagues (2022), this article explores key methods used by fossil fuel companies to obstruct and suppress critique.

Strategic Areas

Grouping these methods under eight core strategic areas, the article offers insights to any activist trying to fight back against fossil fuel hegemony. 

The fossil fuel obstruction playbook (based on the corporate playbook developed by: Lacy-Nichols et al. 2022):

1. Intimidate and vilify critics and climate protesters 
2. Attack and undermine legitimate science 
3. Frame and reframe the discussion and debate
4. Leverage front groups and camouflage actions 
5. Lobbying and influence the political process
6. Develop corporate alternatives to policies 
7. Deploy corporate social responsibility and partnerships 
8. Regulation and policy avoidance 

1. Intimidate and Vilify Critics and Climate Protesters

Climate and environmental activists globally can face serious tactics of intimidation at the hands of governments and corporations. There are even reported incidents of environmental activists being killed for speaking out about damage caused by industries such as agribusiness, logging and mining (Global Witness, 2019; Greenpeace, 2018). However, even less extreme forms of intimidation can cause harm to climate progress. 

Attempts to vilify opponents can sit at the discursive level, through communications, media releases and public documents shared by the fossil fuel industry. Where climate protesters, scientists and civil society groups may attempt to speak out against the fossil fuel industry, industry officials may likewise attempt to undermine the legitimacy and credibility of these actors.

Focusing on interactions between the coal industry and the divestment movement, Ayling, for example, has described this as a “contest for legitimacy”, where each side attempts to undermine the other’s perceived legitimacy (Ayling, 2017).

The coal industry has particularly focused on undermining the divestment movement’s moral legitimacy. In this way, Ayling describes the way the coal industry has attempted to present the movement as “intentionally deceitful and unethical, and indeed even illegal” (Ayling, 2017).

Using these public communications and media tactics as a way of spreading negative narratives about their opponents is an effective way that the fossil fuel industry can attempt to vilify and undermine climate actors. 

Similarly, the fossil fuel industry has increasingly used lawsuits and legal challenges as an attempt to silence and intimidate climate advocates. Lawsuits do not even need to have legal merit to be an effective means of chilling public participation, such as in the case of SLAPP suits (strategic lawsuits against public participation) (Deming, 2023; Nosek & Higham, 2024).

Fossil fuel companies may file lawsuits simply to tie advocates up in legal processes, resulting in legal fees, huge amounts of time and psychological damage. These SLAPP suits are designed to intimidate activists and make others fearful of participating in climate advocacy (Deming, 2023; Nosek & Higham, 2024). Given the massive imbalance of resources between the fossil fuel industry and climate advocates, these lawsuits can be a powerful means for shutting down legitimate critiques.

Fossil fuel companies might also use their power and influence to lobby the government for criminalisation of protests (Fang, 2019; Greenpeace, 2018; Nosek, 2020). Nosek, for example, has highlighted the influence of fossil fuel industry trade and lobbying organisations on critical infrastructure bills in the United State of America (Nosek, 2020, p. 87). These bills make activists criminally or civilly liable for obstructing “critical infrastructure”. This “critical infrastructure” can include many fossil fuel projects, such as oil pipelines.

By using their political and economic influence to push for this kind of legislation, fossil fuel companies can protect their own interests and shut down legitimate protests at the source of carbon emissions. 

2. Attack and Undermine Legitimate Science

Fostering doubt and maintaining a sense of controversy on matters of climate science can help fossil fuel companies to delay climate action. Where the realities of the climate crisis demand definitive action, fossil fuel industry incumbents attempt to minimise, dismiss, and pour doubt over the general scientific consensus.

Researchers have demonstrated the often deliberate and organised efforts of fossil fuel companies, think tanks and industry associations to attack and undermine legitimate climate science (Beder, 2014; R. J. Brulle, 2021; Dunlap & McCright, 2011; Farrell, 2016; Hudson, 2020). Wight and Nyberg have detailed how the fossil fuel industry moved from narratives of outright denial to those of delay as social expectations and understandings of climate change shifted (Wright & Nyberg, 2021). Brulle has detailed the climate change countermovement’s efforts to spread scientific misinformation in order to “misdirect the public understanding of this issue through the promotion of uncertainty over mainstream climate science” (R. J. Brulle, 2021, p. 604). Similarly, Hudson has described how the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), an Australian-based think tank, has run a “steady stream of articles, opinion pieces and appearances that shift between casting doubt on climate science and predicting enormous negative consequences from mitigation policies” (Hudson, 2020, p. 208). These efforts can stifle any urgency around climate action and make passing strong climate policies more politically challenging. 

Further, these issues can be exacerbated by the presence of fossil fuel interests in higher education and research institutions. As Hiltner and colleagues have reviewed, the fossil fuel industry has many links to higher education, through consulting, acting on governing boards, sponsorships, endowments, and even the leasing of university-owned land for fracking (Hiltner et al., 2024). This intertwining of fossil fuel interests in academic research can cause real and perceived issues of bias (Almond et al., 2022). With poor practices of disclosure, tracking and fully understanding the influence of these university-industry partnerships is difficult (Hiltner et al., 2024). Where fostering doubt and undermining climate science is a clear tactic of obstruction for the fossil fuel industry, these connections between the industry and research institutions are of clear concern.  

3. Frame and Reframe the Discussion and Debate

In addition to outright denial or fostering doubt on climate science, fossil fuel industry insiders may attempt to reframe the issue of climate change to promote narratives that are more favourable to their interests. These often include narratives that maintain the status quo, limit the need for action and endorse industry solutions. These frames can be promoted and spread through public communications, mainstream media, social media, and even through schools as part of what has been referred to as “petro-pedagogy” (E. M. Eaton & Day, 2020).

In the information and data age, censorship no longer needs to resemble the direct repression of information. Instead, powerful actors, such as the fossil fuel industry, are able to flood the public sphere with alternative information, helping to divert attention away from unfavourable narratives (Tufekci, 2017, p. 30). The fossil fuel industry has been using social media, for example, as a powerful tool for spreading narratives that are complementary to their interests (InfluenceMap, 2021).

There has been growing scholarship that has attempted to categorise and analyse the popular frames used by the fossil fuel industry. Some of the core frames that have been identified across the literature include: techno-optimism (Megura & Gunderson, 2022; Wright et al., 2021; Zhang & Zhang, 2024), portraying the fossil fuel industry and essential or necessary (Ayling, 2017; Megura & Gunderson, 2022; Si et al., 2023; Wright et al., 2021), shifting responsibility for action through frames of individualisation or adaptation (InfluenceMap, 2021; Nyberg & Wright, 2024; Supran & Oreskes, 2021), and frames of compliance (Megura & Gunderson, 2022; Zhang & Zhang, 2024).

Techno-Optimism

Techno-optimism refers to the belief that broad social change is not necessary to solve the climate crisis, and technological innovation will provide the necessary solutions, for example carbon capture and storage technology (Megura & Gunderson, 2022). Relying on this frame allows fossil fuel companies to position themselves at the forefront of energy solutions, thus arguing for continued investment in the industry (Wright et al., 2021). When engaging in this frame, fossil fuel companies often downplay the drawbacks and limitations of the technologies they promote (Megura & Gunderson, 2022). 

Essential

Fossil fuel industry communications also often promote the industry as essential and necessary to development, economies and the provision of services. According to Megura, framing fossil fuels as essential allows the industry to justify its existence, despite any harms the industry may cause (Megura & Gunderson, 2022, p. 5).

These narratives also attempt to demonstrate how fossil fuels are essential to climate solutions. Si and colleagues, for example, found that in social media posts, fossil fuel companies, such as Shell, ExxonMobil, BP and TotalEnergies, often linked stories about renewables to the promotion of fossil gas, building a narrative that gas was an important and necessary part of the renewable transition (Si et al., 2023). 

Individualisation and Adaptation 

Pushing the responsibility for bringing down carbon emissions onto individuals and consumers allows fossil fuel companies to eschew much of the industry’s responsibility for climate action. These narratives often play into a “behavioural” reading of energy systems change that has been popular in policy arenas.

This reading emphasises the role of individuals’ behaviours on responding to climate change and sidelines the extent to which governments and corporations create and prevent opportunities and options for change (Shove, 2010). 

In addition to narratives of individualisation, Nyberg and Wright have described how businesses have recently shifted to promoting climate change adaptation initiatives (Nyberg & Wright, 2024). According to the authors, by shifting the focus onto adaptation, governments and businesses alike have been able to uphold fossil fuel hegemony by downplaying the need for emissions reduction and mitigation (Nyberg & Wright, 2024). In both frames of individualisation and adaptation, the emphasis is on shifting responsibility away from how the fossil fuel industry can reduce emissions and focusing instead on individual and community-level responsibility for emissions reduction and adaptation programs. 

Compliance 

Another core way the fossil fuel industry attempts to reframe the debate is by focusing attention on how the industry is compliant with various regulations, codes and policies. This in turn shifts attention away from the unsustainable aspects of the industry, instead promoting an idea of ethical and environmentally responsible corporations. However, as Megura and Gunderson argue, this form of greenwashing “conceals any harm done in the past, as well as the harm that still occurs even when regulations are met… The industry is portrayed in a more positive light than it deserves, which may appease the worries of its shareholders” (Megura & Gunderson, 2022, p. 8). In this way, the fossil fuel industry is able to build a narrative of an industry that complies with regulations and minimise narratives of the harm they may cause. 

4. Leverage Front Groups and Camouflage Actions 

Reframing the discussion on fossil fuels is much more effective if it appears that these favourable narratives are coming from diverse and independent voices. One tactic for achieving this is by funding front groups to share and promote the same agendas. Fossil fuel companies and trade associations have been found to spend millions of dollars funding think tanks, front groups, and civic foundations (Beder, 2014; R. Brulle & Downie, 2022). These fossil-fuel funded think tanks and organisations then go on to spread misinformation and narratives of climate change scepticism, while maintaining an appearance of independence (Beder, 2014). This helps to keep favourable narratives in the public sphere by pushing them from multiple sources. 

Within this range of tactics is the practice of astroturfing, where corporations will sponsor fake grassroots organisations, which are designed to appear as though they are representing everyday citizens (Beder, 1998; Cho et al., 2011; Keller et al., 2020). These practices can rely on social media as well, setting up fake accounts and driving up engagement on particular topics to give the appearance of a coordinated grassroots movement (Chan, 2024; Keller et al., 2020; Kinder, 2024). While carefully masked behind local community concerns, following the funding and membership of these groups can demonstrate the presence of vested interests.   

There has also been some research in recent years into the role of the largely obscure “Atlas Network” in funding and coordinating think tanks around the world (Graham, 2024; Walker, 2023). The Atlas Network exists as a massive umbrella organisation that coordinates 515 think tanks and research institutes across 99 countries, including those in Australia such as the Institute of Public Affairs (Walker, 2023).

Scholars have traced the history of the Atlas Network, demonstrating the deep connection and joint memberships between Atlas Network think tanks and the fossil fuel industry, and particularly how these Atlas funded think tanks have been responsible for spreading climate denial and pro-fossil fuel narratives (Graham, 2024; Walker, 2023). As Walker describes of this vast network: 

Each thinktank is designed to generate a constant flow of easily read outputs, duly amplified by aligned media to influence public opinion and shape government policy. Flooding the public sphere with constantly repackaged ‘opinion’ pieces, ‘research’ papers, submissions to government inquiries, Facebook memes and shock-jock outrage… (Walker, 2023, pp. 111–112)

Ultimately, these funding networks help to camouflage the actions of vested interests, pushing pro-fossil fuel narratives into the public sphere from multiple avenues. 

5. Lobbying and Influence the Political Process

Fossil fuel companies regularly attempt to influence the political process in order to control policy outcomes.

There is extensive scholarship on the role of lobbying in fossil fuel obstructionism (Balková, 2020; Beder, 2014; Böhler et al., 2022; R. J. Brulle, 2018; Daub et al., 2021; Fang, 2019; Graham et al., 2020; Meng & Rode, 2019; Rocchi, 2022; Scott, 2018; Sherrill, 2013; Stoddard et al., 2021).

Lobbying is a tactic where private firms attempt to influence public office holders on issues of legislation, regulations and policies. Effective lobbying means that policy makers are hearing pro-fossil fuel frames more regularly, ensuring that these frames are easily at hand when policy decisions are made (Drutman, 2015, p. 36).

Researchers have traced the influence of lobbying on various pieces of local, national and international climate policy, for example emissions trading policies (Beder, 2014; Meng & Rode, 2019), Australia’s “Future Gas Strategy” (InfluenceMap, 2024), and the Paris Agreement (Stoddard et al., 2021, p. 662). However, Brulle is careful to point out that even within the same industry, different organisations will have different lobbying positions, with variation between narratives pushed in the policy arena (R. J. Brulle, 2018). 

Increased lobbying can lead to state and regulatory capture, where regulators are influenced and guided by the very industries they are supposed to be regulating. This can even take the form of closed-door joint policy making by governments and industry, where industry officials are given extraordinary access to consultation and feedback on policy as it is being created (Daub et al., 2021). Particularly where these processes lack transparency, public confidence in climate policy can be reduced.

Scholars have also noted the role of a “revolving door” between the fossil fuel industry and government administrations in promoting fossil fuel interests in public policy (Kevin, 2017; Lucas, 2018; van Apeldoorn & de Graaff, 2012). This revolving door or “golden escalator” refers to the movement of staff between government positions and the fossil fuel industry. This might involve fossil fuel industry players moving into political staffer or bureaucratic roles, or former staffers, bureaucrats and ministers moving into corporate positions within the industry (Kevin, 2017; Lucas, 2018; van Apeldoorn & de Graaff, 2012). These personal and professional ties between the industry and governments can cause serious issues of regulatory bias in favour of fossil fuel interests.

6. Develop Corporate Alternatives to Policies 

As popular understandings of climate change have increased, fossil fuel companies have needed to move their position from outright denial of climate change to keep up with community and investor expectations. It is often no longer enough to ignore or deny climate change, instead companies have needed to create the appearance of action.

Integral to this tactic is companies creating self-regulation, internal climate policies and voluntary codes of conduct, for example voluntary net zero goals, that help to placate investors and critics while pushing off attempts at real government regulation (Ekberg et al., 2022, p. 34; Wright & Nyberg, 2015, p. 85). In this way they aim to appear as model corporate climate citizens, without having to commit to more concrete actions. Nyberg and Wright have called this a tactic of ‘predatory delay’ in which “the fossil fuel industry seeks to slow the process of decarbonisation to maximise their financial returns in the short term while appearing as concerned corporate citizens” (Wright & Nyberg, 2021, p. 119). In this way, companies can continue to prioritise profitability and shareholder returns. 

This in turn allows corporations to promote ideas of green capitalism and market-based solutions to the climate crisis. In these scenarios, the government moves from the role of regulator into one of facilitating and supporting companies in their pursuit of green capitalism (Wright & Nyberg, 2015, p. 87). This creates win-win narratives, where companies and governments can continue to pursue endless growth, push off effective decarbonisation, all while maintaining the image of climate action. 

7. Deploy Corporate Social Responsibility and Partnerships 

Fossil fuel companies often use corporate partnerships and sponsorships to maintain their social licence to operate. Sponsoring sports, arts and cultural institutions allows the fossil fuel companies to link their brands to key cultural and social pillars and create positive brand images (Morgan et al., 2023). This has sometimes popularly been known as “sportswashing” or “artswashing”. 

There are different forms this practice might take. Eaton and Enoch distinguish between strategic philanthropy, where fossil fuel companies will give out funding in order to achieve specific business-related goals, and community engagement, where fossil fuel companies attempt to build relationships with community stakeholders (E. Eaton & Enoch, 2021, p. 312). 

These sponsorships result in an exchange of financial capital for symbolic capital, which can result in the commercialisation of “intangible associations, values and meanings” (Motion, 2017, p. 729). This is what Eaton and Enoch call “hegemonic community economic identity”, where companies tap into shared social values, experiences and identities, entangling their company into the social fabric of a community (E. Eaton & Enoch, 2021, pp. 312–313). This can mean that community members begin to relate to these companies, connecting their own identities and values with those of the company, even helping to protect them from criticism. 

Where public funding can be limited for arts and cultural institutions, accepting fossil fuel sponsorships can be tempting. Although, as pointed out in a report by the Climate Council, when teams and organisations divest from sponsorship, funding gaps can be filled by governments, and similar arguments about the financial necessity of tobacco sponsorships have not held up since they ended (Morgan et al., 2023, pp. 26–27). 

8. Regulation and Policy Avoidance  

Companies are also using international legal pathways to avoid and obstruct regulation. Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses, for example, are clauses found in investment treaties that allow foreign investors to sue states for taking particular actions or enacting regulations that might impact their investments. Increasingly investor state dispute settlements are being used by fossil fuel companies against environmental and climate legislation (Tienhaara 2018; Di Salvatore 2021; Preston and Butler 2024; Tienhaara et al. 2023).

In Australia, for example, Clive Palmer’s Zeph Investments has brought two ISDS claims totalling $341.3 billion against Australia about coal exploration permits in Queensland and a mining lease in Western Australia (Parliament of Australia, Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth 2024, 57). These actions have the potential to chill domestic climate regulations, even where the claims are not successful (Tienhaara 2018). 

Conclusion

Fossil fuel companies have used a massive array of strategies and tactics to obstruct climate action and suppress valid critique. The financial, political and social power of these companies has meant that many of these tactics have been highly effective, helping to maintain fossil fuel hegemony.

These companies have vilified critics, poured doubt over legitimate science, pushed out pro-fossil fuel frames from multiple sources, lobbied political decision-makers, greenwashed their internal climate policies, embedded themselves in our cultural institutions, and used legal loopholes to avoid and obstruct climate regulations. But the more we understand the tactics these companies are using, the better equipped we are to fight back.

As well as detailing examples of the tactics in action, this article has offered some ideas for pushing back against fossil fuel hegemony and corporate power. Activists across the world have already been claiming powerful wins for the climate, and there’s no doubt we’ll continue to do so. 

References

ABC Four Corners. 2006. “The Greenhouse Mafia.” ABC News. February 13, 2006. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2006-02-13/the-greenhouse-mafia/8953566.

Almond, D., Du, X., & Papp, A. (2022). Favourability towards natural gas relates to funding source of university energy centres. Nature Climate Change, 12(12), 1122–1128. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01521-3

Australian Conservation Foundation. 2024. “Woodsides Net Zero Claims Unpacked.” 2024. https://www.acf.org.au/woodsides-net-zero-claims-unpacked.

Australian Democracy Network. 2022. “Confronting State Capture.” https://australiandemocracy.org.au/statecapture.

Ayling, J. (2017). A Contest for Legitimacy: The Divestment Movement and the Fossil Fuel Industry. Law & Policy, 39(4), 349–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12087

Balková, T. (2020). Fossil Fuels Lobby and Climate Change: Influencing the Discourse in Politics and Media. https://dspace.cuni.cz/handle/20.500.11956/119216

Beder, S. (1998). Public relations’ role in manufacturing artificial grass roots coalitions—ProQuest. Public Relations Quarterly, 43(2), 20–23.

Beder, S. (2014). Lobbying, greenwash and deliberate confusion: How vested interests undermine climate change. https://ro.uow.edu.au/lhapapers/1972/

Böhler, H., Hanegraaff, M., & Schulze, K. (2022). Does climate advocacy matter? The importance of competing interest groups for national climate policies. Climate Policy, 22(8), 961–975. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2022.2036089

Brulle, R., & Downie, C. (2022). Following the money: Trade associations, political activity and climate change. Climatic Change, 175(3–4), 11-. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03466-0

Brulle, R. J. (2018). The climate lobby: A sectoral analysis of lobbying spending on climate change in the USA, 2000 to 2016. Climatic Change, 149(3), 289–303.

Brulle, R. J. (2021). Networks of Opposition: A Structural Analysis of U.S. Climate Change Countermovement Coalitions 1989–2015. Sociological Inquiry, 91(3), 603–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12333

Burke, Kelly. 2024. “Woodside Cuts All Ties with Perth’s Fringe World Festival after Years of Environmental Protests.” The Guardian, January 3, 2024, sec. Culture. https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2024/jan/03/woodside-cuts-all-ties-with-perths-fringe-world-festival-after-years-of-environmental-protests.

Burton, Jesinta. 2024. “WA Symphony Orchestra Silent on Woodside Alliance as Deal Expires.” WAtoday. January 16, 2024. https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/wa-symphony-orchestra-silent-on-woodside-alliance-as-deal-expires-20240111-p5ewnf.html.

Chan, J. (2024). Online astroturfing: A problem beyond disinformation. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 50(3), 507–528. https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537221108467

Cho, C. H., Martens, M. L., Kim, H., & Rodrigue, M. (2011). Astroturfing Global Warming: It Isn’t Always Greener on the Other Side of the Fence. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(4), 571–587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0950-6

Climate Council. 2023. “What Is Carbon Capture and Storage?” Climate Council. February 8, 2023. https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/what-is-carbon-capture-and-storage/.

Daggett, C. (2018). Petro-masculinity: Fossil Fuels and Authoritarian Desire. Millennium, 47(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829818775817

Daub, S., Ejeckam, C., Graham, N., & Yunker, Z. (2021). “Doing Things Better Together” Industry capture of climate policy in British Columbia. In W. K. Carroll (Ed.), Regime of Obstruction: How corporate power blocks energy democracy (pp. 249–271). Athabasca University Press.

Deming, R. E. (2023). The Big Chill: Are Public Participation Rights Being Slapp-Ed? Pace Environmental Law Review, 40(2), 315. https://doi.org/10.58948/0738-6206.1871

Di Salvatore, Lea. 2021. “Investor-State Disputes in the Fossil Fuel Industry.” International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29949.08168.

Drutman, L. (2015). The Business of America is Lobbying: How Corporations Became Politicized and Politics Became More Corporate (First edition.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190215514.001.0001

Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2011). Organized climate change denial. The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, 1, 144–160.

Eaton, E., & Enoch, S. (2021). The Oil Industry is Us: Hegemonic community economic identity in Saskatchewan’s Oil Patch. In W. K. Carroll (Ed.), Regime of Obstruction: How corporate power blocks energy democracy (pp. 307–330). Athabasca University Press.

Eaton, E. M., & Day, N. A. (2020). Petro-pedagogy: Fossil fuel interests and the obstruction of climate justice in public education. Environmental Education Research, 26(4), 457–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1650164

Ekberg, K., Forchtner, B., Hultman, M., & Jylhä, K. M. (2022). Climate Obstruction: How Denial, Delay and Inaction Are Heating the Planet. Taylor & Francis Group. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rmit/detail.action?docID=7130664

Fang, L. (2019, August 19). Oil Lobbyist Touts Success in Effort to Criminalize Pipeline Protests, Leaked Recording Shows. The Intercept. https://theintercept.com/2019/08/19/oil-lobby-pipeline-protests/

Farrell, J. (2016). Network structure and influence of the climate change counter-movement. Nature Climate Change, 6(4), 370–374. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2875

GetUp! 2024. “Pro-Nuclear Disinformation in Australia: Disinformation Analysis Research Report.” https://cdn.getup.org.au/2979-Pro-Nuclear_Disinformation_in_Australia_Final_Nov_2024.pdf.

Global Witness. (2019). Enemies of the State? How governments and business silence land and environmental defenders. https://www.globalwitness.org/documents/19766/Enemies_of_the_State.pdf

Graham, N. (2024). Think tanks and climate obstruction: Atlas affiliates in Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue Canadienne de Sociologie, 61(2), 110–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/cars.12467

Graham, N., Carroll, W. K., & Chen, D. (2020). Carbon capital’s political reach: A network analysis of federal lobbying by the fossil fuel industry from Harper To Trudeau. Canadian Political Science Review, 14(1), 1–31.

Greenpeace. (2018). Too Far Too Often Energy Transfer Partners’ Corporate Behavior On Human Rights, Free Speech, and the Environment. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/9122696a-toofar-toooften-web-mech-6.18.pdf

Grieve, Charlotte. 2022. “Woodside Contradicts CSIRO Report Debunking Key Climate Claims.” The Sydney Morning Herald. March 20, 2022. https://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/woodside-contradicts-csiro-report-debunking-key-climate-claims-20220307-p5a2d5.html.

Guenther, G. (2024). The Language of Climate Politics: Fossil-Fuel Propaganda and How to Fight It. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197642238.001.0001

Hiltner, S., Eaton, E., Healy, N., Scerri, A., Stephens, J. C., & Supran, G. (2024). Fossil fuel industry influence in higher education: A review and a research agenda. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.904

Hudson, M. (2020). Enacted Inertia: Australian Fossil Fuel Incumbents’ Strategies to Undermine Challengers. In The Palgrave Handbook of Managing Fossil Fuels and Energy Transitions (pp. 195–222). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28076-5_8

Human Rights Law Centre. 2024. “Stop the SLAPP: Protecting Free Speech in Australia.” https://www.hrlc.org.au/reports-news-commentary/2024/12/5/stop-the-slapp.

InfluenceMap. 2024. “Capacity Investment Scheme (2023-2024).” 2024. https://australia.influencemap.org/policy/Capacity-Investment-Mechanism-2023-2024-2832.

InfluenceMap. (2021). Climate Change and Digital Advertising: The Oil & Gas Sector’s Digital Advertising Strategy.

InfluenceMap. (2024). Australia’s Future Gas Strategy: Corporate Advocacy and Industry Narratives. https://influencemap.org/briefing/Australia-Future-Gas-Strategy-26628

InfluenceMap. 2024. “Capacity Investment Scheme (2023-2024).” 2024. https://australia.influencemap.org/policy/Capacity-Investment-Mechanism-2023-2024-2832.

InfluenceMap. 2024. “Corporate Climate Policy Engagement in Australia.” 2024. https://influencemap.org/briefing/Corporate-Climate-Policy-Engagement-in-Australia-26243.

Keller, F. B., Schoch, D., Stier, S., & Yang, J. (2020). Political Astroturfing on Twitter: How to Coordinate a Disinformation Campaign. Political Communication, 37(2), 256–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1661888

Kevin, T. (2017). Oil’s Deep State: How the petroleum industry undermines democracy and stops action on global warming – in Alberta, and in Ottawa. James Lorimer & Company.

Kinder, J. B. (2024). Petroturfing: Refining Canadian Oil through Social Media (1st ed.). University of Minnesota Press.

Knaus, Christopher. 2019. “Revealed: Glencore Bankrolled Covert Campaign to Prop up Coal.” The Guardian, March 6, 2019, sec. Business. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/07/revealed-glencore-bankrolled-covert-campaign-to-prop-up-coal.

Lacy-Nichols, Jennifer, Robert Marten, Eric Crosbie, and Rob Moodie. 2022. “The Public Health Playbook: Ideas for Challenging the Corporate Playbook.” The Lancet Global Health 10 (7): e1067–72.

Letourneau, A., Davidson, D., Karsgaard, C., & Ivanova, D. (2024). Proud fathers and fossil fuels: Gendered identities and climate obstruction. Environmental Politics, 33(4), 678–698. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2023.2274271

Lucas, A. (2018, March 5). Revealed: The extent of job-swapping between public servants and fossil fuel lobbyists. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/revealed-the-extent-of-job-swapping-between-public-servants-and-fossil-fuel-lobbyists-88695

Megura, M., & Gunderson, R. (2022). Better poison is the cure? Critically examining fossil fuel companies, climate change framing, and corporate sustainability reports. Energy Research & Social Science, 85, 102388.

Meng, K. C., & Rode, A. (2019). The social cost of lobbying over climate policy. Nature Climate Change, 9(6), 472–476.

Mercer, Daniel. 2024. “The Carbon Capture Facility at Chevron’s WA Project Tells a Cautionary Tale.” ABC News, November 17, 2024. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-18/chevron-gorgon-fails-to-deliver-on-carbon-capture-promises/104587894.

Morgan, A., Nimphius, S., Stewart, G., Rayner, J., Croucher, A., & Bradshaw, S. (2023). Calling Time: How to remove fossil fuel sponsorships from sports, arts and events. Climate Council of Australia. https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/CC_MVSA0356-CC-Report-Fossil-Fuel-Free-Sponsorship-Code_V5-FA-Screen-Single.pdf

Morton, Adam. 2023. “Emissions from WA Gas Project with World’s Largest Industrial Carbon Capture System Rise by More than 50%.” The Guardian, April 20, 2023, sec. Environment. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/21/emissions-wa-gas-project-chevron-carbon-capture-system-pilbara-coast.

Motion, J. (2017). Undoing art and oil: An environmental tale of sponsorship, cultural justice and climate change controversy. Environmental Politics, 28(4), 727–746. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2017.1416904

Nosek, G. (2020). The fossil fuel industry’s push to target climate protesters in the US. Pace Envtl. L. Rev., 38, 53.

Nosek, G., & Higham, C. (2024). Climate activism and criminal litigation: Whose case is it anyway? In Research Handbook on Climate Change Litigation (pp. 145–163). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/book/9781800889781/book-part-9781800889781-14.xml

Nyberg, D., & Wright, C. (2024). Defending hegemony: From climate change mitigation to adaptation on the Great Barrier Reef. Organization, 31(2), 247–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084221115836

Parliament of Australia, Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth. 2024. “Strengthening Australia’s Approach to Trade Negotiations.” Text. Canberra, ACT. Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Joint_Standing_Committee_on_Trade_and_Investment_Growth/Approachtotrade/Report.

Preston, Brian J, and Kate Butler. 2024. “Investor–State Dispute Settlement in Natural Resources, Energy and Environmental Cases.” Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law 42 (4).

Readfearn, Graham. 2024. “The Claim of a $600bn Carbon Capture Windfall for Australia Is Based on Heroic Assumptions and Selective Analysis.” The Guardian, May 23, 2024. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/22/australia-60bn-carbon-capture-ccs-windfall-claim-aep.

Rocchi, C. (2022). Climate protagonists?: Strategic misrepresentation and corporate resistance to climate legislation. Stanford Law Review, 74(5), 1153–1198.

Scott, J. C. (2018). Lobbying and society: A political sociology of interest groups. John Wiley & Sons. https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=22J2DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT4&dq=Lobbying+and+Society:+A+Political+Sociology+of+Interest+Groups.&ots=E7zMi1VwBc&sig=IilJtLIl4w0-LBmTZCXfkslbgpg

Sherrill, A. (2013). Lobbying and Environmental Policy: Why the Fossil Fuel Industry is so Successful. https://aura.american.edu/articles/educational_resource/Lobbying_and_Environmental_Policy/23833746/1/files/41818269.pdf

Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: Climate Change Policy and Theories of Social Change. Environment and Planning. A, 42(6), 1273–1285. https://doi.org/10.1068/a42282

Si, Y., Desai, D., Bozhilova, D., Puffer, S., & Stephens, J. C. (2023). Fossil fuel companies’ climate communication strategies: Industry messaging on renewables and natural gas. Energy Research & Social Science, 98, 103028.

Slezak, Michael. 2024a. “Lawyers for Tiwi Island Group That Tried to Block Gas Project Ordered to Pay $9 Million to Santos.” ABC News, November 28, 2024. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-28/environmental-defenders-office-ordered-to-pay-santos-legal-fees/104659990.

———. 2024b. “Santos Uses New Tactic to Fight Climate Change Movement after Traditional Owners Lose Court Challenge against Barossa Gas Project.” ABC News, June 2024. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-30/santos-tiwi-islands-barossa-traditional-owners-legal-fight/104025414.

Stoddard, I., Anderson, K., Capstick, S., Carton, W., Depledge, J., Facer, K., Gough, C., Hache, F., Hoolohan, C., Hultman, M., Hällström, N., Kartha, S., Klinsky, S., Kuchler, M., Lövbrand, E., Nasiritousi, N., Newell, P., Peters, G. P., Sokona, Y., … Williams, M. (2021). Three Decades of Climate Mitigation: Why Haven’t We Bent the Global Emissions Curve? Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 46(1), 653–689. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-011104

Supran, G., & Oreskes, N. (2021). Rhetoric and frame analysis of ExxonMobil’s climate change communications. One Earth, 4(5), 696–719.

Tienhaara, Kyla. 2018. “Regulatory Chill in a Warming World: The Threat to Climate Policy Posed by Investor-State Dispute Settlement.” Transnational Environmental Law 7 (2): 229–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102517000309.

Tienhaara, Kyla, Rachel Thrasher, B. Alexander Simmons, and Kevin P. Gallagher. 2023. “Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Obstructing a Just Energy Transition.” Climate Policy 23 (9).

Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300228175

van Apeldoorn, B., & de Graaff, N. (2012). The Limits of Open Door Imperialism and the US State-Capital Nexus. Globalizations, 9(4), 593–608. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2012.699937

Walker, J. (2023). Silencing the Voice: The fossil-fuelled Atlas Network’s Campaign against Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australia. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.5130/ccs.v15.i2.8813

Wright, C., & Nyberg, D. (2015). Climate Change, Capitalism, and Corporations: Processes of Creative Self-Destruction. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139939676

Wright, C., & Nyberg, D. (2021). 9. The Mobilisation of Extractivism: The Social and Political Influence of the Fossil Fuel Industry. Open Book Publishers.

Wright, C., Nyberg, D., & Bowden, V. (2021). Beyond the discourse of denial: The reproduction of fossil fuel hegemony in Australia. Energy Research & Social Science, 77, 102094.

Zhang, Y., & Zhang, J. (2024). Climate Change as Represented in Corporate Social Responsibility Reports of American and Chinese Energy Giants: A Critical Frame Analysis Perspective. International Journal of Business Communication, 61(2), 414–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884231208176

Explore Further

• Australian Campaign Case Study: Divestment Campaign 2013 – 2021
• A Strategy for Climate Insurgency
• How Disruptive Climate Campaigners use Social Media
• How Disruptive Climate Campaigners use Mainstream Media
• Ingredients for Wins: Lessons from Successful Climate Justice Campaigns in North America
• Power and Agency: Lessons from Ten years of Climate Campaigning
• Climate Activists in Australia are Learning How to Protect their Protest Rights