A host of parliamentarians were previously employed by agencies with fossil fuel clients.
At least 24 newly elected MPs used to work for public relations, consultancy and lobbying firms that have a history of representing oil and gas companies, DeSmog can reveal.
A DeSmog analysis of the MPs entering Parliament after the 2024 general election found that two dozen had a background working for oil and gas giants, coal power station conglomerates, as well as other highly polluting clients.
The findings have sparked concerns that fossil fuel interests in Parliament may influence policy-making.
“I entered politics after working as an engineer in the renewables industry exactly because I could see we had the technology to make the transition to clean and green energy, but we were lacking the political will to make it happen,” said Green Party co-leader and Bristol Central MP Carla Denyer.
“Part of what stops this transition from occurring is the embedded influence of the fossil fuels industry in politics.”
Labour’s new Ossett and Denby Dale MP Jade Botterill started working at lobbying firm Portland after her parliamentary candidacy was announced in September 2023. Portland’s clients include oil major BP, French energy firm EDF, Heathrow Airport, and Chinese state-owned oil company CNOOC. Another Labour MP – Laura Kyrke-Smith – worked for Portland several years ago. She told DeSmog that she didn’t represent any oil firms while working for the company.
Portland told DeSmog that they “do not comment on client relationships”.
At least three new Labour MPs – Oliver Ryan, Mary Creagh, and Steve Race – previously worked for Lexington Communications, a lobbying firm that works for oil giant Phillips 66, the International Airlines Group (IAG), and Eren Holding, a firm that runs coal-fired power stations in Turkey.
New Conservative MP for Bromsgrove Bradley Thomas spent at least five years working for Phillips 66, latterly as a strategy lead, before becoming an independent consultant to the sector.
Almost a third of Labour’s new MPs have a background working in communications and lobbying, according to the Sunday Times, a similar share to the Conservatives. Due to the UK’s limited transparency rules around lobbying, it’s often impossible to know whether these individuals worked on behalf of oil and gas clients.
However, we do know that several other major lobbying and consultancy firms with fossil fuel links – in addition to Lexington and Portland – used to employ a number of new MPs. These include:
Teneo (clients include BHP, Centrica, and EnQuest)
Four Communications emphasised that its work for the Oman Oil Company ended in 2019, though the firm also has offices in the petrostates United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia.
In June 2024, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said that PR agencies had “aided and abetted” the fossil fuel industry, “acting as enablers to planetary destruction”. He called on these agencies to stop taking on new fossil fuel clients, and to set out plans to drop their existing ones.
“Fossil fuels are not only poisoning our planet – they’re toxic for your brand,” he said.
All the MPs named in this article were approached for comment.
Gas Lobbyists and Energy Consultants
Several new MPs have also worked for much smaller groups with links to the energy industry. This includes Labour’s new Cannock Chase MP Josh Newbury, who between 2019 and 2022 worked as senior parliamentary officer for the Energy and Utilities Alliance (EUA) – a trade group for the gas industry and fossil fuel boiler manufacturers.
DeSmog revealed in 2023 that the EUA, which is led by former Labour MP Mike Foster, was behind a barrage of negative press attacking heat pumps as a home heating source. Foster has repeatedly labelled pro-heat pump campaigners as a “green cult”.
New Liberal Democrat MP for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire Ian Sollom worked as the principal of StrategicFit, an energy sector strategic consultancy that has worked for the oil major ExxonMobil, and the Chinese state oil firm CNOOC.
Sollom told DeSmog that “as a scientist entering Parliament, I am committed to the phasing out of fossil fuels, and my previous career primarily focused on improving decision making and collaboration between energy companies, regulators and other stakeholders”.
Liberal Democrat MP for Cheltenham Max Wilkinson used to work for Camargue, which lobbied politicians in Westminster on behalf of the oil company Esso while he was employed by the firm.
A spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats stressed that Wilkinson did not work for any oil and gas clients.
Fossil fuel companies have extensive existing ties to Westminster politics. DeSmog revealed that, from the 2019 general election to the start of the 2024 election campaign, the Conservative Party received £8.4 million from oil and gas interests, climate science deniers, and polluting industries.
Meanwhile, a number of leading right-wing think tanks have received direct funding from the fossil fuel industry. Onward, which hosted the most government meetings of any think tank in 2023, receives funding from Shell and BP.
All the agencies named in this article were approached for comment.
Extinction Rebellion protests at BP London. Banner reads big profits before planet
“The world can no longer afford fossil fuel companies putting short-term profits above people and planet.”
The London-based oil giant BP announced Tuesday that it hauled in $2.8 billion in profit during the second quarter of the year as the world faced the consequences of the fossil fuel industry’s business model in the form of record-shattering heat, devastating wildfires, and other weather extremes.
The company’s second-quarter profit surpassed analysts’ expectations and brought its total profit for the first half of 2024 to $5.5 billion. BP on Tuesday also announced a 10% dividend increase, an expansion of its stock buyback program, and a green light for a new drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico, even as international scientists say any new fossil fuel production is incompatible with critical warming targets set out by the Paris climate accord.
BP said that once completed, the new floating platform would have the capacity to produce 80,000 barrels of crude oil daily.
Chiara Liguori, Oxfam Great Britain’s senior climate justice policy adviser, said in a statement that “the world can no longer afford fossil fuel companies putting short-term profits above people and planet.”
“It is inexcusable that BP, one of the world’s most polluting and profitable fossil fuel companies, continues to rake in billions of pounds while low-income countries are in urgent need of funds to tackle the devastating impacts of the climate crisis despite doing the least to cause it,” said Liguori. “The costs of inaction are already here with deadly heat waves, wildfires, flooding, and drought, but it is people living in poverty who are left paying the highest price.”
BP’s profit report came weeks after the company, now under the leadership of CEO Murray Auchincloss, announced it would pause new offshore wind projects and put fresh “emphasis on oil and gas amid investor discontent over its energy transition strategy,” as Reuters reported last month. The move came over a year after the company rolled back its plan to curtail oil and gas production.
Extreme weather driven by the burning of fossil fuels, meanwhile, continued to wreak havoc across the globe.
“By the end of the week—which saw the four hottest days ever observed by scientists—dozens had been killed in the raging floodwaters and massive mudslides triggered by Typhoon Gaemi,” Kaplan continued. “Half of Jasper was reduced to ash. And about 3.6 billion people around the planet had endured temperatures that would have been exceedingly rare in a world without burning fossil fuels and other human activities, according to an analysis by scientists at the group Climate Central.”
Izzie McIntosh, a climate campaigner at the United Kingdom-based advocacy group Global Justice Now, said Tuesday that BP’s “mammoth profits” come “at the expense of our climate, communities, and the Global South facing the most brutal impacts of a climate crisis they did not cause.”
“Labour has made some promising signals about a move toward green energy—it now needs to throw its weight behind tackling the rampant profiteering of oil and gas companies,” McIntosh said of the newly elected U.K. government. “It can do this by introducing a windfall tax and other measures to fund the U.K.’s contribution to a globally just fossil fuel phaseout that works for workers and communities in the U.K. and around the world.”
Far-right industry allies with ties to Chevron have mounted an “unprecedented” pressure campaign calling on the Supreme Court to stop a potentially historic climate deception lawsuit against oil majors from going to trial. Graphic design by Tess Abbot
Fossil fuel interests are deploying unprecedented strategies to hide evidence of companies’ deception and block liability lawsuits before they reach trial.
This article by ExxonKnews is published here as part of the global journalism collaboration Covering Climate Now.
In the face of mounting scrutiny from local, state, and federal officials, fossil fuel companies and their allies are deploying a range of tactics to obstruct ongoing lawsuits and investigations concerning evidence that the industry has misled the public about the harms it knew its products would cause to the climate, environment, and human health.
Far-right industry allies with ties to Chevron have mounted an “unprecedented” pressure campaign calling on the Supreme Court to stop a potentially historic climate deception lawsuit against oil majors from going to trial. Republican attorneys general are separately urging the Supreme Court to throw out similar climate fraud lawsuits from five states. Plastics industry trade associations are suing the California state attorney general’s office to block an investigation into whether oil companies lied about plastic recycling. And fossil fuel giants and their trade groups have responded to congressional subpoenas with highly redacted records and “baseless” First Amendment legal defenses.
“I think we’re seeing an escalation by the industry to do anything it can to avoid being held accountable for the consequences of climate change,” said Lisa Graves, executive director of investigative watchdog group True North Research and an expert on dark money special interest groups. “It continues to try to thwart efforts to try to mitigate climate change and it continues to try to stop efforts to get any compensation for the harms it has caused, not just through the burning of fossil fuels but also by the delay and deceit that it has promoted through front groups.”
State and local climate lawsuits, which accuse oil and gas majors of lying about the dangers of fossil fuels and seek to hold them accountable for the resulting damages, are advancing in state courts despite the industry’s efforts. Most recently, a Colorado judge denied nearly all motions by ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy to dismiss the City and County of Boulder’s case against them.
It’s the fifth time to date that a court has rejected Big Oil’s efforts to dismiss climate accountability lawsuits — bringing the companies closer to facing trial and potentially billions of dollars in liability. If any of the cases go to trial, said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, “it will shine a very harsh light on the fossil fuel companies and it could lead to crushing monetary judgments.”
“Clearly the defendants here are using everything they can think of to derail these cases,” Gerrard said. That attitude has been most evident in Big Oil’s response to a lawsuit from Honolulu, which could be among the first communities to put the companies on trial.
In February, oil company defendants — including Exxon, Chevron, BP, and Shell — petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Hawai‘i state Supreme Court ruling that allowed Honolulu’s case to move toward trial. The case, the companies argued in their petition, is preempted by federal law and should be dismissed.
But after traditional legal arguments have failed to shield the industry to date, allies seem to be turning to more extreme and novel measures.
Leonard Leo to the Rescue?
In the weeks and months before the Supreme Court was scheduled to hear Big Oil’s petition in Honolulu’s lawsuit, a flood of social media ads and op-eds called for the Supreme Court justices to take up — and throw out — the case.
“To end this nuisance charade, the Supreme Court needs to take up the Honolulu case and declare once and for all that public nuisance is for local issues, not global climate change,” reads the narrator of one such video ad posted to X.
The name behind that ad, the Alliance for Consumers, is part of an organization called the Concord Fund, formerly known as the Judicial Crisis Network. Those groups, Graves and others have pointed out, are projects of billionaire Leonard Leo, head of the far-right legal advocacy group the Federalist Society and known as the architect of the current Supreme Court. CRC Advisors — one of the Leo-backed companies in the effort — appears to have had Chevron, a defendant in Honolulu’s case, as a client.
The fossil fuel industry also helped fund the Federalist Society, and partners at major law firms representing oil and gas companies — including Theodore Olson of Gibson Dunn,the law firm representing Chevron against Honolulu and other communities’ climate liability cases — sit on its board.
Former Hawai‘i Supreme Court Justice Michael Wilson, who served on the state’s highest court for a decade, called the pressure campaign targeting the Supreme Court a “powerful intervention” by “the strongest special interest group in the history of human civilization.”
“This is the most important case in the United States from the point of view that it will allow a jury of citizens to see the fraud and to decide what to do about it,” said Wilson. “This is a high-risk strategy that shows that the fossil fuel industry is desperate.”
Oil companies, which quietly funded front groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to sow climate denial and oppose climate action on their behalf, are now rallying their allies and benefactors to strike at lawsuits that seek to hold them accountable, explained Graves. In April, 20 Republican attorneys general filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the oil companies’ petition.
“The Leo-tied groups are a soup-to-nuts intervention machine, from the Republican attorneys general to the judges he helped put on the court,” said Graves.
In June, the Supreme Court delivered a one-line order asking the U.S. Justice Department to weigh in on the case — an “extraordinary” response at this stage, according to Wilson, considering that the case has not yet gone to trial. If the Solicitor General neglects to weigh in before the election, that response could be in the hands of a Trump administration. Trump has promised that if re-elected, he will “stop the wave of frivolous litigation from environmental extremists.”
A ‘Highly Unusual’ Request
In May, 19 members of RAGA made a “highly unusual” request to the Supreme Court: to intervene in and undermine climate accountability lawsuits filed by five states — California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island — claiming that their cases would impose “ruinous liability” on fossil fuel companies and threaten “our basic way of life.”
The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over disputes between states — meaning it can hear a case without it first being heard by another court — but such challenges are more commonly brought over issues like water rights, said Gerrard of Columbia’s Sabin Center. “I’ve never previously heard of an instance where there’s an effort to invoke the original jurisdiction of the [U.S.] Supreme Court to swat down litigation,” he said.
RAGA obtains some of its largest donations from the fossil fuel industry — including Koch Industries, Exxon, and the American Petroleum Institute, all of whom are defendants in climate liability cases — according to an analysis by the Center for Media and Democracy.
“These AGs have now placed their allegiance directly with the special interest group that is threatening the survival of future generations,” said Wilson.
The filing argues that “oil and natural gas have supported improvements in environmental quality and have reduced weather-related deaths,” and claims that “America’s air is cleaner than a century ago thanks in part to the increased use of oil and natural gas.”
It isn’t the first time Republican attorneys general have rushed to shield oil companies from accountability for their climate deception — and overtly used climate denialist talking points first leveraged by Big Oil in their defense. In 2016, Exxon sued the attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts in an attempt to block investigations into the company’s private research and public communications about climate change, claiming the probe was an attack on their free speech and other constitutional rights.
Republican attorneys general from 12 states filed a 2018 brief in support of the oil giant, arguing that “Climate change is the subject of legitimate international debate.”
“[T]he most undeniable fact about climate change is that, like so many other areas of science and public policy, the debate remains unsettled, the research is far from complete, and the path forward is unclear,” they wrote.
A(nother) First Amendment Fight
Another industry strategy to block accountability is playing out in response to California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s investigation into whether Exxon and other petrochemical companies deceived the public about the efficacy of plastic recycling as a solution to plastic waste. In May, the American Chemistry Council and Plastics Industry Association — two major trade groups representing oil and chemical giants including Exxon, Chevron, Amoco, Dow, and DuPont — filed a lawsuit against the attorney general in federal court, claiming the investigation violates their free speech rights.
Bonta, who had said he would decide whether to sue Exxon by the summer, responded with petitions asking the Sacramento County Superior Court to order the groups to comply with his office’s subpoenas.
“For years, the plastics industry has engaged in an aggressive campaign to deceive the public, perpetuating a myth that recycling can solve the plastics waste and pollution crisis,” Bonta said in a statement. “The continuous delay tactics are failing to comply with our subpoena. Enough is enough: What are they trying to hide?”
Members of Congress have similarly accused the Big Oil companies of trying to obstruct investigations.
When Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and House Oversight Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) referred their years-long investigation into the industry’s climate deception to the Justice Department, the lawmakers wrote that “some companies claimed that the First Amendment or undefined ‘privilege’ protected them from the House Oversight Committee’s subpoena.” The main subjects of that investigation have been Exxon, Shell, Chevron, BP, API, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
“The companies further obstructed the investigation by significantly redacting or entirely withholding more than 4,000 documents without any valid basis,” the lawmakers wrote, adding that their refusal to comply “provides a basis to infer that there is even more damning evidence of deceptive practices by the companies and their trade associations waiting to be uncovered.”
Fossil fuel companies and the law firms representing them have used a First Amendment defense to try to dismiss the climate accountability lawsuits, claiming company statements on climate change are protected political speech. One of the most prominent voices for that argument have been attorneys at Gibson Dunn, the firm that represents Chevron, and whose partner Theodore Olson sits on the Federalist Society board.
If these “overt” and “brazen” efforts to escape accountability can be overcome, the industry will no doubt face a reckoning, said Wilson, the former Hawai‘i Supreme Court justice. Communities like Honolulu “are being ravaged by climate” and “will apply the rule of law fairly,” he said.
“Hawai‘i is not a place that can be manipulated by the fossil fuel industry. That is a very big threat to the most powerful special interest group that’s now maintaining its power based on complicity.”
A Guardian collage of images from industry 1970s industry periodical Marathon World published by a corporate predecessor of Marathon Petroleum Composite: The Guardian/Getty Images/Marathon Oil Company
Marathon Petroleum predecessor warned of potential for ‘social and economic calamities’ in decades-old publication
The corporate predecessor to America’s largest refiner of oil, Marathon Petroleum, explained in a company periodical nearly 50 years ago that global temperature rise potentially linked to “industrial expansion” could one day cause “widespread starvation and other social and economic calamities”.
This decades-old description of climate breakdown is from a 1977 issue of the magazine Marathon World and is attributed in the article by an unnamed author to several experts including a scientist working for a top US agency.
“Although climatologists disagree on the underlying reasons, many see a future climate of greater variability, bringing with it areas of extreme drought,” said the magazine, previously published by Marathon Oil Company, which later split into Marathon Petroleum as well as the exploration and production company Marathon Oil.
Marathon Petroleum is among several oil and gas companies – including Exxon, Shell and BP – currently being sued by the city of Honolulu for allegedly engaging in a coordinated communications effort “to conceal and deny their own knowledge” of catastrophic climate impacts caused by burning their products.
That lawsuit alleges that Marathon knew of the dangers of global temperature rise long before the general public due to its membership in the American Petroleum Institute, which began studying the link between fossil fuels and global heating decades ago.
This newly surfaced article shows the company was undertaking efforts on its own to stay up to date on the latest climate science and the threats a more volatile climate could pose to humankind.
…
The current Honolulu lawsuit alleges that Marathon contributed to climate obstruction by belonging to industry associations that spent decades trying to convince the public that science linking coal, oil and gas to climate change was shaky and unreliable.
“Pestilence, starvation, drought. To know one’s product may bring that about, and bury the evidence, is unspeakable,” Timmons Roberts, a professor of environment and sociology at Brown University, who’s an expert in climate disinformation, wrote in an email to the Guardian after viewing the 1977 article.
Marathon and other companies named in the litigation are currently petitioning the US supreme court to throw out the case.
An oil refinery is shown at dusk in Thailand. (Photo: credit: Suriyapong Thongsawang/Getty Images)
Climate campaigners said the “brilliant and disturbing” publication “shows the crucial need for increased awareness of the delaying tactics of fossil fuel companies.”
Echoing years of academic, congressional, and journalistic research, a U.K.-based think tank on Thursday released a report detailing how top fossil fuel industry trade groups have “used a playbook of narratives and arguments to systematically oppose, weaken, and delay the transition to renewables and electric vehicles (EVs) since at least 1967.”
The new InfluenceMap analysis focuses on the American Petroleum Institute (API), FuelsEurope, and Fuels Industry U.K.—whose spokespeople responded to the report by insisting to SustainableViews that the oil and gas industry is playing an “essential” role in the transition and it is necessary to harness “vast energy resources, from oil and natural gas to renewables.”
Meanwhile, InfluenceMap’s report calls out the organizations for their use of three narratives over the past five decades that “has likely contributed to delaying the energy transition and continues to pose a serious threat to policy progress on climate change.”
“Between 1950 and 2022, the members of these associations have a combined contribution of approximately 350 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for approximately 18% of the world’s total cumulative CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry,” the report notes.
InfluenceMap traced the narratives “across 51 separate instances of the associations’ advocacy against fossil fuel alternatives between 1967 and 2023,” the publication explains. “These narratives include ‘Solution Skepticism,’ which has been in use for 56 years, ‘Policy Neutrality’ for 34 years, and ‘Affordability and Energy Security’ for 51 years.”
The group defined the narratives as follows:
Solution Skepticism: downplays the impact and viability of alternative energy.
Policy Neutrality: promotes consumer choice, market solutions, and minimal government intervention.
Affordability and Energy Security: paints fossil fuel alternatives as a risk to cost-effective and secure energy.
“Despite advancements in understanding the threats posed by the climate crisis, these narratives persist as of 2023,” the report says. It also emphasizes that the narratives contradict science-based policy recommendations from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the International Energy Association (IEA).
Some examples identified by InfluenceMap include API comments on the Clean Air Act and amendments in 1967, 1970, and 1989 as well as the association’s remarks on the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and pollution standards for heavy-duty vehicles last year. The publication also points to FuelsEurope’s 2021 comments on European Union Performance Standards and the group’s participation in a 2022 letter about the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive.
InfluenceMap produced graphics to display its findings, including one that shows key members of each association as of March. Members of all three include BP, ExxonMobil, Shell, and Phillips 66.
“Some of the world’s largest oil and gas companies are still paying a high premium to participate in industry associations that may no longer represent them on climate policy,” the report states, pointing to how associations’ actions contrast with public positions taken by some major fossil fuel corporations. “Meanwhile, Shell, Chevron, and Exxon have disclosed that they pay between $5 million and $12.5 million per year to hold a membership with the API.”
The think tank also made a pair of graphics showing how the trade associations’ documented use of the three narratives aligns with fossil fuel and renewables consumption, association members’ cumulative emissions, and the number of EVs compared with the total number of registered passenger vehicles since the 1950s.
“This report shows that even faced with mounting scientific evidence over decades, the oil and gas industry have pushed ahead with a damaging messaging strategy they developed as early as the 1960s,” said Tessa Khan, founder and executive director of Uplift, which supports a rapid and fair transition away from fossil fuel production in the U.K.
“It shows the crucial need for increased awareness of the delaying tactics of fossil fuel companies from policymakers if they are to successfully drive the energy transition forward at the pace we need,” Khan added.
Calling the report “brilliant and disturbing,” the U.K.-based Fossil Free Parliament said that “this is exactly why we need to remove the industry’s seat at the table in Westminster.”
In the United States, Democratic federal lawmakers recently concluded a probe into BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, API, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for decades of spreading climate disinformation, after which they urged the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate all six.
