Greenpeace climate justice activists approaching Shell platform en route to major oilfield (Photo: Chris J Ratcliffe / Greenpeace)
“It has become clear: Eni is trying to silence anyone who dares to speak up and denounce the company’s contribution to the fueling of the climate crisis,” says Chiara Campione of Greenpeace Italy.
Greenpeace Italy revealed Wednesday that the Italian multinational energy company Eni is threatening a libel suit against it over reports the organization published about oil and gas companies.
Greenpeace said the potential lawsuit is related to a report on temperature-related premature deaths that may be caused by emissions from oil and gas companies like Eni and a report on the concept of “climate homicide.”
“We face yet another act of intimidation by Eni; it seems that threatening defamation lawsuits is the new sport which the company has decided to pursue most enthusiastically. But we won’t be silenced,” said Chiara Campione of Greenpeace Italy. “This new potential defamation lawsuit follows a similar case initiated by Eni against Greenpeace Italia only a few months ago.”
OOOPS ENI DID IT AGAIN! It seems that threatening defamation lawsuits is the new sport which the company has decided to pursue most enthusiastically. https://t.co/zZjhRdCa0f
Eni was given an opportunity to respond to the findings of the Greenpeace reports, but the group said Eni offered “no substantive rebuttal” and threatened legal action. The organization claimed other oil and gas companies mentioned in these reports have not threatened legal action.
Greenpeace Italy and the climate advocacy group ReCommon are currently suing Eni over its alleged contributions to the climate crisis. The first hearing for that case occurred last month.
“It has become clear: Eni is trying to silence anyone who dares to speak up and denounce the company’s contribution to the fueling of the climate crisis,” Campione said.
The multinational oil giant Shell sued Greenpeace in November for alleged damages related to Greenpeace activists boarding one of the company’s oil platforms. Shell is trying to get as much as $8.6 million in damages, which Greenpeace says would greatly threaten its ability to campaign.
The French multinational oil and gas company TotalEnergies is also suing Greenpeace France over a report that claimed it underestimated its 2019 greenhouse gas emissions.
Greenpeace said Wednesday that these companies are trying to “stop Greenpeace and other organizations from denouncing the damage the fossil fuel industry is causing to people and the planet.”
Greenpeace Italy released a new report that shows oil major Eni is using climate denier technical consultants as a defense strategy in its climate warming lawsuit. Flickr via PRP Channel (CC BY-2.0)
The case coincides with a new Greenpeace Italy and ReCommon report showing Eni’s technical consultants have wide links to climate denier groups.
Italy’s first climate change lawsuit brought by Greenpeace Italy and climate advocacy group ReCommon against Italian oil giant Eni opened with its first hearing on February 16, alleging the company contributed to global warming.
The hearing comes alongside a new report by Greenpeace Italy and ReCommon, which describes how Eni’s technical consultants in the case have deep ties to the fossil fuel industry and climate deniers.
The lawsuit “aims to build on a similar case targeting Anglo-Dutch oil major Royal Dutch Shell in the Netherlands to force Eni to slash its carbon emissions by 45 percent by 2030,” as DeSmog has previously reported.
At issue in the case is whether or not Eni knowingly contributed to climate change and if it’s responsible for past and future damages. The case is also assessing if the oil giant violated human rights that are protected by the Italian Constitution and international agreements.
The cache of documentary evidence in the lawsuit includes two “technical reports” produced for Eni’s defense by consultants who Greenpeace Italy’s new report describes as climate deniers.
Last week, the two environmental organizations pushed to have the judge hear their witnesses, which include 12 Italian citizens who have been impacted by climate change, the groups’ lawyer Alessandro Gariglio told DeSmog.
“Now it will be up to the judge to assess whether he considers the documentary evidence presented to be sufficient or, instead, whether he thinks it might be appropriate to hear witnesses and, above all, to order a court-appointed expert opinion,” Gariglio noted. He added that he and his parties are in favor of such a move, “and the counterparties [Eni included] are not.”
In a statement to DeSmog, an Eni spokesperson said the company “will prove the groundlessness of Greenpeace and ReCommon’s claims, both legally and factually, in the legal proceedings.” Documentation related to the current lawsuit is available for review on Eni’s website.
Eni’s Technical Reports
The technical reports are addendums to one of Eni’s statements of defense and are authored by Carlo Stagnaro, director of research and studies at the think tank Istituto Bruno Leoni (IBL), and Stefano Consonni, professor of Energy and Environmental Systems at the Department of Energy of the Politecnico University in Milan.
According to Greenpeace Italy, the two consultants are “anything but independent,” and “have expressed climate denial positions” on more than one occasion.
Consonni’s resume states that since 1993 he has been “lead investigator” for research financed by multiple oil and gas companies, including Eni, ExxonMobil, and BP Alternative Energy, and the U.S. Department of Energy.
Stagnaro’s technical report, Greenpeace says, includes references to Eni’s key climate delay tactics, such as “whataboutism” to obscure the Italian oil giant’s true contribution to global warming. For example, it mentions China’s lack of responsibility in controlling emissions and also the tactic of diverting accountability towards consumers – a reference that is repeated 19 times throughout the text.
Ties to the U.S. Climate Denial Machine
According to Greenpeace’s report, the think tank IBL has denied man-made anthropogenic climate change in the past and, in the early 2000s, Stagnaro was “among the most active figures” within the institution to import U.S. climate denial theories into Italy.
In 2006, for example, Stagnaro wrote a briefing called “Climate. We want to be Amerikans,” which includes delayer phrasing such as “climate alarmists.” The briefing states, “Unfortunately, the Kyoto Protocol presupposes a ‘choice of field’ in science: it rests, that is, on the assumption that humans are the root cause,” which is “an assumption that is justified neither by the uncertainty of actual scientific knowledge nor by the complexity of the atmospheric dynamics.”
To support this, the briefing cites retired astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas, who is associated with many climate denier organizations, including the George C. Marshall Institute. In 2002, in a hearing in the U.S. Senate, Baliunas declared that “since no warming trend in the lower layers of the troposphere was observed, most of the surface warming in recent decades cannot be attributed to a greenhouse effect enhanced by human causes.”
Stagnaro’s briefing also cites climate denier Bjorn Lomborg and was co-authored by Mario Sechi, current editor-in-chief of far-right Italian newspaper Libero, who is the former director of Eni-owned news agency, AGI, and a former spokesperson for current right-wing Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.
At a summit in Rome at the end of January, Meloni unveiled the “Mattei Plan,” named after Enrico Mattei, founder of Eni. The program aims to transform Italy into “an energy hub” distributing fossil fuels extracted from Africa that creates “a bridge between Europe and Africa.” Campaigners in Italy and across Africa have criticized the plan, saying it will promote fossil fuel exploitation and “false solutions.” Before the initiative was announced, over 50 African groups signed a letter to the Italian government calling for an “end of neo-colonial approaches” and “a more consultative approach.” “This ‘dash for gas’ in Africa is dangerous and short-sighted,” the letter states.
Eni has also recently come under fire in some Italian media for sponsoring the week-long music and entertainment TV show, Sanremo, which was seen by 70 percent of Italian viewers this year during one of its broadcasts. According to Greenpeace, this sponsorship is “yet another greenwashing operation.”
Greenpeace’s report underscores the fact that IBL, under Stagnaro’s direction, is part of the Atlas Network, a group of more than 500 “free market” organizations in nearly 100 countries that have supported climate science denial positions and lobbied against legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
According to previous DeSmog reports, the Atlas Network is also behind efforts to “brand climate activists as extremists” and “pass anti-protest legislation.”
Greenpeace’s report reveals that in 2004, IBL also joined the Cooler Heads Coalition (CHC), a U.S.-based pressure group that has worked to promote climate denialism. After calling climate science a hoax for two decades, CHC played an important role in President Donald Trump’s 2017 decision to pull the U.S. from the Paris Agreement.
Eni’s technical consultants with the Istituto Bruno Leoni (IBL) have ties to U.S. climate denial organizations like the Heartland Institute. Credit: Wikipedia
According to the Climate Investigations Center, from 1997 to 2015, members of CHC received “upwards of $98 million dollars in donations from Exxon Mobil, conservative foundations, and dark money organizations.”
According to another report by Italian news outlet Il Fatto Quotidiano, in 2010, Exxon contributed $30,000 to IBL and Eni gave the group 12,000 euros.
IBL’s position seems to have softened over the years, Greenpeace’s report mentions, with Stagnaro tweeting in November 2019 that, “The position of the @istbrunoleoni on #climate is that: 1. climate change exists and is also due to humans 2. Emissions must be reduced 3. Not all policies that aim to reduce emissions work or are efficient.”
However, in 2018, IBL promoted the launch of “In Defense of Fossil Fuels,” a book by Alex Epstein who, according to investigative group Documented, “influences oil policy directly as a member of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission,” which is “a powerful quasi-regulatory body that lobbies for oil and gas interests.”
“Can the report of someone who has often personally embraced and disseminated climate change denialist positions be considered reliable in the context of climate litigation?” asks Greenpeace Italy and ReCommon, who have named their campaign for the lawsuit “The Just Cause.” Can it “be considered free of judgment if that same expert has received funding from that same company in the past?” the plaintiffs ask.
In response, Eni’s website reads, “There is little that is ‘just’ about this action. “The plaintiffs are in fact asking the court to declare Eni “responsible” for damages suffered and future damages resulting from climate change, to which the company has allegedly contributed with its conduct over the past decades.”
This “false narrative,” Eni continues, is based on an “obvious instrumental approach” aimed at “demonizing” the business.
Greenpeace Italy and ReCommon stated that they hope the judge will “reject the numerous and specious objections made by Eni” to allow “a radical change in the company’s industrial strategies.”
A 1970 report by Eni’s Isvet research centre warned of “catastrophic” climate risk from the build-up of CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels. Flickr via PRP Channel (CC BY-2.0)
Italian oil major Eni knew of the climate impacts of fossil fuel extraction since 1970, according to a report by Greenpeace Italy and advocacy group ReCommon shared with DeSmog.
The report comes four months after the two organizations announced a lawsuit against the company alleging Eni used “lobbying and greenwashing” to push for more oil and gas production, despite having known about the risks fossil fuels posed over the past 53 years.
The two groups had previously unearthed a 1970 report by Eni’s Isvet research centre that warned of the “catastrophic” climate risk from the build-up of carbon dioxide (CO2) caused by burning fossil fuels. They also found a 1978 report produced by Eni’s Tecneco company that included a projection of how much atmospheric CO2 levels would rise by the turn of the 21st century.
But, until now, compared to other oil majors, relatively little evidence was uncovered that Eni had longstanding knowledge of the damage its fossil fuel products would cause.
“Our investigation shows how Eni joins the long list of fossil fuel companies that, as emerged from numerous international investigations conducted in the recent years, were aware at least since the early 1970s of the destabilizing effect of coal, gas, and oil exploitation on global climate balances, due to greenhouse gas emissions,” said Felice Moramarco, a communications strategist with Greenpeace Italy, who coordinated the research for this report.
“If we find ourselves today in the midst of a climate crisis that threatens the lives of each and every one of us,” he added, “the responsibility falls mainly on companies like Eni, which have continued for decades to exploit fossil fuels, ignoring the alarming and growing warnings from the global scientific community.”
The report aims to build on evidence in Eni’s 1970 and 1978 report, and is the result of months of research within public and private archives in Italy, including the company’s own archive.
The findings add to the existing body of research that fossil fuel companies have been aware of the climate risks of burning fossil fuels since at least the 1970s and 80s, but still chose to expand oil and gas production and obstruct climate action.
‘They’ve Been Playing Us All for Fools’
Last week, California filed what may be the most consequential climate lawsuit yet against a range of Carbon Majors, including Exxon, Shell, Chevron, and BP for covering up what they knew about emissions and misleading the public for decades about the climate crisis. Speaking about the fossil fuel defendants, California Governor Gavin Newsom charged, “They’ve been playing all of us for fools,” and noted that the legal action could “illuminate their deception and their lies over 50, 60, 70 years.”
The report in the Italian case shows that Eni also foresaw damages from its products going back more than 50 years.
In 1971, Eni set up a new company in Rome to study pollution problems called Tecneco. In a 1973 report, Tecneco predicted that human activities could cause permanent changes to the atmosphere, including changes that could “gradually cause the disappearance of all life on earth.” Among the atmospheric changes listed was “climatic modifications.” Another section of the report stated that the increase of carbon dioxide “in the atmosphere is considered a potential cause of climate change.”
Another 1978 Tecneco report was even clearer, stating, “Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the ultimate oxidation product of fossil fuels … it exists in air in concentrations of about 300 ppm [parts per million] and only human activity increases this value by interfering with natural processes, so that above a certain threshold it becomes a pollutant.”
The report warned that continued production and use of fossil fuels would “alter the heat balance of the atmosphere, leading to climatic change with serious consequences for the biosphere.” Another section predicted that “climatic changes may occur on a regional scale due to the continued, increasing consumption of fossil fuels, and this may become a major problem by the end of the century … the best available data indicate that the CO2 content of the atmosphere will reach 375–400 ppm in the year 2000; this would increase the temperature of the atmosphere by 0.5 °C.” Eni’s prediction was quite accurate: Global warming in the year 2000 was exactly 0.5 °C and CO2 concentrations were around 370 ppm.
Eni also understood the need to limit fossil fuel pollution decades ago, according to the report. A 1988 issue of the company’s corporate magazine Ecos – widely read by employees and executives – warned that continued use of “fossil sources” of energy would produce a “greenhouse effect that could lead to climate change with devastating effects on the entire earth’s ecosystem.” Another issue of the magazine from the same year stated that as research on global warming continued, “it is incumbent on us to work as of now, as far as possible, to contain the phenomenon of carbon dioxide emissions. … It is generally agreed that it is very important to ‘buy time’ so as to refine the complex prediction models and identify the most appropriate solutions. Buying time means limiting the increase in CO2 as far as possible.”
The same issue also includes an article detailing the link between “greenhouse effect” and fossil fuel “combustion processes,” and contains information on CO2 concentration: “From samples of air trapped in glaciers, data on the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air in past times can be obtained. It has been estimated by this route that the concentration of CO2 in the air has increased by about 25% in the last 200 years, from a level of 275 parts per million by volume to a current level of around 330-340 ppm (volume).”
In 1992, Eni claimed it needed more research before taking action on climate change. Credit: Petar Milošević Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-2.0)
Earlier this year, a DeSmog investigation also found that Eni has misleadingly promoted fossil gas since the 1980s as the “clean energy of the future,” despite its damaging effects on the climate.
Eni also continued to be a member of IPIECA – the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association. Starting in the late 1980s, the organization coordinated Big Oil’s efforts to delay fossil fuel controls around the world (and weaken the foundational UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) by emphasizing scientific uncertainty and misleading the public about the industry’s own knowledge.
The report reveals that at a 1992 IPIECA symposium in Rome co-hosted by Eni, for example, the company’s manager of Safety, Quality and Environmental Protection department insisted that “before taking political decisions, such as adopting a carbon tax, which could lead to dire and unexpected economic consequences, it is necessary to obtain more data … on several controversial points such as the role of the oceans and clouds in climate change, as well as data on their behaviour in various countries and economic and geographic areas.”
Experts say Big Tobacco and other polluters used the “we need more research” refrainas a delay tactic. The Eni manager at the 1992 symposium added that “Eni feels that its objectives are very similar to those of IPIECA and strongly supports this important international association founded by oil companies.”
“In due course [Eni] will make the respective pleadings and arguments public so that anyone can get a full, correct, accurate (and free from misleading ideologies) idea of the very significant issues and complexities associated, as well as the correctness of both the company’s behavior and its energy transition strategies,” said the company in a recent statement to Italian newspaper Domani.
And added that “following the logic described by the NGOs, which is devoid of any foundation and knowledge of the industrial and technological history of energy systems, as well as the evolution of economic and industrial systems and the energy mix required for their operation, anyone who has been using fossil energy or fuel for the past 50 years would have ignored these ‘alarms’ and would be similarly responsible for the emissions generated through their use.”
On July 25, Greenpeace Italy and ReCommon received a “request for mediation” from Eni in response to their lawsuit. This is a mandatory prerequisite for filing a defamation lawsuit under Italian law. The company also stated it may seek at least 50,000 euros in damages from each group.
“We intend to resist this attempt at intimidation by Eni and call for the support of all people and public and private entities who care about the cause of climate justice, starting with those who live and work in the territories that are suffering the catastrophic consequences of the crisis themselves,” said Antonio Tricarico, program director at ReCommon.
“Instead of providing desperately needed clean energy, they feed us greenwashing garbage.”
A new analysis of the activities of twelve major fossil fuel giants shows that the companies are misleading the public about their emission-reduction commitments while raking in record profits from fossil fuels, which are driving catastrophic extreme weather events across the globe.
In a report published Wednesday, Greenpeace Central and Eastern Europe examines the decarbonization pledges, investments, and profits of six global fossil fuel giants—including Shell, BP, and TotalEnergies—and six European oil companies.
The results indicate that, in 2022, close to 93% of the oil giants’ investments on average went to keeping the companies on the “fossil oil and gas path” while just 7.3% were aimed at promoting “low-carbon solutions” and sustainable production.
“Although most of the sample companies are committed to ‘net zero’ by 2050, a closer look shows that none of them has developed a coherent strategy to achieve this,” the report notes, adding that the examined companies are in fact “scaling back their ambitions” even as their polluting activities wreak havoc worldwide. Shell and BP recently announced they are ditching previous plans to curb oil production and emissions.
The report shows that BP, Equinor, Wintershall and TotalEnergies cut their investments in renewable products last year—a fact that, according to Greenpeace, bolsters the case for “compulsory investment in genuinely green infrastructure” and other government regulations.
Kuba Gogolewski, a finance campaigner at Greenpeace CEE, said Wednesday that “as the world endures unprecedented heat waves, deadly floods, and escalating storms, Big Oil clings to its destructive business model and continues to fuel the climate crisis.”
“Instead of providing desperately needed clean energy, they feed us greenwashing garbage,” Gogolewski added. “Big Oil’s unwillingness to implement real change is a crime against the climate and future generations. Governments need to stop enabling fossil fuel companies, heavily regulate them, and plan our fossil fuel phase-out now. They will never change on their own.”
“Fossil fuel companies like Shell, TotalEnergies, BP Equinor, and ENI have shown the public they are incapable of self-regulation.”
The new report offers several examples of companies offering misleading data in an apparent attempt to convince investors and the public of their commitment to the renewable energy transition.
“Shell reports a ‘renewable capacity’ of 6.4 gigawatts for the 2022 financial year,” the analysis observes. “Only in the footnote… does one learn that this figure also includes plants that are still under construction or committed for sale. The actual capacity at the end of 2022 was only 2.2 gigawatts, as the group admits in another place in its reporting.”
In the case of BP’s 2022 financial disclosures, the report notes, “there is no number that would show the amount of wind and solar power” the company generated last year.
“This lapse is only an indication that no major oil company can show a comprehensible plan for a ‘net zero’ in 2050,” the report states.
“Fossil fuel companies like Shell, TotalEnergies, BP Equinor, and ENI have shown the public they are incapable of self-regulation after scaling back their climate ambitions, despite being heavily responsible for the climate crisis,” said Gogolewski. “That’s why Greenpeace is calling for European governments to strictly regulate the industry and begin its rapid economic and political downsizing.”
🔴NEW REPORT🔴
🏭Fossil fuel companies have NO MEANINGFUL PLANS to reduce their carbon emissions or switch to renewables.
🤥 Yet they continue with their GREENWASHING talking about greener investments and net zero trajectories.
The new analysis comes in the wake of devastating fires in Maui, Hawaii that were fueled by climate change, which contributed to the severely dry conditions that allowed the fires to spread rapidly.
Maui County is currently suing Shell, BP, and other fossil fuel giants, accusing them of engaging in a “coordinated, multi-front effort to conceal and deny their own knowledge” about the climate threat and profiting “from a massive increase in the extraction and consumption of oil, coal, and natural gas, which has in turn caused an enormous, foreseeable, and avoidable increase in global greenhouse gas pollution and a concordant increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases.”
The Maui lawsuit states that “wildfires are becoming more frequent, intense, and destructive in the county” as the planet warms due to ever-rising carbon emissions.
