BlackRock Pivots from Sustainability Evangelists to Fossil-Fuel Funders

Spread the love

Original article by Giorgio Michalopoulos and Stefano Valentino republished from DeSmog

Despite claiming a commitment to sustainability, the world’s largest investment fund continues to invest heavily in fossil fuels through its “green” funds — prompting accusations of greenwashing.

In the first quarter of 2025, BlackRock invested $3 billion in fossil-fuel companies through its funds that are defined as sustainable. Credit: Christopher Michel/Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Claim to be verified: BlackRock offers its global clients sustainable investment products, which allegedly exclude fossil fuels.

Context: In the first quarter of 2025 only, the world’s largest asset manager invested US$3 billion in fossil-fuel companies through its funds defined as sustainable. BlackRock promotes them with language that is potentially misleading and likely to leave unwary investors believing that such products exclude fossil fuels.


In 2016, Larry Fink, CEO of investment firm BlackRock, had no doubts about the importance of environmental, social, and governance (ESG): “Over the long term, ESG issues – ranging from climate change to diversity to board effectiveness – have real and quantifiable financial impacts”, he wrote in a letter on corporate governance in 2016.

The CEO of the world’s largest asset-management company has since changed his mind: “The reason I backed away from using the term ESG is that it means something different to everyone. It’s so undefined that it’s become unmentionable”, Fink said in 2023, as a guest on the Wall Street Journal podcast “Free Expression”. In the same podcast, he added: “If you want to invest in hydrocarbons, we will select the best hydrocarbon companies in the world for you. If you want to invest in a more decarbonized portfolio, we’re going to try to find the best economic portfolio that will achieve your financial goal.”

BlackRock manages US$11.6 trillion of investments. The firm has drastically changed its ESG and sustainable-investing policies in recent years. In its 2020 letter to clients, BlackRock used the term “ESG” 26 times and made a bold assertion: “We believe that sustainability must become our new standard for investing.” It also pledged to launch a product “that allows clients to invest in companies with the highest ESG scores, using our most extensive exclusion criteria, including one for fossil fuels.”

These commitments were widely covered in the international media. In January 2020, the specialist magazine UK Investor headlined: “BlackRock to focus on ESG and climate change in 2020”. CNBC wrote: “BlackRock, a $7 trillion asset manager, puts climate change at the heart of its investment strategy for 2021.” The specialist publication ESG Today asked: “BlackRock is betting everything on sustainability: Why is this important?”

Glossary
The European Regulation on sustainability-related disclosures in the financial services sector (known as SFDR) introduces two categories of green investments: those that merely promote “environmental and/or social characteristics” (Article 8), known in the jargon as “light green”, and those that must be properly “sustainable” (Article 9), known as “dark green”. In both cases, certain additional details must be provided to the consumer/investor, namely: (1) information about how these characteristics are met and (2) if a benchmark is indicated, an explanation of how that benchmark is consistent with the advertised characteristics.

While asset managers can independently define the criteria by which they consider a fund to promote “environmental and/or social characteristics”, “Article 9” funds must meet more stringent criteria regarding renewable energy, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. However, by exploiting semantic ambiguities, some managers still choose to sell funds that do not fall under Article 9 but rather under Article 8, while nonetheless labelling them as “sustainable and responsible” (i.e. dark green) investments.

To stay with the gambling theme, was BlackRock bluffing? In its 2025 letter, there is no reference to sustainability, ESG, or the Paris Climate Agreement. The company has left Net Zero Asset Managers, a global initiative launched in 2020 to promote net-zero 2050 projects. Following the departure of other major players such as JP Morgan, Net Zero Asset Managers has suspended its activities.

Yet, notwithstanding the ESG labels, the climate promises, and the pledges of “sustainability”, BlackRock continues to offer products that funnel money to the hydrocarbons giants.

BlackRock’s “sustainable” investments in fossil fuels

From 2023 to 2025, BlackRock invested an annual average of US$2.3 billion in the fossil-fuel majors through its ESG funds. The supposedly “green” funds we initially identified are those that make reference to the EU Sustainable Finance Regulation (SFDR), which came into force in 2021. Articles 8 and 9 of the SFDR concern the promotion of “environmental or social” objectives and “sustainable investments”, respectively.https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/zNmlR/2/

In markets where sustainable finance is not regulated, BlackRock promotes funds that are entirely outside the SFDR definitions as “ESG”, “sustainable” and (energy) “transition”. These amounted to US$1.8 billion in the first quarter of 2025. The fact that sustainable finance is almost wholly unregulated in countries such as the United States allows BlackRock to use notably audacious names for products which continue to channel money to Big Oil. Examples include “iShares ESG Aware”, “iShares Global Clean Energy”, and “BlackRock Sustainable Advantage”.https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/02UAz/4/

A US investor might thus be sold a BlackRock “Carbon Transition Readiness” fund that has funnelled more than ten million dollars to fossil giants including BP, Equinor, Shell, Eni, and TotalEnergies. The “Climate Conscious and Transition” fund, meanwhile, has pumped US$65 million into Chevron, ConocoPhillips, EOG, Exxon, and Occidental Petroleum.

Among the so-called “carbon majors” in which BlackRock invests through its supposedly green funds are many of the same names: TotalEnergies, Shell, Equinor, Chevron, Eni, and Repsol. All are heavy emitters of greenhouse gases responsible for global warming. None, as we showed in the previous article in this series, is currently on track with its Paris Agreement targets.https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/lRahP/4/

BlackRock appears to be disrespecting its own criteria

Contrary to Larry Fink’s statements in the Wall Street Journal podcast, our fact-checking reveals that over 20 funds classified as Article 8 or 9 (the “green” fund categories under EU regulations) have stakes in the oil giants. This despite the fact that their prospectuses contain commitments on ESG or decarbonisations, and may even openly renounce fossil-fuel investments.

For example, the iShares MSCI Europe Screened UCITS ETF (exchange-traded fund) explicitly states in the first lines of its description that it excludes exposure to “fossil-fuel extraction”. A BlackRock client who is not sufficiently versed in interpreting such claims might therefore reasonably expect companies such as Shell, TotalEnergies, and Eni to be excluded.

Screenshot of the prospectus for the iShares MSCI Europe Screened UCITS ETF: BlackRock states that it excludes “fossil-fuel extraction” from its investments. | Source: iShares.com
Screenshot of the prospectus for the iShares MSCI Europe Screened UCITS ETF: BlackRock states that it excludes “fossil-fuel extraction” from its investments. | Source: iShares.com

A closer look at the fund’s sustainability information shows that it is passively managed and follows the MSCI Europe Screened Index, aiming to promote environmental and social standards. This means the fund uses MSCI’s own rules for excluding certain companies — MSCI being one of the largest global financial firms.

To understand what these exclusion rules are, investors must go to MSCI’s website and read the ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) methodology behind the index. While it initially appears that oil and gas are excluded, the detailed rules reveal otherwise. The index doesn’t exclude all fossil fuel companies. Instead, it only leaves out those earning more than 5% of their revenue from specific controversial sources: coal, unconventional oil and gas (like fracking or tar sands), palm oil, Arctic drilling, or companies that violate the UN Global Compact’s voluntary sustainability principles.

In short, the index allows most fossil fuel companies unless they cross certain thresholds. That’s why BlackRock, which uses this index, can claim in its prospectus to exclude fossil fuel extraction — but then clarify in other documents that it relies on MSCI’s criteria. In fact, BlackRock refers readers to MSCI’s methodology page for details — but that page leads to a 404 error.

This index, like many others we examined, claims to exclude companies involved in hydrocarbon extraction. However, it later clarifies that the exclusion applies only to “unconventional” projects, such as tar sands and Arctic drilling.

Despite this, many of the companies the funds invest in are still involved in these very activities. A detailed look at the rules and factsheets shows that there is often flexibility under vague categories like “other investments.” This loophole allows the funds to legally maintain their “sustainable” label, even while investing in companies that contradict it.

In its sustainability report, meanwhile, BlackRock makes a confusing claim that might raise eyebrows among the more attentive clients: “This Fund promotes environmental or social characteristics, but does not aim to invest sustainably.” The statement seems to conflict with the very description of the investment, which talks of “a meaningful approach” to sustainable investing.

To further protect itself, BlackRock makes clear that any sustainability conditions “do not change a fund’s investment objective or limit its investment universe, and there is no indication that a fund will adopt investment strategies focused on ESG factors, impact, or exclusion criteria”. BlackRock thus effectively contradicts its own promise to exclude fossil fuels.

In the first quarter of 2025, such nominally “green” funds held fossil-fuel assets worth more than US$1 billion.

Screenshot: MSCI Europe Screened Index fossil-fuel exclusion criteria. | Source: MSCI
Screenshot: MSCI Europe Screened Index fossil-fuel exclusion criteria. | Source: MSCI

Reviewing our findings, Nicolas Koch, from the NGO Sustainable Finance Observatory, comments: “We cannot expect customers to read all the information, and it is likely that most of them will be easily misled by statements that certain activities are completely excluded, when in fact they are not. However, the SFDR represents a major victory in terms of transparency in this regard. It should provide the necessary information to intermediaries, such as financial advisors, who could easily exclude this fund thanks to the SFDR.”https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/F5AuF/5/

In its “green” funds that specifically claim to exclude hydrocarbons from their portfolios, BlackRock holds fossil-fuel investments worth a total of US$850 million. The first lines of their prospectuses, in addition to mentioning the exclusion criteria, state that the investments are designed to reduce carbon impacts. 

In August 2024, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) introduced stricter rules on the use of sustainability-related terms in fund names. These rules prohibit funds with significant fossil fuel holdings from using labels like “green,” “ESG,” or “sustainable.” The regulation took effect on 21 May 2025.

Before that date, the iShares MSCI Europe Screened UCITS ETF included “ESG” in its name, despite holding US$177 million in fossil fuel companies. As of now, it still holds around US$156 million in firms like Shell, TotalEnergies, Eni, Equinor, EQT, Aker, and OMV. Yet, the fund claims it is designed for investors who want to “exclude controversial sectors and reduce carbon intensity.”

In the first quarter of 2025, the iShares MSCI EMU ESG Enhanced CTB UCITS ETF fund invested US$160 million in fossil-fuel assets. It carries the CTB label, referring to the Carbon Transition Benchmark, meaning that it should promote decarbonisation standards. According to the new guidelines of the ESMA, BlackRock is required to demonstrate in its sustainability reporting how its investments are “on a clear and measurable path towards social or environmental transition”.

In its sustainability disclosures, BlackRock states that it doesn’t practise “engagement” with companies. The term refers to the interaction between asset managers and companies in which they hold equity stakes through “green” funds, where the aim is to positively influence their ESG and climate policies. According to a report by the European Commission’s sustainable-finance platform, such engagement can have positive impacts on companies, and this should be measured and shared with clients. BlackRock has chosen a different path. According to its disclosures, it “does not directly engage with companies, focusing instead on the quality of ESG data (it is committed to engaging directly with data and index providers to ensure better analysis and stability of ESG metrics)”.

“This is not a good way to generate impact and offer a more decarbonised investment portfolio”, says Sustainable Finance Observatory’s Nicolas Koch. NGO ShareAction’s latest report reveals that BlackRock has reduced its support for ESG resolutions at shareholder meetings to almost zero percent, and its commitment to sustainability is not sufficient to be considered credible. “Therefore, for any impact-oriented retail investor who has purchased iShares ESG ETFs in the past or is considering purchasing them in the future, there is a clear recommendation: avoid these products and move toward funds that engage in credible dialogue with companies”, concludes Koch.


To date, none of the carbon majors, including those in which BlackRock’s green funds invest, appear to have energy-transition plans consistent with international climate goals


Robert Clarke, an expert at Client Earth, a nonprofit legal and environmental organisation, makes a similar point:

“There is a huge question mark over impact claims. This is another category of potential ‘transition-washing’. Many funds have been rebranded from ‘ESG’ or ‘sustainable’ to ‘transition funds’, highlighting a subset of them that focus on transition strategies. But the problem here is: what happens if a fund is labeled a transition fund but the investments are not consistent? An example of this, in our view, is continued investment in the expansion of fossil fuels, which is simply incompatible with the transition.”

To date, none of the carbon majors, including those in which BlackRock’s green funds invest, appear to have energy-transition plans consistent with international climate goals. In fact, many seem to have watered down their climate strategies over the past year, as reported in a Carbon Tracker report published in April 2025.

Specialists agree that engagement with companies and voting at shareholder meetings are the most effective mechanisms for ensuring that “sustainable” investments have an impact. A recent report by the Sustainable Finance Observatory shows that 51 percent of European investors want their investments to have an impact.

We asked ESMA whether it considers BlackRock’s statements on sustainability to be contradictory. “The supervisory authority of the related fund will have to determine whether it intends to investigate whether the disclosure may be unclear, incorrect, or misleading to investors”, a spokesperson said.

“BlackRock operates in one of the most highly regulated industries in the world, and our funds, their prospectuses, and their supporting documents, adhere to all applicable regulations,” a spokesperson for the bank told Voxeurop. He added: “For our sustainable range, this includes those governing sustainable investing. iShares ETF holdings are published daily to provide investors with full transparency into where their investments go, and our leading sustainable fund range offers a spectrum of exposures allowing our clients to choose how to meet their own individual investment goals.”

BlackRock accused of greenwashing by Client Earth

The obvious incompatibility between the names of “sustainable” funds and their Big Carbon investments was tackled head on by the environmental group Client Earth in October 2024.

The organisation filed a legal complaint with the French financial supervisory authority, the AMF, challenging BlackRock’s labelling of certain consumer-oriented funds as “sustainable”. It singled out products such as the BSF Systematic Sustainable Global Equity Fund, pointing out that such funds had channelled €1 billion to the fossil-fuel sector.

In its action, Client Earth argued that such labels mislead consumers and may violate EU regulations. “There are rules that require communications to be fair, clear, and not misleading”, said Robert Clarke. “It should be the responsibility of the regulatory authorities [of the country] where the funds are marketed to take action to combat greenwashing, not only in fund names but also in prospectuses, in order to protect their investment sector. At present, national authorities are failing to take action.” In the wake of the complaint, BlackRock has changed the names or exclusion criteria of several of its funds.

🤝 This article is published in collaboration with IrpiMedia; it is part of Voxeurop’s investigation into green finance and was produced with the support of the European Media Information Fund (EMIF)

Original article by Giorgio Michalopoulos and Stefano Valentino republished from DeSmog

Continue ReadingBlackRock Pivots from Sustainability Evangelists to Fossil-Fuel Funders

Campaigners slam government legislation backing Drax subsidies

Spread the love

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/campaigners-slam-government-legislation-backing-drax-subsidies

 Wind turbines at Loftsome Bridge, East Yorkshire, with Drax Power station in the distance

CLIMATE campaigners have condemned Labour MPs for backing legislation that extends massive subsidies to biomass giant Drax, despite the company’s high carbon emissions and forest destruction.

The law, passed in a committee vote on Monday night, allows indefinite subsidies for wood-burning power stations, undoing stricter 2019 emissions standards that would have disqualified Drax.

In 2024, Drax burned 7.3 million tonnes of wood — much from the total felling of forests in North America and Europe — and received £869m in public subsidies while making nearly £1.1bn in profit.

Of the 15 MPs present at the vote, all 11 Labour members backed the measure, while three Tories and one Lib Dem opposed it.

Campaigners accused the government of greenwashing and prioritising polluters over real climate solutions.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/campaigners-slam-government-legislation-backing-drax-subsidies

Protest placard reads Greenwash detected
Protest placard reads Greenwash detected
Continue ReadingCampaigners slam government legislation backing Drax subsidies

Atlas Network-Affiliated Think Tank Wants Canada’s Greenwashing Law Repealed

Spread the love

Original article by Taylor Noakes republished from DeSmog.

Co-author Heather Exner-Pirot is MLI’s director of energy, natural resources and environment. Credit: MLI / YouTube

Fossil fuel advocates argue Big Oil is being silenced by the consumer protection law.

The Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MLI) is calling to repeal Bill C-59 — commonly referred to as Canada’s anti-greenwashing law. 

Calling the bill a “failure of process and policy,” an MLI paper advocating for abolishment states that it has had a “dramatic silencing effect” on many nationwide businesses and associations that want to communicate their environmental goals. It also says the amendment’s wording exposes companies to frivolous lawsuits.

Canada’s Parliament adopted the omnibus Bill C-59, officially known as the Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023, in June 2024. The bill included anti-greenwashing amendments to the Competition Act, which came about as a result of public meetings held in the spring of 2023

The bill says that companies found deliberately misleading the public with false environmental claims could be fined up to $10 million.

Shortly before the law was adopted, DeSmog reported that Pathways Alliance — a consortium representing six Canadian tar sands oil producers — scrubbed its website of all content. Not long after, Canadian oil companies, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), and third-party advertisers that run pro-oil propaganda on social media, removed mentions of carbon capture and storage (CCS) from their websites. Imperial Oil also removed statements quoting its CEO that were supportive of carbon capture as a climate change mitigation technology. Shell Canada dropped its 2050 climate goals from its website altogether. 

While Canada’s oil industry argued that the new anti-greenwashing regulations necessitated the removal of advocating for carbon capture efforts as much as their Net-Zero goals, other major Canadian corporations did not have a similar reaction. In addition, major tar sands producers and Pathways Alliance partners, such as Cenovus and Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., blamed the regulations when they delayed environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting to investors.

Critics argue CCS is an ineffective climate change mitigation technology because it habitually underperforms at capturing carbon dioxide emissions. It’s also historically been used to extend the lifespans of otherwise derelict oil wells, and – irrespective of emissions captured during production – produces fossil fuels that create new emissions when combusted for energy or electricity. Because of these reasons, critics argue CCS’s only purpose is to provide the appearance of social acceptability while continuing fossil fuel production. 

Carbon capture has been widely promoted by the Pathways Alliance, which is seeking to develop a massive carbon capture project in Alberta that would link 13 tar sands facilities with 400 kilometers of carbon dioxide pipelines to a centralized carbon capture hub. CCS projects have historically underperformed in Canada; a 2020 report by Global Witness found that Shell Canada’s Quest hydrogen facility — which uses carbon capture — was actually emitting more carbon than it captured.

Recent research from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) reveals that the Pathways project is not financially viable, and is likely to be subsidy-dependent with limited revenue potential. The IEEFA also notes that Canada’s carbon capture projects have struggled to keep up with projected capture rates.

On the Offensive

Though Bill C-59 is designed to protect Canadian consumers from fraudulent advertising, just as other industries do, fossil fuel advocates — from conservative Canadian newspapers to Koch Brothers-affiliated Canadian think tanks and conservative Alberta politicians — immediately went on the offensive shortly after the bill became law in June 2024. 

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith described the new requirements as “draconian legislation that will irreparably harm Canadians’ ability to hear the truth about the energy industry and Alberta’s successes in reducing global emissions.” She also stated that the new law was “absurd authoritarian censorship.”

“Freedom for people to express themselves is crucial to a democracy,” said Emilia Belliveau, program manager, Energy Transition, Environmental Defence. “But giving businesses a free pass to spread disinformation and greenwashing isn’t.”

“Bill C-59 builds on the longstanding work of the Competition Bureau to protect fair business practices and ensure the public isn’t being lied to,” Belliveau said in a statement to DeSmog. 

“People have a right to know the truth — whether it’s about a product, a service, or the companies behind them. That’s why it’s imperative that our democracy has rules in place to stop ultra-wealthy CEOs and multi-billion-dollar corporations from spreading misinformation and manipulating the public for their own profits,” she added.

Advocates of C-59 have good reason to demand greater accountability from the oil and gas sector. Not only have fossil fuel companies known about the dangers of fossil fuel pollution’s contribution to climate change for decades, they have actively engaged in disinformation campaigns as well. Legislators created C-59 as a direct response to the ongoing disinformation efforts by Canada’s oil and gas industry, which has included everything from blaming stalled pipeline projects on “foreign funded eco-radicals” to outright denial of climate change and funding astroturfing groups to oppose climate legislation.

The MLI paper contains its own inaccurate and misleading statements, including an assertion that there was no opportunity for discussions. Despite making this statement several times, and including it as a key talking point in the paper’s executive summary, the paper’s authors conceded that a consultation process did take place roughly a year earlier. They said greenwashing was addressed, but still argued that a last-minute amendment is much broader and therefore deserved its own, separate consultation process.

Efforts to contact Charlie Angus, the NDP MP who sponsored the bill, were unsuccessful, as were DeSmog’s efforts at contacting MLI for comment.

Chief among MLI’s concerns are that the wording of the amended competition law puts the onus of proof on the person or company making a representation (such as an oil company claiming carbon capture is a viable climate change mitigation technology). With the C-59 amendment, companies and individuals now have to demonstrate their claims based on an internationally recognized standard. The MLI paper further argues that this exposes companies — such as multi-billion-dollar oil and gas companies — to frivolous lawsuits. MLI also claims that the new regulations open the door to too many potential complainants, such as environmental activists and climate advocacy groups.

“Should companies be allowed to exaggerate, cherry-pick, or straight out lie to us in their advertising? No,” said Melissa Lem, family physician and president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) in a statement to DeSmog. “But this is exactly what companies have been doing with their environmental claims for too long.” 

“This has had real impacts on our health due to unchecked pollution and escalating climate disasters,” she added.

“At its core, Bill C-59 is about truth in advertising — which ultimately protects us from corporate harm.”

Former Alberta energy minister Sonya Savage
Former Alberta energy minister Sonya Savage has said bill C-59 will result in ‘green hushing.’ Credit: CPAC / YouTube

The MLI paper’s authors are former Alberta energy minister Sonya Savage and Heather Exner-Pirot, the institute’s director of Energy, Natural Resources and Environment. 

DeSmog previously reported on Savage’s public statements about her belief that the anti-greenwashing law was “silencing” Canada’s oil and gas sector. Savage was formerly a senior executive with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), as well as Enbridge, a multinational pipeline company. Exner-Pirot is well-known for her fossil fuel advocacy as much as for her campaigns on behalf of the MLI against everything from an emissions cap to electric vehicles

Both Savage and Exner-Pirot have made misleading statements in the past concerning various legislative efforts to control carbon emissions. For example, Exner-Pirot published op-eds criticizing the federal government’s electric vehicle (EV) mandate and characterized it as a quota, among several inaccurate statements about EVs in general. Savage has described C-59 as part of a global effort to silence Canada’s energy sector and that the regulations constituted an indirect ban on fossil fuel advertising, neither of which are true.

The Macdonald-Laurier Institute presents itself as a non-partisan and independent think tank, but is, in fact, part of the Atlas Network. Like Atlas, it has received funding from the Koch Brothers, and generally opposes government regulations — particularly on environmental issues or as they relate to the energy sector. MLI counts among its donors CAPP, Imperial Oil, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association and the Canadian Fuels Association, among others. 

MLI has considerable access to mainstream Canadian media and routinely criticizes the environmental movement, attacking efforts to curb emissions as responding to climate change “alarmism.”

Original article by Taylor Noakes republished from DeSmog.

Continue ReadingAtlas Network-Affiliated Think Tank Wants Canada’s Greenwashing Law Repealed

‘Greenwashing’ banks raised 1 trillion dollars for fossil fuel giants

Spread the love

Original article by Josephine Moulds republished from TBIJ under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

NatWest among several banks in ‘net zero’ alliance continuing to support the fossil fuel industry

At a glance

  • Banks with net zero pledges helped raise $1 trillion for companies expanding fossil fuels
  • Among them is NatWest, which may have broken climate pledge by funding BP
  • BP is developing a ‘carbon bomb’ in Azerbaijan, host of COP climate talks

Less than a hundred miles from where world leaders are discussing how to meet their climate pledges, BP is drilling for gas.

The Shafag-Asiman project, a sprawling gas field off the Azerbaijani coast, could inject more than 1 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere. That is more than the UK would emit over three years, striking a major blow to efforts to slow down global warming.

BP has said it intends to invest heavily in new oil and gas fields in the coming years. But it would be unable to pursue these dirty projects without billions in support from big banks. NatWest, for one, helped BP raise almost $500m last year in an apparent breach of its climate commitments.

Banks will be in focus at Cop29, currently underway in Baku, Azerbaijan, as world leaders discuss how to raise trillions of dollars for countries suffering the effects of climate change.

Although talks are unlikely to address their continued support for dirty energy, more than 140 banks worldwide have pledged to cut emissions associated with their lending and investments to almost zero by 2050.

In May 2021, the IEA, the global body coordinating countries’ energy policies, sounded the alarm. Any new oil and gas developments would make it inevitable that temperatures would rise by more than 1.5 degrees. In other words, they would devastate the planet.

https://flo.uri.sh/visualisation/20019523/embed

Meanwhile, at BP’s Shafag-Asiman field, engineers were celebrating after finding fossil gas several thousand metres under the seabed – a new discovery that could significantly increase its output from the region. And the bankers were preparing to raise billions more for BP.

That’s not all. Since May 2021, global banks that have committed to net zero have poured almost $1 trillion into companies pursuing expansion of oil and gas projects that would push the world beyond its survivable limits. Taken together these projects would produce almost seven times the annual emissions of the US.

“It’s indefensible,” said John Lang, founder of the Net Zero Tracker, which evaluates big companies’ green plans. “There’s no way we can meet the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement if we continue financing the exploration of oil and gas.”

He said banks with net zero commitments covering direct and indirect emissions could not fund oil and gas expansion. “It’s greenwashing, plain and simple.”

NatWest said it could not comment on specific customers. It said it had conducted a review into its relationships with a number of oil and gas companies “to ensure they had a credible transition plan aligned with the 2015 Paris Agreement”. It refuted the suggestion it had not met its public commitments.

BP said it is aiming to be a net zero company by 2050 or sooner and believes its strategy is consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

‘Net zero’

It was at Cop26 three years ago that a number of major banks first pledged that by 2050 they would cut almost all the emissions from their lending and investments to zero and invest in financial products to offset the remaining emissions – which has come to be known as “net zero”. NatWest, for instance, promised to stop funding companies that do not have a credible plan to shift their business away from fossil fuels. Its support for BP suggests it may have broken that promise.

BP reported record profits in February last year and promptly announced it would scale back its climate commitments and increase investments in oil and gas. It then enlisted the help of NatWest and a host of other ‘net zero’ banks to raise a total of $5.3bn in 2023 – and went on to invest $4.8bn in its oil and gas operations in the first half of this year.

In April, BP announced the first oil to be extracted from a new platform off the coast of Azerbaijan, which is expected to be operating until at least 2049, just a year before the world is supposed to have cut its dependence on fossil fuels.

https://flo.uri.sh/visualisation/19957754/embed

The world-leading Grantham Research Institute assessed how credible the largest oil and gas companies’ transition plans were. It said BP’s fell short by a significant margin.

Many of the world’s biggest banks trumpet their net zero pledges to bolster their green credentials. But Nigel Topping, a member of the UK’s Climate Change Committee, explains that even when banks commit to cutting emissions associated with their financing in line with net zero, “it doesn’t stop them from financing companies who are continuing to expand [oil and gas production]”.

More than 180 companies expanding fossil fuel production have raised money from ‘net zero’ banks since May 2021, according to an analysis of data from the environmental campaign group, Rainforest Action Network. Their expansion projects are spread across the globe, from ConocoPhillips in the Arctic circle to Petrobras near the mouth of the Amazon river, and Shell in the UK’s North Sea.

A TBIJ analysis of the Global Oil and Gas Exit list, compiled by environmental campaign group Urgewald, shows these expansionary projects could produce almost 90 billion barrels of oil equivalent, which scientists say should stay in the ground. Around half of that is oil and half is gas, according to Urgewald, and calculations suggest it could generate more than 34 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions when burned.

Topping said: “The fundamental problem is that the transition is not driven by regulation … The only people who can make companies change are regulators, and the regulators are letting us down.”

Lead image: Offshore oil rigs at Baku Bay, near Baku, Azerbaijan. Anatoliy Zhdanov / Sipa US / Alamy Stock Photo

Reporter: Josephine Moulds
Environment editor: Rob Soutar
Deputy editors: Katie Mark & Chrissie Giles
Editor: Franz Wild
Production editor: Alex Hess
Fact checker: Somesh Jha

TBIJ has a number of funders, a full list of which can be found here. None of our funders have any influence over editorial decisions or output.

Original article by Josephine Moulds republished from TBIJ under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Continue Reading‘Greenwashing’ banks raised 1 trillion dollars for fossil fuel giants

BBC Accused of Doing PR for Major Polluters

Spread the love

Original article by Sam Bright republished from DeSmog.

BBC New Broadcasting House in central London. Credit: Credit: Alexander Svensson (CC-BY-2.0)

The broadcaster’s in-house content studio has been paid to promote fossil fuel firms and petrostates with a history of persecuting journalists.

The BBC has produced dozens of films and articles for oil and gas companies, agricultural giants, fossil fuel states, and high-emission transport firms in recent years, DeSmog can reveal. 

Experts say the BBC has been “greenwashing” the image of companies and countries contributing to global emissions by trumpeting their dubious climate credentials and promoting their favoured solutions to the crisis. 

The content was produced by BBC StoryWorks, a studio that produces videos, podcasts, and articles paid for commercial clients, which it publishes on BBC channels outside the UK. 

On its website, BBC StoryWorks boasts that it leverages the reputation of the BBC – “our century-long pedigree as the world’s most trusted storytellers” – to create content for commercial clients “that moves and inspires curious minds, across platforms and across the globe”.

BBC StoryWorks produces traditional adverts for its clients, as well as content “with an editorial style” (known as “branded” or “native” content).

Branded content appears outside the UK on the BBC website – the most viewed news platform in the world – and on its non-UK broadcast channels, in a similar format to normal editorial output. However, branded content promotes the paying client and typically features interviews with the client’s senior executives. It is only distinguished by a disclaimer that it has been paid for by an external organisation.

BBC Studios – which includes StoryWorks – generated £1.8 billion of sales in the year 2023/24, according to the broadcaster’s annual accounts. The BBC‘s financial deficit is projected to reach nearly £500 million next year, with the licence fee – its primary funding source – having been frozen for several years by the last Conservative government.

In recent months, the BBC has created content for a number of oil and gas companies, including the French fossil fuel company Engie, which owns a number of coal-fired power plants and relies heavily on gas for its energy production. 

BBC StoryWorks has also produced content for liquified natural gas (LNG) companies, and has touted the energy source as a cleaner alternative to other fossil fuels. This is despite experts warning that the booming LNG industry could contribute more heavily to the climate crisis than the ongoing use of coal, the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel. 

Agriculture accounts for 21 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and BBC StoryWorks has produced films for some of the world’s biggest food and farming firms, including Nestlé and Bayer, often promoting the disputed green technologies backed by the industry. As previously revealed by DeSmog, BBC StoryWorks has produced dozens of documentaries sponsored by the pesticide giant Corteva, publicising the technologies developed and sold by the firm.

Petrostates with a history of human rights abuses – including the imprisonment of journalists – have also been promoted by BBC StoryWorks.

An investigation by DeSmog and Drilled previously revealed that many of the world’s most trusted English-language news outlets regularly promote the fossil fuel industry’s narratives on climate-related topics. Bloomberg, The Economist, the Financial Times, the New York Times, Politico, Reuters, and the Washington Post all have internal commercial studios that create advertising content for fossil fuel firms.

The BBC is committed to science-led climate reporting and in 2021 signed the Climate Content Pledge, promising to do “more and better climate story-telling on screen across all genres.”

However, critics say that BBC StoryWorks is using the broadcaster’s reputation – including its role as a public service broadcaster – to make money from commercial content that often flouts its editorial values.

“The contracts to make this sort of content are won on the back of the BBC’s reputation as an honest and impartial broadcaster,” Patrick Howse, the BBC’s former Baghdad bureau chief, told DeSmog. “Accepting money from sources like this, to make content like this, risks undermining the BBC’s own hard-won reputation and will ultimately put it on the wrong side of history.

“This is a huge disservice to the BBC’s audiences, and a betrayal of the many brave and conscientious BBC journalists around the world who see holding power to account and telling the truth as their raison d’etre.”

Last year was the warmest year since global records began in 1850. The world’s foremost climate science body, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has said that “immediate and deep emissions reductions” are needed “across all sectors” to limit global warming to 1.5C – the global target established by the 2015 Paris Agreement.

In June 2024, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said that advertising agencies had “aided and abetted” the fossil fuel industry, “acting as enablers to planetary destruction”. 

“Fossil fuels are not only poisoning our planet – they’re toxic for your brand,” he said. 

A BBC StoryWorks spokesperson said that the studio “operates entirely separately from the BBC’s editorial operations” and that its output “is clearly labelled as commercial content”.

However, content labelling doesn’t always help readers and viewers to understand that it has been paid for by a commercial client. A 2018 Boston University study found that only one in 10 people recognised native advertising – which includes branded content – as advertising rather than reporting.

The BBC StoryWorks spokesperson added that, “BBC StoryWorks operates under robust and established governance and is required to comply with the BBC’s guidelines as set out in the publicly available Advertising and Sponsorship Guidelines

“Central to these guidelines is a commitment to factual accuracy in any piece of content. All of the content cited in this article was approved as compliant with the BBC’s advertising guidelines prior to its publication.”

Fossil Fuel Firms and False Solutions

In April and June, BBC StoryWorks published two articles paid for by Engie, a global energy company with annual revenues of $60 billion, which is part-owned by the French state. The articles promoted Engie’s green credentials, claiming it has a mission “to accelerate the energy transition”, despite the firm’s extensive fossil fuel interests.

Though ENGIE has ambitious renewable development objectives, it plans to expand its LNG terminals in Europe, is one of the top European developers of gas power plants globally, and has agreed to import American shale gas beyond 2040. 

Between 2016 and 2022, the firm sold 16 of its coal plants – a 60 percent reduction in its coal capacity. However, Engie chose to sell these assets rather than close them down. This transferred the polluting plants to different owners, meaning that the plants will still contribute to global emissions.

The BBC StoryWorks articles didn’t provide information about the company’s existing polluting activities, or the global need to rapidly scale-down oil, gas, and coal production. 

Professor Peter Newell, an academic at the University of Sussex specialising in environmental politics, told DeSmog: “Because branded content looks like regular BBC journalism which the public trust as independent, it compromises the integrity of the organisation and its public role, including to help society respond seriously to the climate crisis.”

In 2021, the broadcaster launched a “Humanising Energy” series “presented by” the World Energy Council, a global forum for sustainable energy development, followed by a second series in 2023.

The two series featured dozens of five-minute films paid for by individual firms, showcasing their supposed climate solutions. These films typically involved one-on-one interviews with people either creating or benefiting from these green innovations, as well as cinematic shots of the technologies being deployed. 

A screenshot of a BBC StoryWorks film from its ”Humanising Energy“ series. Credit: BBC

Sponsors of films in the two Humanising Energy series included the fossil fuel companies Engie Brazil, Gasum (the largest distributor of LNG in the Nordic countries), CLP Holdings (which has said it won’t phase out its coal assets before 2040, and hasn’t committed to phasing out its gas assets), Mabanaft, and Invenergy, the energy services firm Voith, and the engine manufacturer Cummins.

All of these films touted the supposed climate credentials of the featured companies, without examining their contribution to global emissions or the viability of the featured technologies.

In January 2024, Cummins agreed to pay a record $1.7 billion fine – the second largest environmental penalty ever in the U.S. – after facing charges that it equipped roughly one million vehicles with devices that bypassed emissions sensors. The company didn’t admit wrongdoing. 

Just a few months earlier, BBC StoryWorks produced a film for Cummins boasting of the firm’s efforts to help decarbonise commercial vehicles.

The Invenergy film focused on its construction of an LNG plant in El Salvador. While the content attempted to show how the plant was providing energy and jobs to the local community, it also tried to tout the environmental benefits of natural gas.

During the film, an Invenergy spokesperson suggested that natural gas generates 30 percent less carbon dioxide than other fossil fuels, neglecting the fact that natural gas is composed largely of methane, which is over 80 times more potent than CO2 across a 20 year period. Even relatively small methane leaks during the process of extracting, shipping, and processing natural gas contribute significantly to global emissions.

One of the films in the Humanising Energy series – “The evolution of home energy” – promoted the role of hydrogen in supplying home heating. Yet, while green hydrogen is widely accepted as necessary for decarbonising heavy industry and other sectors where alternative renewable energy sources are unworkable, it is not considered viable for heating homes.

A peer-reviewed assessment of over 50 independent studies in 2024 concluded that hydrogen use in domestic heating is inefficientcostly and resource-intensive compared to other low-carbon options such as heat pumps.

The BBC StoryWorks film was paid for by DNV, a Norwegian company that claims to be “the world’s leading resource of independent energy experts and technical advisors”, including the oil and gas sector. DNV says on its website that it “delivers broad technical expertise and experience to enable hydrogen to play a key role in the energy transition”. 

A DNV spokesperson said that, “While DNV does work with oil and gas companies and organisations across renewable energy production, it is not involved in the direct production or distribution of energy… Our approach to energy solutions is rooted in comprehensive research and rigorous testing, and our position as an independent third party is a central part of our identity and our work.”

The Humanising Energy series also featured two films advocating for the development and deployment of sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) – one paid for by the aviation giant Boeing, and one paid for by the energy and chemicals company Sasol alongside the gas company Linde.

A screenshot of a BBC StoryWorks film, sponsored by Boeing, from its ”Humanising Energy“ series. Credit: BBC

SAFs have been criticised as being environmentally damaging and currently economically unviable. The Advertising Standards Authority this month banned a Virgin Atlantic advert for making the “misleading” claim that it had developed a “100 percent sustainable aviation fuel”.

In August 2022, the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) said that the amount of money invested by airlines in SAFs was “insufficient” and that it seemed as though the technology was simply “about burnishing airlines’ images” by inflating their environmental credentials.

Sasol told DeSmog that its SAF initiatives were not an example of greenwashing and that it believes SAFs hold the “promise to be an enabler of our own decarbonisation and contribute to decarbonising aviation.”

Aviation contributes approximately 2.5 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, yet BBC StoryWorks has produced content for a number of airlines in recent months and years, including Uzbekistan Airways (March 2024), China Southern Airline (2022), and Korean Air (2017).

BBC StoryWorks has also worked extensively with other polluting transport companies. 

It produced an advertising campaign for the shipping and cruise company Cunard that appeared on BBC StoryWorks social media pages in July 2024. Europe’s 218 cruise ships emitted as much sulphur oxides as one billion cars in 2022.

BBC StoryWorks has also produced branded content for the car company Hyundai, as well as for LexusVolkswagen, and Jaguar. In addition, the studio has produced a six-part series paid for by the Indian multinational motorcycle company Royal Enfield. 

Transport contributes roughly one quarter of all energy related greenhouse gas emissions, while outdoor air pollution is estimated to cause more than 3.2 million premature deaths worldwide every year.

“This important investigation reveals that BBC StoryWorks has been doing the greenwashing work of major polluting firms driving the climate crisis by obscuring their role and promoting their preferred ‘solutions’, however discredited by science,” Professor Newell told DeSmog.

Greenwashing is when a company falsely brands something as eco-friendly, green or sustainable. In 2017, the BBC itself produced a guide to the “seven ways to spot businesses greenwashing”.

Big Ag Polluters

BBC StoryWorks has also been paid to produce content for major agricultural polluters and their lobbyists. This content has often promoted the technological hacks that food and farming giants claim will reduce the sector’s emissions, rather than the more fundamental changes in production and consumption that scientists say will be crucial in limiting Big Ag’s climate impact. 

In 2023, BBC StoryWorks produced an advertising campaign for the pesticides giant Bayer, the world’s second largest crop chemicals company, boasting of the firm’s efforts to facilitate “scientific breakthroughs”.

In addition, as part of a branded content series in late 2023 entitled “The Climate and Us”, BBC StoryWorks was paid by Bayer to produce a film on the digital apps helping farmers to monitor and reduce their emissions. 

The film, which featured an interview with Bayer’s vice president of digital farming operations, promoted the firm’s technologies with no additional comment from experts on its efficacy, or Bayer’s stance on climate change

A screenshot of a BBC StoryWorks film, sponsored by Bayer. Credit: BBC

According to the Pesticides Action Network, over a third of Bayer’s sales derive from products that are highly hazardous to the environment, animal or human health. (The methodology for this classification is strongly disputed by Bayer on the grounds that it uses different criteria to internationally accepted rules).

Bayer told DeSmog that it is “committed to ambitious sustainability goals and has a positive track record while recognising the ongoing challenge.”

Experts say that the overuse of chemical pesticides is harming the future of food production. Biodiversity is in sharp decline across the world, and numbers of birds and pollinators are plummeting in Europe.

Bayer, which makes almost $10 billion in agrochemical sales every year, has also faced millions of dollars in lawsuits over health issues allegedly related to its products, including from farmers. 

In 2023, DeSmog revealed that BBC StoryWorks had produced three documentary series and 26 articles – viewed at least 65 million times – sponsored by Corteva, one of the world’s largest pesticide firms. 

The BBC said that the Corteva-sponsored content, which focused on sustainable food production, was editorial in nature and not influenced by its corporate client. However, experts said the documentaries gave a “totally biased” picture of global food problems, while the content promoted a number of the technologies developed by Corteva.

BBC StoryWorks also produced two articles in 2023 paid for by Australian Dairy – the country’s industry trade group.

The first article promoted the supposed contribution of milk and dairy to a healthy diet, while the second advocated for “precision farming” – in other words, using technology to ensure that resources are used efficiently and to track climate impacts. 

Scientists and health professionals agree that dairy products are not necessary for a healthy diet, and they agree that for people who are able to have a varied diet, lower meat and dairy consumption is healthier than diets higher in milk and dairy.

Experts also doubt that precision farming can be rolled out widely enough to meaningfully reduce agricultural emissions. The environmental group Friends of the Earth has said that: “Faced with global climate and biodiversity emergencies, better ‘optimisation’ of existing production processes cannot possibly go far enough to meet the challenges we face.”

According to a March 2024 Harvard Law paper, which surveyed more than 200 environmental and agricultural scientists, meat and dairy production must be drastically reduced – and fast – to align with the Paris Agreement. The report concluded that global emissions from livestock production need to decline by 50 percent during the next six years, with “high-producing and consuming nations” taking the lead.

Sophie Nodzenski, a senior campaign strategist on food and agriculture at Greenpeace International told DeSmog: “Tinkering with the status quo is no longer an option. Meat and dairy companies are climate killers. The livestock sector is one of the leading sources of human-made methane emissions, which move us faster and further past the 1.5C threshold, worsening global heating. 

“Meat and dairy companies must stop misleading the public with pseudo solutions and focus on reducing their livestock herds drastically to bring down emissions instead. This reduction can give us a fighting chance against climate chaos.”

In 2023, BBC StoryWorks also produced content for the world’s largest food and drink company Nestlé, boasting of the company’s efforts to support sustainable farming through “regenerative agriculture”. 

The film failed to acknowledge that Nestlé – whose 87.5 million tonnes of annual emissions are similar to those of Chile – spent 14 times more on “marketing and administration” in the last year than it did on regenerative agriculture over the previous five years combined.

A screenshot of a BBC StoryWorks film, sponsored by Nestlé. Credit: BBC

“Nestlé’s strong focus on using regenerative agriculture to compensate for the greenhouse gas emissions from livestock farming – one of Nestlé’s main strategies to achieve net zero – is not backed by robust scientific evidence,” Nodzenski said.

“Increasing carbon storage in soils, as well as forests and other vegetation, is necessary, but should not replace a drastic reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock farming – one of the main sources of Nestlé’s emissions.”

The Nestlé film was part of a “Food for Thought” series backed by the trade body FoodDrink Europe, whose members feature major polluters including CargillCoca-Cola, and Unilever

A Nestlé spokesperson said: “We continue to invest in and deliver on our net zero roadmap. By the end of 2023, we had reduced our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 13.5 percent in absolute terms since 2018. Our GHG reduction targets are third-party approved by the Science Based Targets initiative and include a 20 percent absolute cut by 2025 and 50 percent by 2030 covering all sources of agricultural emissions in our supply chain. 

“We continue to ramp up our climate efforts using world class research and development, including via the Nestlé Institute for Agricultural Sciences.

“Nestlé has committed to invest $1.2 billion to pay premiums to farmers for ingredients grown using regenerative agriculture practices, provide technical assistance and support investment.”

Petrostates

Over recent years, BBC StoryWorks has also produced content for some of the world’s leading fossil fuel states, many of which have a poor record on human rights and press freedom. 

This year’s flagship COP29 climate summit will be held in Baku, Azerbaijan. The country is a petrostate with oil and gas production accounting for roughly half of its GDP and over 90 percent of its exports. The country, run under an authoritarian system with little effective political opposition, plans to increase fossil fuel production by a third over the next decade.

Azerbaijan’s government has also been accused by of a media crackdown by the advocacy group Human Rights Watch ahead of November’s summit, arresting 25 journalists and activists in the past year.

However, since November 2023, BBC StoryWorks has produced several adverts promoting Azerbaijan as a place to visit, while greenwashing its image. 

For example, in December 2023, the studio released an advert paid for by the country’s space agency Azercosmos, attempting to show “How digitisation is changing the game for Azerbaijan’s quest for renewable energy.”

The advert was accompanied by an article claiming that Azerbaijan plans to transition “from an oil- and gas-based economy into a thriving modern hub.” The article did not mention the country’s plan to expand fossil fuel production, which contravenes globally agreed efforts to limit rising temperatures. 

A screenshot of a BBC StoryWorks advert, sponsored by Azercosmos. Credit: BBC

BBC StoryWorks has also produced content promoting the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the host of the 2023 COP28 climate summit and another petrostate with a poor human rights record. 

In 2023, the studio produced a branded content podcast series on behalf of Abu Dhabi Tourism, featuring five 20-minute episodes each “highlighting the message that Abu Dhabi [the capital of the UAE] is a destination for every kind of traveller”.

The series was shortlisted for a 2023 World Media Award and, in the award submission, the BBC said it “challenged preconceived notions and [positioned] the city as a cultural gem worth exploring”. The series was downloaded 115,000 times, according to the BBC. 

The UAE derives roughly 40 percent of its income from oil and gas, and this isn’t the only time that BBC StoryWorks has produced content promoting the petrostate.

The Humanising Energy series featured an article entitled, “The rise of renewable energies in oil-rich regions”, which greenwashed the image of Gulf states.

The story stated that the UAE is “planning to increase oil production to more than five million barrels a day by 2030”, but said that the country “has been looking toward more sustainable energy sources”. It went on to say that “Clean energy projects are coming of age” in the UAE, “from record-breaking solar parks and green hydrogen to waste-to-energy plants”.

The UAE’s overall climate action has been rated as “critically insufficient” by the Climate Action Tracker, an independent scientific project that monitors government climate action and measures it against the Paris Agreement.

Weeks before COP28, the country’s national oil company, ADNOC, awarded contracts worth $17 billion for the development of new offshore gas fields.

The Gulf state also has a poor record on human rights and press freedom. The UAE continues to arrest and imprison activists, academics, and lawyers who speak out against its monarchic rulers. UAE authorities also continue to discriminate against women, LGBTQ communities, and migrants. 

According to Reporters Without Borders, “The government prevents both local and foreign independent media outlets from thriving by tracking down and persecuting dissenting voices.”

“The rise of renewable energies in oil-rich regions” article also attempted to promote the ways in which “women are playing an increasing role in the renewable energy sector”. The story cited the fact that women are leading green initiatives in Kuwait, and Jordan. 

However, many Gulf states routinely discriminate against women. In Kuwait for example, the country’s personal status laws discriminate against women in matters of marriage, divorce, and child custody.

Despite this, BBC StoryWorks has frequently promoted the country. In December 2023, the studio published an advert from the Kuwait Fund, the country’s state-run development agency, boasting of its efforts to help “disadvantaged regions, women and minorities”.

Reporters Without Borders states that Kuwait’s censorship laws prohibit journalists “from criticising the government, the emir, the ruling family, its allies or religion”. In particular, it is “difficult for journalists to tackle migrant worker rights, women’s rights and corruption.”

Oil and gas revenues account for roughly 60 percent of Kuwait’s GDP. 

BBC StoryWorks has also produced content for the petrostate Qatar, promoting the country as a tourist destination despite its record of discriminating against women and minorities. 

BBC StoryWorks has a history of working for repressive regimes, including China. The U.S. publication Deadline reported in December 2022 that BBC StoryWorks had partnered with at least nine Chinese state-affiliated bodies, including a media outlet banned from broadcasting in the UK. 

“Those commissioning and paying for this content are deliberately using the BBC’s brand to greenwash or whitewash their own reputations. It’s an exercise of cynical manipulation,” the BBC’s former Baghdad bureau chief Patrick Howse told DeSmog.

“Commissions like this are lucrative and therefore attractive to a corporation that has been deliberately and severely financially squeezed by the UK government over a long period. This has forced the BBC to seek money from wherever it can find it, and this poses a risk to its editorial independence and honesty, which will ultimately undermine the trust of the BBC’s audience.”

Original article by Sam Bright republished from DeSmog.

Continue ReadingBBC Accused of Doing PR for Major Polluters