Consumption of oil continues to rise even as the climate crisis intensifies. OPEC projects a 2.7% increase for the coming year, though that forecast could shift if the Ukraine conflict or inflation worsens. Oil has persisted as a dominant energy source alongside coal and natural gas, despite long-standing concerns about its impact on human survival.
Big oil remains hesitant to abandon what some call a doomsday fuel. They resist rapid decarbonisation while insisting the economy depends on oil, a sentiment echoed by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres who warned that the industry has a tight grip on humanity. Transportation, industry, and broader economic activity rely heavily on petroleum products.
This is not a metaphor. A recent study by Impact Map shows oil companies spend about $750 million annually on climate marketing, yet allocate only about 12% of their total investments to decarbonisation. Despite repeated public commitments to environmental goals, the actual actions suggest a slower, less immediate shift away from fossil fuels [Impact Map].
The article accompanies an image captioned chimneys releasing toxic gases into the atmosphere.
The Big Oil’s 2022 Agenda surveyed more than 3,000 messages from the five largest hydrocarbon producers: BP, Shell, TotalEnergies, ExxonMobil, and Chevron. About 60% of these messages referenced environmental commitments, with the advertising spend across media estimated conservatively at $750 million in a single year.
When these companies’ data are compared with their stated plans for low-carbon activities in 2022, the share of investment earmarked for decarbonisation appears to be around 12%, while total spending on property investments runs from 87,000 to 96,000 million euros per year in that analysis [Impact Map].
Requests for data proving compliance with environmental commitments have, in some cases, gone unanswered, according to co-author Faye Holder, a researcher at Impact Map. This contrast between broad climate messaging and what is actually being done is described by Holder as greenwashing.
Powerful Oil Lobbies
Oil, gas, and coal interests maintain organized lobbies that aim to blunt the moral and political pressure for swift climate action. At COP26 in Glasgow, the fossil fuel industry’s presence was notable. The largest delegation did not come from a government but from the sector itself, with more than 500 people connected to hydrocarbon interests, according to Global Witness, pressuring for policies favorable to their sector. Some observers viewed these efforts as seeking to block stronger measures against emissions [Global Witness].
The impact of this lobbying is a recurring theme in discussions about climate diplomacy. Murray of Global Witness described it as a major reason why decades of UN climate talks have not yielded the level of emission reductions proposed. In parallel, the tobacco-control model is sometimes cited as a cautionary tale about industry influence undermining public health goals.
One influential industry group identified at COP26 was the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA). Its spokesperson Alessandre Vitelli argued that the group’s mission is to find market-based ways to reduce emissions, presenting a rationale for continued involvement of various sectors in climate policy discussions.
Insufficient Emission Reduction Targets
Beyond public relations and political influence, the actual decarbonisation goals of major oil companies remain inadequately ambitious to meet Paris Agreement targets. Research led by Climate Analytics and published in Nature Communications indicates that the publicly stated decarbonisation scenarios of BP, Shell, and Equinor are unlikely to prevent warming above 1.5°C by 2100 unless more aggressive measures are adopted. Even BP’s most ambitious scenario in the analysis projects an average maximum warming near 1.65°C, underscoring that every fraction of a degree matters in climate terms. Climate Analytics’ Bill Hare stresses the need to avoid scenarios that fail to align with Paris goals.
These findings come as global health experts and climate researchers emphasize the health damages tied to fossil fuel use and air pollution, highlighting the urgency of a rapid transition to cleaner energy sources.
In response, a coalition of health professionals and organizations urged governments to ratify a Fossil Fuels Nonproliferation Treaty, signaling a collective push toward restricting fossil fuel expansion and accelerating the move to sustainable energy systems. The World Health Organization leadership has repeatedly linked fossil fuels to preventable disease and premature deaths, framing the issue as a health crisis in addition to an environmental one.
The overarching message is clear: the global energy landscape needs a bold shift away from oil, gas, and coal toward cleaner alternatives to safeguard health and the climate. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has characterized fossil fuel expansion as a grave threat, likening industry tactics to those once employed by tobacco interests and urging banks and policymakers to reexamine funding practices that sustain dirty energy.
As the conversation continues, the call remains for a faster, clearer path to energy systems that protect health and the planet, reducing dependence on fossil fuels while expanding access to sustainable, low-emission solutions.
Endnote on the climate discourse notes the ongoing tension between economic interests and public health priorities. Governments, businesses, and civil society are urged to collaborate toward a future where energy security does not come at the expense of human health or planetary stability. The debate is not abstract; it concerns how societies will power themselves in the decades ahead, with the aim of avoiding the worst outcomes of climate change, protecting air quality, and safeguarding future generations.