use of the box as well and that these mold respond accordingly. the next business looks at the lobbying, but keeps the oil industry fuel. so that's not the business updates. and just a moment, i'll be back up until the i'm going to i think the oh just twice. think ahead or was outside the box on your but always remember to think for yourself. we all had to somebody was incredibly like, this is the driving you with free information dw made for mind, the

lobbying is big business and fossil fuel lobbying is no exception. over the last decade in the us alone, approximately $120000000.00 have been spent on oil and gas lobbying each year. this lobbyist admitted that yes, we did sometimes did deny, aggressively fight against climate science. so how do oil, all these and trade associations help fossil fuel companies the profitable some of the biggest names in the oil industry are show british petroleum, exxon mobil, chevron, and total energy. and they're all parts of the lobby groups to major fossil fuel lobby groups. are the american petroleum institute, or in the us and fuels, europe in the e. u. companies like show b, b and x on mobile. a part of what we're looking at is these issues. i think the

highest 600 band is. you can look at basically a strategy or the 600 companies by the way, just looking at what industry association that's tom whole and he works for i think dying influence maps. the company analyzes our business in finance, impact the climate crisis, industry associations all are heavily engaged because you've actually that profiles . so they really getting involved in a variety of different strategies of climate policy. so greenhouse gas reduction targets on the transitions of renewable energy target. according to influenced map, companies like show and chevron pay up to $12000000.00 a year or 2 holds membership at the a b i membership it fuels. europe is significantly cheaper, but still more than $2000000.00 annually. so what's the bang for the buck here? lobby groups of air, time and important places in front of decision makers. for example, the new parliament or a governor in the us. then they come up with plans on how to convince both

additions and influential people to back fossil fuels. this can impact legislation and what are the laws that they believe are detrimental to the industry? so they have relationships with additions and the drafting on to purchase those, sending them and say, hey, you know, distracted this, i think this could help with your assets. i'm your us, of us, of the fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty is talking about slots. if you lobbies in the us attempting to lobby against climate activists to what they're doing and trying to prevent protests to that, you don't have public engagement either. here's another example of lobbying in the us. this concerns the debate over the introduction of a carbon tax. a proposed price on carbon that emitters would have to pay for their greenhouse gas emissions. the carbon tax which many of these companies and their associations claim to support is a good talking point. and part because they,

you know, they don't expect that it will ever happen. kathy movie is the accountability officer for the union of concerned scientists. that a p i is to be a whipping boy for the, for the companies. right. and so, so i think this is, this is one of those things that a trade association or an industry group can really do the dirty work for the oil and gas companies. so they can say one thing and their lobby is doing another oil. all these use 3, the string strategies influence map identify these narratives. one is solution skepticism what sort of down please hold vital new infrastructure energy sources are because over, for example, electric vehicles as a solution to catch transport. emissions is met with skepticism from the oil and gas industry. they say, but ease won't have

a substantial impact on the reduction of emissions and see doubt about their potential positive impact. the 2nd is policy neutrality. this is when oil lobbies oppose policies that only promote clean technology, for example, advocating for low carbon fuels to be included as renewable sources of energy. and all these things a few these, these to continue, but they all very much vision shows that the mechanisms that you're currently using fossil fuels for me, the plates and the 3rd strategy is affordability and energy security, which i'll explain later. lobbies are strong in the us, but they're vigorous here in europe to to put it in perspective. oil company, sho, spends 4000000 euros on lobbying in the u annually. this company, advocates for carbon capture and storage as a way of offsetting their carbon emissions. and to lobbying fossil fuel companies

have been able to deliver this solution to the e u. n. g o c. one subject that is recurring often is the use of hydrogen and carbon capture and storage. and that's specifically for the they'll be things that will help either with the fossil fuel companies or with that network. now this is sort of a solution to currencies quite debated by the science community, whether it's really effective or not. but we do see some results because we sold that in the new guidelines of the new european commission and it is future and quite put them in permanently. the e u and its institutions are often criticized for not being transparent enough in declaring lobbying activities a report by fossil free politics, analyzing the european commissions meetings, showed that fossil fuel lobbyist met with you. commissioner ursula fund a lions team. $900.00 times in the last 4 and a half years. that's nearly one meeting every working day. and according to transparency international, this reveals the abject power of fossil fuel companies and their networks wheeled

over e requirement to policy making. yet lobbying doesn't exist in a vacuum. external events also shape of speed at which change happens. following the 1st climate agreement in 2015, there was a moment of view for you over a quick transition to cleaner technologies and investment in new infrastructure. but then everything changed, says bob mcnally, in felician is back after decades and is a top public policy concern. interest rates, which have been following for decades, are up sharply. mcnally had some energy consultancy for him, but fossil fuel clients on his bill. parts of europe and the middle east are engulfed in major wars that have already impacted energy. this has resulted in some companies pulling back on their climate promises and instead expanding their fossil fuel production clubbing together, energy security and fossil fuels is the 3rd strategy we talked about earlier. this

narrative affordability and energy security centers on the idea that fossil fuels are cheaper and the alternatives are not there yet. and so we need fossil fuels. for example, in the caribbean, countries like y'all have started investing more and more. uh oh, attracting more investment oil and gas cynical, is attracting new investments oil and gas, when they could be actually attracting investment could be getting to what's renewable energy, bio, mass, coal, and oil, where the dominant energy sources for a very long time in the sixty's nuclear energy was added to the mix in the eighty's solar invent entered our energy system. that's according to our world and data. energy transitions are very slow and can sometimes take decades to come to fruition . usually, we add one new energy source to the existing energy sources. we rarely completely

get rid of one form of energy. i think, realistically, not only will we ex, depend on oil and gas and even call for many decades in the future. but we won't displace it as fast as i think people were hoping when the byte and administration set up the installation reduction act, a law that promotes clean energy. the 8 the i said, the law amounted to wrong policies the wrong time. it also said that zeroing in on each of these ignores fuel based options that could better accomplish the objective to reduce emissions. but the international energy agency argues that we need a faster shift towards green deck, and that ease are key to the carbon isaac real transport associations like the f, b i. m. fills your a pet for a long time, produced lobbying campaigns, and crafted narratives, favoring fossil fuels for both decision makers and the public. this is a dosier compiled by the union of concerned scientists that also includes

a 1998 internal ab i remember what that sought to spread this information about climate science. got the movie who we heard from earlier was one of the authors. the, it was stats, the world was considering the kyoto protocol, which would have set binding emissions reduction targets. and so the american petroleum institute created something called the global climate science communications team. i worked or laid out a plan to create this team, which it was what they actually articulated, articulated was that victory would be achieved when average citizens understand uncertainties in climate science. the strategies included everything from recruiting scientists to, to carry that message of uncertainty. and other more recent example in the us concerns me seen, emissions me seen is

a key component of natural gas. it's also one of the biggest contributors to climate change. in 2016, during the obama administration, the 1st federal standards to regulate niecy and emissions from oil and gas operations were introduced. a be our clients at the time with big new sample leaders and the a b. i claimed that this new regulation would have incurred high costs for them. so the a, b, i and other fossil fuel trade associations suit the us environmental agency, while they agree, but emissions needed to be reduced. they argued it would be best done without any regulatory oversight. despite their attendance, the regulation was fast, but it was short lived in 2020, the trump administration rolled back on the regulation. a move supported by the epi, i the i reached out to both a, b, i and fuels europe for an interview. fuels, europe declined b e b,

i never responded lobbying itself still isn't necessarily a bad thing. it's a form of advocacy and can play an important role to amplify voices, to ensure they reach policy makers. it's a legitimate part of political participation, where various groups, including nonprofits, unions, corporations can all lend their voice. coordinated efforts can lead to meaningful change. an issue arises, however, when there is an imbalance of influence. the balance is a bit more in the favor of corporation by quite a large margins. and the reason why it's more a in favor of corporation is because corporations simply have these very large business association and trade association, which most and joes don't. this relationship between fossil fuel players and decision makers was evident at last years called climate talks. for example, from spot a long gas company, total energy is as part of its country delegation. the u enlisted employees of b,

b, n. i and exxon mobil to be part of theirs. that's according to an energy was analysis of comp, participants. it is usually important for major oil and gas companies to be part of the energy policy conversation. so you saw them investing in uh, technologies that would enable us to use oil and gas while reducing emissions, carbon capture, seek lustration, uh, green, a ammonia, and so forth, hydrogen, but also to invest in renewable energy and, and they wanted to be part of that discussion they don't want to suffer losses unnecessarily. so can there be a world without fossil fuels? well, the industry is lobbies claimed to be on board with the energy transition. and the freezing down of fossil fuels was also advocating for climate solutions that include them. for instance, the a, b, i says that there should be more of a focus on developing carbon capture technology insisting that oil, coal,

and natural gas will continue to be leading sources of energy in the decades to come. but not everyone is of the same opinion. so we need to start thinking about this transition as an opportunity to rethink the rules, to rethink the kind of well that we want to look at and put just as an equity at the hot, it's really incumbent upon countries in, in the us, in europe, which are benefited most from the fossil fuel dependent energy system to, to assist with that, that transition fossil fuel lobbyists of big pockets. and we need access to key decision makers. they employed strategies that see doubts about the impact of oil and gas and maintain that these fuels a crucial for energy security. they've been part of this information campaigns surrounding climate science. and they've even been to court to fight their cause. they're buying the client's time as the clock dicks on their role in a clean economy, the

shower or rather bother god. c the .