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 deny, aggressively fight against climate science. so how do oil lobbies and trade associations help fossil fuel companies stay profitable? some of the biggest names in the oil industry, our show, british petroleum, exxon mobil, chevron, and total energy. and they're all part of the lobby. good. 2 major fossil fuel lobby groups are the american petroleum institute, or in the us and fuels you are up in the you. companies like show the impacts on mobile, a part of both industries. agency, dpi, is 600 vendors. you can look at basically a strategy of, of the 600 companies by the way, just looking at what industry association that's tom whole and he works for i think

di influence maps the company on a license of business and finance impact the climate crisis. i need industry associations, all are heavily engaged because the, the food that profiles, so they really getting involved in a variety of different strands of climate policy. so greenhouse gas reduction targets on the transitions of renewable energy target. according to influence map companies like show and chevron pay up to $12000000.00 a year to hold membership at the a p i membership it fuels. europe is significantly cheaper, but still more than $2000000.00 annually. so what's the bank 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 west. 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 politicians and the drafting, mp, protest, low 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 fuss a few lobbies in the us attempting to lobby against climate activists. so what they're doing is trying to prevent protests to that you didn't have public engagement either. here's another example of lobbying in the us. this concerns the debate over the introduction of the carbon tax 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 guy is to be

a whipping boy for the, for the company is 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 lobby's 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 gotcha transport emissions is met with skepticism from the oil and gas industry. they say that 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 not the same day that a few these, these to continue. but they all very much vision shows that the mechanisms that you're currently using fossil fuels for made in 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 the solution to the e u. n. g o c. one subject that is recurring often is the use of hydrogen and carpet and capture and storage. and that's specifically for the lovely me,

things that will help either with the fossil fuel companies or with that network. now this is sort of a solution that 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 that you and it's institutions are often criticized for not being transparent enough in declaring lobbying activities a report by fossil free politics, analyzing the european commissions meetings show 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. all the c making. yep. lobbying doesn't exist in a vacuum. external events also shape a 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 slashing us back after decades and is a top public policy concert. interest rates, which have been following for decades, are up sharply. mcnally has an energy consultancy firm, 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. hence,

we need fossil fuels. for example, in the caribbean, countries like ya know, have started investing more and more or attracting more investments. oil and gas cynical, is attracting new investments to oil and gas when they could be actually attracting investment could be getting to what's renewable energy, biomass, 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 and vin entered our energy system, that's according to our world and data. energy transactions are very slow and can sometimes big 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 into 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 at the wrong time. it also said that zeroing in on a these ignore 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 and fuels europe have 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 most of you who we've heard from earlier was one of the

authors, the it was status, 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. worked or played out a plan to create this team, which it was what they actually articulate, articulated was that victory would be achieved when average citizens understand uncertainties in climate science. the strategies included everything from recruit the scientists to you, to carry that message of uncertainty. and other more recent example in the us concerns me seen, emissions me seen is a key complement 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 and you've seen emissions from oil and gas operations were introduced a, be our clients at the time with big new sampled heaters and the a b. i claimed that this new regulation would have incurred high costs for them. so the f, 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 attempts, the regulation was fast, but it was short lived in 2020, the trump administration rolled back on the regulation a most supported by the epi, i the i reached out to both a b i. n. c was 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 meaning for change. an issue arises, however, when there is an imbalance of influence. the balance is a bit more into favor of corporation by quite a large margin. 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 engineers don't. this relationship between fossil fuel players and decision makers was evident at last years called climate talks. a, for example, friend spot along the 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 cop part disciplines. it is usually important for major oil and gas companies to be

part of the energy policy conversations. so you saw them investing in uh, technologies that would enable us to use oil and gas while reducing emissions, carbon capture, seek lustration, green 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 and as 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 live in and put just as an equity at the hot, it's really incumbent upon countries in, in the us, in europe, which it benefited most of from 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 i've even been to courts to fight they're cause they're buying the client's time as the clock dicks on their role in a clean economy. the

.