The history of Big Oil’s climate denial campaign is littered with slightly progressive sounding front groups which have tried to give the impression that the industry cares about climate change.
Six years after starting a campaign to kick fossil fuel sponsorship out of cultural and arts institutions in the UK, activists from the collective, Liberate Tate, will be touring the US this month.
As the renewable revolution gathers a pace, the oil industry has launched yet another PR offensive trying to rebrand fossil fuels as sustainable.
As Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton campaign in one of the most deeply bruising, personal and vitriolic Presidential campaigns ever witnessed, many are questioning the current venomous state of our polarized political discourse and how it needs to radically change.
The British Government’s formal announcement today to consult on whether to offer between £10,000 to £20,000 to every household affected by fracking as part of a “Shale Wealth Fund” has been being met with increasing outrage and opposition.
It will become a defining battle of our times. A Brexit-supporting billionaire, who until recently lived as a tax-exile in Switzerland, versus the people of Britain. And the battle will be over fracking.
Oh dear, BP. Last week was a lesson in how corporate sponsorship of the arts backfires badly.
We have known for years that Big Oil companies like BP sponsor iconic arts institutions in the UK as a way of greenwashing their image and helping the company with its “social licence to operate”.
I want to tell you a story about a man called Bob. Bob runs a large multinational oil company. His company has just recorded its worst ever record loss of $6.5 billion. He has sacked some 7,000 workers, ruining lives and ripping up livelihoods. His company has suffered a torrid, horrible year. His share price fell 13 per cent over the last year. His competitors all did much better.
Last week we exposed ExxonMobil’s Outlook for Energy as a corporate fantasy rather than a forecast. ExxonMobil’s head of public affairs called our work ill-informed and “odious” but chose not to answer our arguments…