Non-profit organization Influence Maphas liberated a report to suggest that oil companies spent $114 millionlast year to avoid activity being taken on climate change. The money was split between publicity activities mislead the public on the science and lobbying of legislators to avoid the transition of legislation. The calculate does not include contributions from other fossil fuel companies, and probably misses some for the purposes of the table payments.
The UK-based NGO expended excise preserves and lobbying registries to assess corporate influence andestimate the full amounts of the spend, is not simply on direct lobbying, but alsoadvertising, sell, public relations, political contributions, regulatory contacts, and trade associations. They donot, nonetheless, include what Influence Map refers to as dark ponds, money being channeled into anti-climate think tanks and institutes, as it is harder to allocate fully the beginnings of these funds.
The funds were predominately spent in the United States, climate obstructionism having restriction traction in most of the rest of “the worlds”. The majority of the $114 million came from the American Petroleum Institute( API ), the representative figure to which most oil companies contribute.
However, Influence Map says that Exxon Mobil spent $27 million directly, despite knowing about climate change since the early ‘8 0s and having promised to cease its climate denial activities in 2008. Shell spent $22 million, in addition to their contributions to the API. In July 2015, Shell leftthe American Legislative Exchange Council( ALEC ), a right-wing figure thatlobbies U.S. state governments, because of ALEC’s denial of human rights persons responsible for global warming, but they seem keen to keep on balk legislative change.
Source and type of expenditure. Influence Map.
The single biggest expenditure was the $43 million the API spent on advertising and public relations campaigns, including comprising seminars and convenings to influence debate.
Most of the rest of the money went to paying communications and media staff to influence the conversation around the science and plan of climate change. The organizations’ total expenditure on communications personnel was much larger, but Influence Map exclusively included the factor they estimate was spent on working against climate tasks. Donations to politicians’ campaigns represented a very small cost by comparison.
Although the study captured expenditure incurred by smaller oil companies through the API and two other sell formations, direct payments from these companies were not included, so the real total is almost certainly higher. It is not unreasonable to estimate that in excess of $500 m is spent by the corporate sector globally on clogging ambitious climate policy and regulations in line with reaching less than 2C warming, the report argues.
Much of the money was spent , not on assaults on official climate policy, but on attempting to undermine programs to support renewable energy.
The tide may be becoming against this sort of behaviour, nonetheless. Influence Map’s report notesthat in the first three months of 2016 there have been 15 shareholder resolvings filed by investors in the U.S. alone, seeking to patrol companies to cease lobbying against climate activity or to be more transparent about specific activities. Many of these resolutions are coming from unions and retirement funds increasingly concerned about the long-term economic the effects of failing to taking decisions on climate change.
[ H/ T: Climate Home]