Exxon Funded Climate Denial Campaign in Latin America, New Documents Reveal

Hundreds of previously unpublished documents have exposed how US oil giant Exxon systematically funded think tanks across Latin America to spread climate change denial from the late 1990s to early 2000s.

The documents, released by environmental watchdog DeSmog, reveal a coordinated campaign orchestrated by Exxon and the Atlas Network designed to make developing nations “less inclined” to support United Nations climate treaty initiatives during a pivotal period in global climate action.

The Atlas Network, a US-based coalition of over 500 free-market think tanks worldwide, worked closely with Exxon to disseminate climate skepticism throughout the region. The newly revealed correspondence includes internal memos and copies of checks that Exxon sent to Atlas to finance various initiatives targeting Latin American audiences.

These financial contributions helped fund Spanish and Chinese translations of climate-denying books, covered travel expenses for American climate deniers to visit Latin American cities, and supported public events that allowed climate skeptics to reach local media outlets and network with regional politicians.

According to one document, a clearly stated goal of the campaign was to convince people in developing nations of “the adverse effects of global climate change treaties” on their economies and development.

The timing of this campaign proved particularly strategic. Just a few years earlier, in 1987, the Montreal Protocol had established a precedent for international environmental cooperation. This was followed in 1992 by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the first global treaty specifically addressing climate change, which established the annual Conference of the Parties to facilitate international discussions on greenhouse gas stabilization.

These early efforts eventually led to both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, legally binding climate treaties designed to combat global warming. It was precisely during this formative period of international climate policy development that Exxon launched its extensive misinformation campaign—despite internal company research dating back to the 1970s that acknowledged both the causes and dangers of climate change.

When questioned about the documents, an Atlas Network spokesperson attempted to minimize their significance, stating they were “drafted by former employees from more than a quarter century ago, addressed to a corporation that was never an important donor to our organization, and which indeed has not been a donor at all for close to two decades.”

However, experts dispute this characterization of the campaign’s impact. Carlos Milani, a professor of international relations at Rio de Janeiro State University’s Institute of Social and Political Studies, emphasized that “the atmosphere has a huge historical memory when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions…What happened 30 years ago matters very much.”

The financial scale of Exxon’s support also contradicts Atlas’s characterization of the relationship. DeSmog’s documents include checks ranging from $15,000 to $50,000. In one particularly revealing 1997 strategy plan sent to Exxon, Atlas requested $75,000 (approximately $153,000 in today’s dollars), explicitly stating that “this investment in market-oriented public policies is a vital key to our future prosperity and well-being—and to continued strong returns to Exxon’s investors.”

This revelation comes amid growing scrutiny of fossil fuel companies’ historical knowledge of climate change and their subsequent efforts to delay climate action. Over the past decade, investigative reporting and litigation have exposed similar campaigns in North America and Europe, but this marks one of the most comprehensive looks at how such tactics were exported to developing regions.

The documents also raise questions about how these denial campaigns may have influenced climate policy development in Latin American nations during crucial formative years of the international climate regime.

For environmental advocates and policymakers, these findings underscore the need for continued vigilance against misinformation campaigns that prioritize corporate interests over public welfare, particularly in regions most vulnerable to climate impacts.