Listen to the article
In a significant shift in global energy discourse, fossil fuel companies are rapidly adapting their messaging strategies as geopolitical tensions in the Middle East highlight vulnerabilities in traditional energy supply chains. Industry observers note that recent events are causing many to reconsider energy dependency, with growing recognition that renewable alternatives offer security advantages that oil cannot match.
“A side effect of the war in Iran is that fossil fuels are falling out of favor,” energy analysts report. “People are starting to realize that sunlight can’t get stuck in the Strait of Hormuz, that EVs can’t have their fuel supply held hostage on a tanker, and that there’s no such thing as a barrel of wind.”
This realization comes as oil prices surge amid regional instability and scenes of pollution in Tehran make headlines worldwide. In response, major energy companies and industry groups like the American Petroleum Institute (API) have intensified advertising campaigns emphasizing fossil fuels as essential to economic stability and security.
A recent analysis by Clean Creatives, which examined nearly 1,900 advertisements from BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, and Chevron between 2020 and 2024, reveals a systematic evolution in messaging tactics. The report’s lead author, Nayantara Dutta, notes: “Greenwashing has taken on a new form.”
The research identified distinct phases in the industry’s communication strategy. In 2020-2021, companies heavily emphasized sustainability commitments, featuring net-zero pledges and renewable imagery. However, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, messaging pivoted dramatically toward energy security, framing fossil fuels not as a transitional energy source but as a safeguard against global chaos.
By 2023, the industry had refined its approach to suggest compatibility between continued fossil fuel expansion and climate action, heavily promoting technologies like carbon capture, hydrogen, and “lower-carbon” fuels. These technologies, while positioned as climate solutions, conveniently preserve the central role of oil and gas in the energy mix.
The most recent messaging phase, coinciding with political shifts in the United States, has become more direct: fossil fuels aren’t going anywhere and are essential to modern life. Shell, for instance, has increasingly emphasized liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a permanent fixture in the energy landscape, despite scientific evidence challenging its climate credentials.
“API’s ad in The Daily clearly demonstrates the focus on energy security and domestic oil and gas production we discovered in our analysis,” Dutta told climate publication HEATED. She noted that API is supported by at least six advertising and PR agencies to craft and distribute these narratives.
The scale of this communication effort is substantial, with oil companies collectively spending approximately $7 billion annually on media, advertising, and public relations. This massive expenditure serves a critical purpose: maintaining what industry analysts call “social license to operate” – essentially public permission to continue business as usual despite growing climate concerns.
Geoffrey Supran, a Harvard University researcher who studies fossil fuel communications, described these campaigns as “state-of-the-art propaganda developed in partnership with public relations experts and based on almost a century of collaborative experience.” The influence of such advertising has prompted United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres to call for a worldwide ban on fossil fuel advertisements.
Climate journalists and advocates argue that the industry’s insistence on its own indispensability reveals an underlying vulnerability. “If fossil fuels were truly inevitable, there would be no need for a constant, multi-billion-dollar campaign to convince us of that fact,” one analysis noted. “That insistence is not evidence of inevitability. It’s just the sound of power trying not to lose control.”
As more media outlets reconsider their relationships with fossil fuel advertisers – The Guardian and Vox banned such advertisements in 2020 and 2021, respectively – pressure mounts on other platforms to evaluate their role in amplifying industry messaging that increasingly contradicts climate science and energy transition goals.
The industry’s evolving communications strategy offers a window into how powerful economic interests respond to existential challenges, attempting to shape public perception even as global events increasingly highlight the vulnerabilities of fossil fuel dependency.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
13 Comments
It’s interesting to see how the fossil fuel industry is adapting its messaging in response to growing climate scrutiny. Emphasizing energy security and economic stability makes sense as they try to counter the narrative around renewable alternatives.
You’re right, the industry is clearly feeling the pressure and is attempting to pivot its messaging. It will be important to scrutinize these new ad campaigns closely for any misleading claims.
The industry’s efforts to emphasize fossil fuels as essential for economic stability and security are understandable, but they seem to be overlooking the significant security benefits of renewable energy sources that are less vulnerable to geopolitical disruptions.
That’s a good point. The industry’s messaging seems to be focused on short-term economic concerns, rather than the long-term strategic advantages of transitioning to more resilient energy systems.
The shift in global energy discourse is a significant development. I’m curious to see if the industry’s efforts to highlight fossil fuels as essential will resonate, or if the public is becoming more receptive to renewable energy’s advantages.
Good point. The public’s views on energy security and the environment seem to be changing, which could make the industry’s messaging an uphill battle.
It’s concerning to see the fossil fuel industry doubling down on advertising campaigns that could be misleading. Renewable energy’s advantages in terms of supply chain resilience and pollution mitigation seem clear, but the industry is clearly trying to sway public opinion.
I agree, it’s important to critically evaluate the industry’s claims and ensure the public has access to accurate, impartial information on the tradeoffs between fossil fuels and renewable alternatives.
It’s interesting to see how the industry is adapting its tactics in response to growing climate scrutiny. While emphasizing energy security and economic stability may resonate with some, it will be crucial for the public to carefully evaluate the industry’s claims against the evidence on renewable energy’s benefits.
The industry’s shift in messaging is an interesting development, but it’s concerning to see them potentially downplaying the security advantages of renewable energy. The public should remain vigilant and seek out objective information to assess the tradeoffs between fossil fuels and renewable alternatives.
The industry’s pivot to emphasize fossil fuels as essential for economic stability and security is a clear attempt to counter the narrative around renewable energy’s advantages. However, the public should be wary of any misleading claims and scrutinize the industry’s messaging closely.
The industry’s efforts to emphasize the importance of fossil fuels for economic stability and security are understandable, but they seem to be overlooking the significant vulnerabilities of traditional energy supply chains. It will be crucial for the public to carefully evaluate the industry’s claims against the evidence on renewable energy’s benefits.
The industry’s advertising campaigns highlighting fossil fuels as essential seem like a defensive move in response to growing climate scrutiny. It will be important for the public to critically evaluate these claims and consider the long-term strategic benefits of transitioning to renewable energy sources.