Daniel Waite Penny

Amy Westervelt

A Q&A with media scholar Hanna E. Morris on her new book, ‘Apocalyptic Authoritarianism’

The New Denial Is Delay

Carbon Bros, Ep 1: The Testosterone Pipeline

Carbon Bros

For seven years Energy Transfer has pursued a $300 million conspiracy lawsuit against Greenpeace, alleging that one of the world’s largest environmental nonprofits was pulling the strings behind the most significant Indigenous uprising in half a century. The original lawsuit, filed as a RICO case in federal court, argued that it was Greenpeace — not members of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe or footage of private security and police violence — that drew tens of thousands of people to the prairies of North Dakota in 2016 to attempt to stop the Dakota Access oil pipeline. For those who were actually involved in the movement, it was a preposterous narrative. Greenpeace was at best a bit player in the sprawling story of the Standing Rock movement.

The pipeline company’s attempt to use laws written to deal with the mob to go after environmental protestors failed, but that didn’t stop them. They refiled the suit as a conspiracy claim in North Dakota state court and, in March 2025…they won. Not only did they win, but they were awarded more than twice the damages they claimed, over $666 million, a settlement that could bankrupt Greenpeace and set a precedent with grave implications for the Indigenous and environmental defenders who continue to rise up against the fossil fuel industry as the climate crisis deepens.

The message: If you fight back, we will shut you down. The funny thing about a lawsuit like this, though, is that sometimes it shakes loose information that isn’t part of the plaintiff’s plan. As Greenpeace and Energy Transfer argued over which details could be presented before a jury trial, and what kind of evidence each party would have to hand over to the other, new details began to dribble out about what happened behind closed doors as Energy Transfer built its pipeline.

In this season of Drilled, we follow reporter Alleen Brown through a legal trial that will change the course of activism in the U.S. and beyond.

SLAPP’d

Reporting on climate disinformation has increased exponentially over the past decade. In 2015, reporters at 

published the stories collectively referred to as “Exxon Knew,” on the 

about climate change that Exxon scientists shared with the company’s management beginning in the 1970s. Since then, reporters at various outlets and researchers at NGOs have written about similar disinformation campaigns at 

 that first obstructed and then delayed climate action. Still others have dug into how the 

 that made it harder for the U.S. to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

This work has gone a long way towards building an understanding of how the world’s most powerful governments have failed to act to avoid a crisis scientists have been warning about for more than 50 years. But it’s important to keep in mind that the behaviors and strategies that obstructed climate action for decades weren’t just retired in the 2010s, when the oil companies decided it was no longer beneficial to pretend climate change wasn’t real. Nor are they limited solely to shaping how we understand the problem of climate change. These strategies have also been used to 

how the public and political leaders think about solutions to the problem, and to drive funding and attention toward solutions that continue to benefit the fossil fuel industry.

The same tactics fossil fuel companies used to cast doubt on or obscure climate science and to downplay the problem have, in recent years, been increasingly used to push false solutions to the climate crisis. The industry knows that “solutions”  like carbon capture, liquefied natural gas, hydrogen, and renewable natural gas will work only to protect its profits, not to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The tactics they use include 

 that skews public discourse and policymaking in the direction of their preferred solutions; creating coalitions to push those solutions via lobbying and PR; hiring management consultancies to conduct skewed analysis supporting those solutions; and amplifying disinformation via PR and advertising campaigns. 

Over the past several months, Drilled has been digging into what the industry says privately about its preferred climate solutions compared to what it says publicly about them. We’ve talked to current and former staff at oil companies as well as expert scientists, dug up primary documents, and watched countless hours of promotional videos. 

Tackling information pollution and cleaning up our information ecosystem is a key first step toward acting on climate. In a recent interview with Drilled, Rutgers media studies professor Melissa Aronczyk explained why. 

“The stuff we see as disinformation—the misleading ad campaigns, or the executives saying very misleading things on cable news—it’s just the tip of the iceberg,” she said. “To really understand and address climate disinformation, you have to see the whole picture, see how they shape all of these different types of information and data that become the building blocks of policy. You have to see what university research they’re funding, what parameters they’re putting on economic models, how they’re interacting with management consultants, what trade groups they’re participating in, what research and lobbying coalitions they’re part of, how they’re approaching thought leadership and influencers, how they’re shaping cultural norms, and how all of that is being done in service of pushing particular policies or keeping regulation at bay.”

In a series that will run throughout the summer, both here on our website and in the Drilled podcast, we’ll dig into  key examples of this around the world. We’ll show you how fossil fuel companies have used the same tactics they used to suppress and spin climate science to block the energy transition, warp international climate negotiations, blur the language around government climate commitments, and get governments all over the world to commit billions of dollars toward “climate solutions” that will extend the life of fossil fuels for decades to come and continue to obstruct and delay real solutions.

 with several pieces co-published with media partners. 

Denial to Delay

The term “information pollution” was coined by journalist and Drilled founder Amy Westervelt to describe the fossil fuel industry’s approach to the information ecosystem, an approach that goes far beyond simply “disinformation,” which Westervelt describes as just the most visible symptom of this problem. In this context “information pollution” is defined as: The intentional warping of information ecosystems by corporate interests, such that everything from the basic building blocks of information—university research, surveys, white papers—to public-facing campaigns crafted by PR and advertising experts are driven by a profit or power motive as opposed to the desire to understand and communicate. 

The fossil fuel industry saw the benefit of shaping and leveraging the information ecosystem early on. It was one of the first major users of PR in the U.S. and it continues to spend more than most other industries. Similarly, fossil fuel companies saw the value of investing in university research as a way to shape policy as early as the 1920s.  Despite the billions of dollars it’s spent on PR, research, and other information pollution strategies over the years, the industry and its favorite firms are not exactly innovative. They come back to the same five key narratives over and over again, leaning on whichever plays best at any particular point in time:

- From fueling wars to preserving national security, the industry loves to highlight it’s role in keeping America safe…even when it’s profiting from wars that it has also helped to manufacture. 

- Keeping nature separate from humans and reminding us over and over again that economic growth is more important than conservation has helped the industry stave off regulation for decades. 

 - From keeping the lights on to providing the building blocks for life-saving medical devices, smart phones, cosmetics and fast fashion, the industry loves to remind consumers that they need it. 

 - Nothing keeps regulation away like voluntary solutions that make it seem like the industry is really trying. 

 Just in case people still aren’t thrilled about dirty air, dirty water, and climate change, the industry makes sure to fund museums, sports, aquariums, and schools, which serves the dual purpose of cleaning up its image and making communities feel dependent on the industry and thus less likely to criticize it.

Information Pollution

For decades now, the fossil fuel industry has told the same story: Oil equals development and prosperity. Access. Equality. Stability. A better quality of life. As the world’s fossil fuel companies race to tap the last of the planet’s oil reserves we have a chance to examine that promise up close, in real time.

What it looks like on the ground in countries like Guyana, Uganda, and Mozambique is a lot like what the first phase of extractive colonialism looked like a hundred years ago. Working with reporters living in these countries we are continuously investigating what this new flavor of oil colonialism looks like, starting with an in-depth, two-year reporting project in Guyana. 

Several miles off the coast of Guyana sits one of the world’s largest oil reserves. In 2015, ExxonMobil, which had held offshore drilling leases in the country for decades, announced it had found oil and would begin production as soon as possible. Government officials quickly got in line, and in 2019 the first barrels shipped from ExxonMobil Guyana. Today, Exxon projects that oil from Guyana could account for 25% of its total production in the next few years. But environmentalists and government corruption watchdogs have begun to push back on the project. Why 

 an oil industry in the midst of climate crisis? And especially in a country at great risk of climate impacts? Via a contract that will sooner put Guyana in debt than make it a rich oil state, no less?

In just a few years, Exxon has co-opted both government and civil society, buying up social license in every corner of the country. Oil executives and Guyanese officials are still telling the story that oil equals development and prosperity, and on paper Guyana is the fastest-growing economy in the world, but average citizens aren’t benefiting from the boom. Today, there are only a couple of journalists left covering the project with any sort of skepticism, and one lawyer left willing to take it on in court. 

Carbon Bros

Where the climate crisis meets the crisis of masculinity.

Carbon Bros, Ep 1: The Testosterone Pipeline

Share This Investigation

Date Created

Last Updated

Investigators

Tags

SLAPP’d

Denial to Delay

Information Pollution

New Oil Colonialism

Carbon Bros

Where the climate crisis meets the crisis of masculinity.

Carbon Bros, Ep 1: The Testosterone Pipeline

Share This Investigation

Date Created

Last Updated

Investigators

Tags

More Investigations

SLAPP’d

Denial to Delay

Information Pollution

New Oil Colonialism