A new study out from a regular source here at drilled, Doctor Robert Brule with the Institute for Environment and Society at Brown University reveals just how big a role the PR industry has played in obstructing climate action. From spreading denial and disinformation to manipulating the masses to building political will for or against certain policies, the PR industry has been enabling the fossil fuel industries every move for more
than one hundred years. Today, doctor Brule joins me to talk about that research and the firm that's worked the longest and hardest for big Fossil Edelman. Also joining us is former Edelman VP, Christine Arena, founder of Generous Films. If you're unfamiliar with Edelman, go back to our mad Men season season three and listen to episode three, all about the legendary Daniel Edelman, whose son Richard has followed in his footsteps, and the biography the firm commissioned on
Daniel Edelman. They brag about how he put a human face on big oil for the American Petroleum Institute. Today, we'll talk about PR's role in architect and climate obstruction. Why PR firms have avoided accountability for so long, and what it might look like for them to face the music that's coming up after this quick break. I'm Amy Westervelt and this is drilled. This episode is supported by Degrees Real Talk about Planet Saving Careers, an original podcast
from the Environmental Defense Fund. People ask me all the time what they can do about climate change, and I feel a little bit like a climate change guidance counselor sometimes the short answer is what do you get at, what are you interested in? Where can you plug in? What I like about Degrees is that it helps people figure out how they could maybe use their job to make an impact. Degrees features candid conversations and takeaways from
today's most inspiring climate change makers. Each episode tells a story of how one inspiring change maker found their climate career and how you can too. There's a new season out now, season three, and it's all about how, no matter the industry, you can find a planet saving job.
I got a sneak preview of season three of Degrees, and I loved it, especially the episode about Lake Street Drive, which is a green band, which is actually a lot harder to pull off than you might think in terms of all of the disposable things that come along with touring and concerts and music venues, trying to convince venues to reduce their waste all of that stuff travel. How do you figure that out? It was really good and
there's lots more where that came from. Too. These narrative stories will capture your attention and inspire you while giving you practical tips on how to get a climate focused career. Search for Degrees real talk about planet saving careers anywhere you listen to podcasts will include a link in the show notes. Too Big thanks to Degrees for their support. Okay, so, doctor Barwl, maybe you could start by explaining what prompted
this study in the first place. You know, what information were you looking for.
For a long time, I've studied the environmental movement and the climate movement, and around twenty twelve I started to focus on on what I call the climate counter movement, which is the organized effort to stop climate action in the United States. And so I started looking at conservative think tanks and who funds them and what their role
was in the climate obstruction process. And as I'm going through that data, I started, you know, I'm looking at dollar figures of you know, a total budget of two million dollars here or three million dollars here for organizations like the Heartland or the Competitive Enterprise Institute. And I decided to branch out into looking at trade associations like
the American Petroleum Institute. So I started to get the IRS data on the American Petroleum Institute, and suddenly I'm looking at a budget of two hundred and twenty five million dollars as opposed to three million for the Heartland Institute. And so I'm going, my goodness, you know, this is at least one hundred times larger as the amount of money going into their political activities. And then I started
to look at, well, where's that money going? And I came across a contract from the American Petroleum Institute to Ableman Communications in twenty ten for about seventy five million dollars to one organization from one other organization. And that really piqued my interest because even if I add up all of the money going into the climate science denial efforts, I recently published a paper on that, and it amounts to
about thirty six million dollars annually. And I'm looking at a contract in one year of seventy five million dollars for one organization in PR And I said, how much of this is going on? You know, do we have any good studies of this? And it turns out that the answer is no, we're not looking that nobody had done any peer reviewed research into the extent of the
role of advertising companies in the climate change arena. I mean, there were an isolated study here about this particular campaign or this particular campaign, but it didn't give you an overall comparative idea of how much activity there was. So I decided, let's go look at that. I'm just wondering how much of this is there? So I set out to do a really really basic discovery study where all I wanted to know is, well, how much is there
and what do they do? What is this? And so we compiled the list of about two I think it was two hundred and fourteen organizations that are prominent players in climate politics. And it's all of the usual actors, API, Sierra Club and our DC, Exxonmobile, Chevron, etc. We have a list of two hundred and fourteen organizations. And then I looked up it turns out that there's a corporate directory that's put out annually by o'dwyers that basically, PR firms send in who they work for, you know, lists
who they worked for. So we collected them all. That took a while, and then we just go in and we do a match. Who worked for Exon Mobile, we listed, who worked for Sierra Club, We listed, who worked for Chevron, we listed, and we just compiled that data very simple, and that forms the backbone of the paper. It's just a very descriptive paper. We make no claims about the content of their advertising campaigns. We just sort of say this is the frequency of employment that we see from
this data. Then we said, well, what do these PR firms do for these organizations? So we did a Lexus Nexus search of all of the media coverage from nineteen eighty nine to the year two thousand that involved one of our two hundred and fourteen organizations and tried to find all the media coverage that had to do with advertising by these companies. And we compiled that and we
wrote a forty page supplemental material to the report. So we focused on the ten largest PR companies that are engaged in this area based on our data, and then we found another ten that had gotten an extreme amount of coverage because of their activities were seen as controversial
or obviously newsworthy. And what we found is that regardless of whether they're working for the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, or Exon Mobile or the American fuel and petrochemical manufacturers, the strategies and tactics of PR are pretty much similar across the board. There's a well defined discipline of public relations activities that is carried out on behalf of both sides. And what this tells me in the end is that one, basically everybody uses public relations as part of their effort
to either support or to obstruct action on climate change. Two, they use pretty similar tactics, and so basically this is a ubiquitous and under examined area of the effort to obstruct climate action. The other thing we found is that it's not about denying climate science. The climate science denial it's less expensive to do than to try to change public opinion or to shift the cultural discourse, which is
what a lot of these PR campaigns do. So it might only cost thirty or forty million dollars to try to cast out on climate science, but if you want to move all the public opinion of people in the United States, or you want to shift congressional discourse about it or media discourse on it. That's a much bigger proposition. And I've seen figures that range, you know, depending on the year, of course, but between five hundred million and seven hundred million dollars a year is spent on these
pr activities to obstruct climate action. And if you only look at climate science denial, you're missing this other amount of money that's probably ten or twenty times larger than
the climate science denial efforts. So I think, you know, for me, what I'm hoping that this study does is that it puts the role of the public relations organizations on the map, because it's pretty clear to me that they are integral to the efforts to obstruct climate action, and that they are independent actors, you know, in other words, they bid on these contracts and get them, but they choose to bid on what contracts they want to take and which ones they don't want to take, and so
they're voluntarily signing on to assist in these efforts, whether it's helping to forward climate action. Public relations are to obstruct climate action, which is what the vast majority of these organizations are engaged in. So with that, I think hopefully this puts the role of public relations firms on par with Exon Mobile or API or Environmental Defense Fund,
is that these organizations are significant actors. They're the people that Exon Mobile or API go to to say we need this done for us, and they're the people that carry it out and execute it. And so they are part of the effort to either forward climate action or struck climate action. And I think that it's going to be interesting to see how they're held accountable for their activities in the future.
That's great, Okay, So I want to bring in Christine Arena. She is the head of Generalis Films and she is also a former VP at Edelman. I'd love to hear just your kind of initial response when you first saw the information in this study.
What did you think, Well, just to drill down on what doctor Bull is saying, it was eye opening to see this is really the most comprehensive look to date on how PR firms and AD firms really are a major force in obstructing climate action. And also to doctor Bull's point, PR and AD firms are central players in what we look at as the influence industry. Right so Exon Mobile can't do what it's doing without its influence
industry partners. Those partners include law firms, those partners include lobbying organizations right when think tanks and PR and ad firms are part of that influence industry and they're central players. And so what doctor Burle is describing is incredibly important because when you look at the resources channel through these influence industry partners, PR and ad firms are taking a
big chunk of the money. A lot of emphasis is on external facing advertising, marketing and promotion that helps prop up Exon Mobile or the fossil fuel industry social license to operate. And the point of doing that is to give the world a sense that we got it. To quote API, we're on it. We don't need regulation, you know, we're good corporate actors. And so this is really, I think, just such a valuable study. And to me, also the major contribution is that it really helps illustrate why we are
where we are on climate policy today. So to this point that doctor Burl's making, instead of the focus on outright climate denial or are questioning the science, I think our focus, everyone's focus, the public's focus needs to shift to climate obstruction, what that is, what it looks like in corporate propaganda as well. That's where the game is now. And to me, that's what's so valuable about the study.
It points this out and it really shows who the major actors are and the kinds of activities they're engaged and on behalf of their clients. The three questions the paper answers, which I think are so interesting, are you know, which are the firms that are the most utilized by the industry, who has the deepest relationships, and then what's the extent of their involvement in climate politics and what
activities do they undertake to advance fossil fuel interests? And I think what is really interesting with respect to the first point about the PR firms that are most utilized, is that we see that the current debate around whether or not fossil fuel clients deserve representation is really a flawed debate. It's not a debate. In fact, we're not going, oh, should PR and AD firms represent these clients? Should they not? This is not an ideological debate. The real issues are
how are they currently represented? How are fossil fuel clients currently represented by PR and ad firms and to what end, like, what is the result of that? And so I think, as this research shows, there are some PR firms and AD firms that have relationships, you know, with some fossil fuel clients, but then we see that there are other firms with deep, deep relationships across these sectors oil, gas, coal, rail,
utility and these fears. You know, you got your corporate clients like Exxons and Chevrons and then trade associations, and there's such a difference. You know, you got your American petroleum institutes, but also some of the more obstructing organizations like American fuel and petrochemical manufacturers and others that are
considered more extreme. So that's actually interesting because some of those bigger relationships, and then if you look at the resources spent with those trade associations, if you're a business leader and you're representing those clients, you cannot plausibly, incredibly argue that your decision to represent them is neutral. It's not a neutral decision because the entire purpose of some of these super obstructing trade associations is to do just
that they exist in order to obstruct climate action. That's their role, that's their purpose, that's the value proposition. So you are not advancing any goal other than climate obstruction by representing these clients, you are not helping to bring the energy transition into being, So any spin on that I think is really squelched, especially as doctor Brule is sort of unveiled the spending and the big, big contracts.
So I think that's very interesting finding there, and it kind of puts, I think, a lid on the party line and from the industry, which is that look, we represent all clients, we're unbiased, we help everyone. That's not really true. Representation is not neutral, and certainly the outcome of representation is not neutral. And then the other aspect of the study that I find so interesting is just
this drill down on disinformation. The fact that the vast majority of ads and marketing messages evaluated across a sample set of one hundred and seventy nine clients contain factual distortions, omissions, and greenwashing. That should be an alarm bell for the entire industry, because not only are these messages misleading, but they're uniquely harmful to people. And I think that is really something that we're going to see play out over the next year as we see how these ag lawsuits.
Do you know, we got Mara Healey, Attorney General of Massachusetts. She successfully prosecuted Pretty Pharma and the Sackler family, but in the process of doing that she also named McKinsey their marketing partner, and you know, they settled for six
hundred million there. So there is definitely a precedent that shows that professional services firms are not immune, that client privilege is not a panacea, and that is really just the point I think that activists should juilt down on, and I think it's something that I want employees inside
these agencies to be really aware of. That disinformation, the fact that most of the messaging coming out of the oil industry, the fossil fuel industry now contains these distortions emissions are in greenwashing, and those distortions emissions are harmful, potentially harmful to people. That is just such an important point.
So speaking of people inside of these agencies, I want to hear a little bit about both the media coverage of the study, Doctor Brule, who you've been talking to and who's covered it and who hasn't, and then also what you guys have both been seeing from from Edelman, which you know kind of looms large in this report. So maybe doctor Brule few and us speak first to you know, what the media response has been.
We've had I think about ten or twelve stories coming out. Your Washington Post got it in their newsletter. What's what's been interesting for me is what's missing is that Wall Street Journal didn't cover it. The New York Times has yet to cover it. So that for me, I guess,
is one area. But I mean, as far as the coverage itself, I find it incredibly amusing that every one of the media outlets that I talked to also tried to contact Aleman Communications and the answer was no comment, no comment, no comment, no comment, no comment, and no comment. I mean, this is not a controversial topic. As far as I can see, is that this is just as
great descriptive analysis. I mean to follow on though a little bit with Christine is that I think what we really need to recognize is that it's not just about disinformation, it's about manipulation of consciousness. Is that what these PR firms do, and they spend I mean I did a paper on this up to like one point five billion dollars from I think like nineteen eighty nine to twenty fifteen, I think one point three billion dollars one point five
billion dollars. We know that the public relations industry itself has bragged about the result of their activities regarding the
effectiveness of what they do. Some new information I have on this is that documents from the Global Climate Coalition and their efforts and their pr efforts by ebrew Sarason claimed that this is a quote GCC has successfully turned the tide on press coverage of global climate change science, effectively countering the eco catastrophe message, and asserted the lack of scientific consensus on global climate And then again they claimed GCC's effort to raise awareness of the science and
economics of climate change influenced the administration's decision to rely on voluntary rather than mandatory measures to reduce climate change
greenhouse gas emissions in its Climate Change Action policy. In other words, they're claiming that they're able to manipulate the consciousness of the American public, that they're able to manipulate and shift the media coverage of it, and that they're able to manipulate the public opinion so that climate change is not seen to be problematic and that climate science is inaccurate and that they're able to manipulate and change public policy because of these perr activities.
Christine, what have you been seeing from the agency itself and what you know in terms of this sort of no common, no comment, now comment, how how much did you sort of expect that to be the reaction and what do you expect to see going forward.
I absolutely expected the containment strategy that we've seen for the past, you know, five six years on these stories continue. A containment strategy is simply when you put up barriers to discussion because you don't want to address the material issues. You're going to try to undermine your critics. You're going to try to say, you know, this journalist from the New York Times wrote the story about FTI, she's biased against the fossil fuel industry. You're going to try to
downplay this peer reviewed research. As activists, you know, you're going to not comment. You're going to instruct your employees not to comment. You're going to issue can statements that don't really address the material issues. You're going to pledge to not represent climate deniers when clearly no one is denying climate change anymore. The game has moved, so that is expected. It's what they've been doing for years, and it's not surprising. It is infuriating, but it's not surprising.
I'm a little more bullish than doctor Burull on the long term implications here, because my attitude is they can issue as many no comments as they like, they can post as many canned environmental statements on their websites as they like. But I think that these old school containment strategies are just not going to succeed against the weight of this particular story and in today's climate, because let's not forget we really are in an era of accountability
and accountability journalism. I mean, we got whistleblowers on the cover of Time magazine. So disinformation is a huge issue nationally, and when we drill down to climate disinformation, this is about a lot more than agencies are presently acknowledging. Because now not only do we have this body of peer reviewed evidence, but there's the seven state ag lawsuits filed on the basis of deceptive marketing practices. There's a congressional
investigation into big oil disinformation. Subpoena is issued there. And so I do think that journalists, including inside the trades are going to start to ask tougher questions rather than towing the agency party line. So offending firms are really starting to receive pressure from all sides. They might not yet acknowledge this publicly, but that's what's really going on.
Yeah, that's interesting. What do you guys both think about the fact that Edelman has announced that they are going to review their client roster. What does that mean when a firm reviews their claire roster?
What do you think they did that, you know, after they got kind of beat up by clean creatives to say, well, we're going to look at maybe we're not going to keep working for fossil fuel companies. And maybe they maybe they will probably you know, they're going to throw somebody out of the bus to do this. But you know, guess what, you've been doing this for twenty years. You've
got a history here, you've got an accountability here. Part of your effort is contributed to the obstruction of climate action and the you know, promulgation of false advertising and disingenuous activities that you know, you can't say, oh, well we're not going to you know, we're not going to continue to do these evil things. Yeah, okay, but that's not an excuse to an accountability for their past actions. I think they're going to try to not talk about their past activities. Yeah.
I couldn't agree more. The story is just getting started. This is not just a bunch of activists. This is not a short term media cycle. This is a long gain and it's going to escalate over the next twelve months, particularly as we go into round two of the House investigation.
But you know this whole thing about the sixty day review, Look, that is just a delay tactic so that they don't really have to say anything publicly and materially and all next year they can wait to see if other agencies respond. They're buying a little time. We're going to review our client roster. Well, that gives them the opportunity then to come up with basically standards that could be interpreted a
number of different ways. For example, back in twenty fifteen, of course they came forward and said we will no longer work on behalf of climate deniers. But because the disinformation game doesn't really center on scientific climate denial anymore, it's moved and advanced to different messaging and more greenwashing and corporate propaganda, so technically they can work with anyone.
So these standards are a bit subjective. They can be interpreted a number of different ways, and I believe that's by design that gives them the opportunity to kind of justify and say, well, we think Exon is being misrepresented and they're taking the lead in carbon emissions activities without acknowledging the fact that one hundred percent of those activities are on the supply side of Exxon's business. They're not
talking about using oil and gas output. They're not talking about their core products when they say we're in line with the Paris Agreement. They're talking about bringing fossil fuels to market more efficiently. But because we have no laws in the United States to require fine print on advertising, Edelman can say, well, they're doing a lot for climate and the ads themselves past week fact checking criteria. So really the whole emphasis, I think needs to be much
more pointed on the nature of the messaging that they're producing. Really, we need higher standards, and we need for those standards to be enforced, and we need leadership within the space. There have been no agency CEOs who have clung forward to say, you know what, we agree climate disinformation is out of control, just like COVID disinformation. This is a crisis. Greenwashing is out of control as well. This is a crisis. We acknowledge a crisis, and we're going to do something
about it. Nowhere in Edelman's statement or in any other agency statement, do they even ignore knowledge that crisis exists, and that to me is incriminating. And that is the biggest hot button issue in my view, that we can look at. And then the other aspect I would say is that this whole crisis is also revealing a cultural rift inside agencies. You know, agencies are in a tough spot right now in the sense that the innovation in the marketing communications realm is really happening, not in the
big old school agencies. It's happening outside and independence and startups. And so we have this new generation of young creative talent, whether they're into creator communities or n fts or you know, specialized formats like film, really gravitating towards these indies and startups. And so it is harder for big agencies like Wagner,
Egstrom and Eedleman to retain top creative talent. So and then if you layer on top of that, the ethos of this new generation of creative workers climate is critical to them. It's a paramount consume. So when you have these old guard management attempts to deflect from the deeper issues to put forth you know, subjective standards that could be interpreted a number of different ways, that double talk, those containment strategies, those strategists are just not going to work.
They're going to just eroad trust more, cause more leaks, and then really guarantee that the truth comes out some other way, which then lengthens the media cycle. So it's really funny. I was thinking, you know, yesterday, if the PR and AD agency world were my client at this point, I would be imploring them to come forward to address the nature of the problem, at the very least address
that this material problem exists. If you don't do that, and you try to sidestep this, you're going to lose the trust not only of the media, the media cycle, of the public, but your own employees as well. I think this could be really much more damaging for them than they're willing to acknowledge.
That's it for this time. Quick shout out to some of our latest Patreon supporters. Patrick Santucci, Nick Freeman, Ruth Schaeffer, Ak Shatt thea Young's, Tana Morgan, Katie, David Weiskough and Will Golli. Hugh thank you so much for the support. It means a lot and it really does pay for a lot of things over here, including a new reporter in Australia. Her name is Lyndall Rollins. You might have heard her a couple episodes ago talking about the gas
fired recovery in Australia. We'll be hearing more from her incoming episodes. We also have two more parts of season six, our gas season, coming up in the next few months. Our producer or Juliana Bradley, is helping to put those together and doing a ton of reporting as well. Again reporting that our Patreon supporters have helped to support, So thanks for that, Thanks for listening. If you'd like to support our work, you can do that at patreon dot
com slash Drilled. You get ad free episodes, early releases, additional research and reporting, and the occasional sneak peek of other shows we're working on. Another way you can support us is by dropping us a reading or review wherever you're listening to your podcasts that helps other people find us. Thanks again and we'll see you next week.