The fossil fuel industry’s communication strategy has undergone multiple iterations over three decades, moving from outright denial of climate science to promoting the premise that oil and gas extraction can coexist with climate stabilization efforts—a shift that former ExxonMobil climate scientist Lindsey Gulden characterizes as the sector’s “last narrative” after previous approaches lost credibility.
Speaking at the Disinfo2025 conference in Ljubljana, Gulden traced the evolution from early campaigns seeding doubt about climate science to consumer-focused deflection strategies, exemplified by BP’s carbon footprint initiative that repositioned climate responsibility as an individual rather than systemic challenge. The current phase, she argues, centers on compatibility messaging—framing continued fossil fuel production as reconcilable with emissions reduction targets despite scientific consensus that existing reserves already exceed safe extraction limits.
Gulden’s account of ExxonMobil’s internal messaging reveals how external narratives filter into employee communications. The company disproportionately highlighted its algae biofuels research program in materials distributed to staff, she noted, despite the initiative’s ultimate discontinuation. This selective emphasis served dual functions: maintaining employee morale around climate engagement while creating institutional narratives that could be referenced in external communications.
The algae biofuels example illustrates a broader pattern in corporate climate communications where marginal or experimental programs receive outsized attention relative to their scale or commercial viability. Such framing allows companies to project commitment to alternatives while core operations and capital allocation remain concentrated in conventional hydrocarbon extraction.
Regulatory Context and Strategic Recalibration
The Trump administration’s approach to climate policy has enabled what Gulden describes as “removal of the mask,” with several major oil and gas companies scaling back previously announced environmental commitments. She frames this as both revealing and potentially beneficial over longer timeframes: “People will see it for what it really is—and the shorter term, maybe not.”
This assessment suggests industry calculation has shifted from attempting to maintain climate-positive public positioning to accepting reputational costs in exchange for reduced compliance burdens and operational constraints. The strategic recalibration appears timed to coincide with decreased regulatory enforcement risk in the United States, though exposure remains in jurisdictions maintaining or expanding climate policy frameworks.
Lobbying Infrastructure and Process Capture
Henry Peck, senior campaigner at Global Witness, identified at least 1,770 fossil fuel lobbyists at COP29, framing the concentration as evidence of systematic attempts at process capture. UN Climate Change’s new transparency rules for lobbyist disclosure represent what Peck terms “a really important step,” though he maintains significant monitoring gaps persist.
The relationship between lobbying presence and information campaigns operates through complementary channels, Peck noted: “Climate disinformation and advancing polluters’ interests through lobbying go hand in hand.” Quantifying lobbyist participation provides measurable data on industry resource deployment toward influencing multilateral climate negotiations, though the effectiveness of such presence relative to other influence pathways remains contested among policy analysts.
Global Witness investigation into generative AI outputs revealed a distinct pattern from earlier denialism: chatbots produce what the organization characterizes as greenwashing and false balance, quoting fossil fuel companies while “presenting information in ways that appear more neutral than if read in a company press release.” This format shift matters because algorithmic information delivery lacks the source attribution and framing cues that help users assess credibility in traditional media.
The AI dimension introduces scalability concerns absent from previous communication strategies. While individual press releases or advertising campaigns require discrete resource allocation, large language models trained on corporate communications can reproduce favorable framing at scale across millions of user interactions without additional marginal cost or obvious source identification.
Peck flagged generative AI as requiring sustained monitoring, particularly as these systems become primary information interfaces for growing user populations. The technology enables what amounts to laundering corporate messaging through apparently neutral information retrieval systems, potentially more effective than branded communications precisely because users perceive AI responses as synthesized information rather than advocacy.
Strategic Adaptation Under Constraint
The progression Gulden outlines—from denial to deflection to compatibility framing—maps onto shifting political and scientific landscapes. Each iteration represents adaptation to constraints imposed by eroding credibility of previous positions rather than voluntary strategic evolution. The compatibility narrative emerged not from new technical possibilities but from exhaustion of alternative rhetorical positions capable of maintaining social license.
Industry messaging now emphasizes carbon capture technologies, hydrogen production from natural gas, and “transition fuels” positioning—all framing that accepts climate change reality while defending continued extraction. This represents narrowing rhetorical space: companies can no longer credibly deny climate science or avoid discussing emissions, forcing arguments onto terrain of technological solutions and timing rather than fundamental business model questions.
The current moment, with reduced regulatory pressure in key jurisdictions coinciding with increased lobbying presence at climate negotiations and AI-mediated information proliferation, suggests the compatibility narrative serves as holding position. Whether this represents the “last narrative” as Gulden suggests, or simply the most recent adaptation in an ongoing sequence, depends substantially on how regulatory frameworks and market conditions evolve across major economies over the next decade.
Stay updated on the latest in energy! Follow us on LinkedIn, Facebook, and X for real-time news and insights. Don’t miss out on exclusive interviews and webinars—subscribe to our YouTube channel today! Join our community and be part of the conversation shaping the future of energy.
