A new study released today by InfluenceMap reveals alarming disparities between corporate advocacy related to the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and principles laid out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its guidance to policymakers.

Researchers from the independent think tank, InfluenceMap, which generates data-driven analysis on how business and finance are impacting the climate crisis, examined more than 750 instances of corporate advocacy related to CCS between 2021 and 2023 at more than 500 of the world’s largest companies and at 250 industry associations. This advocacy includes any attempts to influence CCS-related policy or to push for CCS inclusion in climate policies.

“In the past, fossil fuel companies have attempted to undermine public trust in the science of what causes climate change, but now the focus has shifted to spreading confusion about the science of climate change solutions,” said Sofia Basheer, an author of the new study and a Senior Analyst at InfluenceMap.

Key findings from Corporate Advocacy on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) are as follows:

• Over 80% of the 750 instances of corporate engagement related to CCS are not aligned with IPCC Science-Based guidance to policymakers.
• This corporate engagement falls into two categories:
• Indiscriminate CCS promotion misaligned with IPCC scientific guidance; and
• Promotion of CCS in an explicit effort to slow policy that would transition from fossil fuels.
• Oil, gas, and utility companies dominate corporate CCS advocacy (58% of all advocacy on the issue is conducted by these sectors). They utilize a wide spectrum of policy influence tactics – from public relations and advertising campaigns to regulatory lobbying – to promote the technology. The entities that are most active on CCS-related policy advocacy include Occidental Petroleum, ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Santos, and Cenovus, and industry associations the Australian Energy Producers, International Association of
• Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP), Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), and American Petroleum Institute (API).
• There are three major recurring claims within corporate CCS advocacy that conflict with science:
  – Promoting continued oil and gas expansion by pushing for CCS use;
  – Positioning CCS as central to global climate targets; and
  – Touting CCS as beneficial for job creation and community support.
• The analysis also found evidence of an apparent coordinated global playbook for CCS advocacy shared within the global oil and gas sector, led by industry groups like the Australian Energy Producers, International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP), Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), and American Petroleum Institute (API).
• The analysis found that 16 of the G-20 countries have adopted similar CCS positions to fossil fuel companies in the run up to the COP28 Summit. These findings suggest that the industry has been successful in its efforts to influence government positions.

The IPCC has found that CCS is likely to have only a limited role in net zero energy systems and that fossil fuel use needs to be swiftly scaled back by 2030 if international climate targets are to be met. In the run up to the COP28 Summit, Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency stated that “continuing with business-as-usual for oil and gas while hoping a vast deployment of carbon capture will cut the emissions is fantasy.”

InfluenceMap’s analysis also includes notable examples of corporate advocacy tactics related to carbon capture that undermine established science, including corporate and trade associations petitioning governments for large tax breaks to commercialize CCS at the expense of other decarbonization pathways.
Source: InfluenceMap