Prior to COP29, InfluenceMap released its COP29 Corporate Accountability Platform, which analyzed corporate attendees and common fossil fuel industry narratives at the climate conference. This research included a new Fossil Fuel Misinformation Tracker, which fact-checks the most prevalent narratives deployed by the fossil fuel industry in the year since COP28.
InfluenceMap's analysis finds that fossil fuel-related companies and industry associations continue to have a strong presence at COP, with over 40 fossil fuel-related entities on InfluenceMap’s LobbyMap platform in attendance at COP29. The majority of these attendees have continued to advocate against climate-related policy or continued to support the role of fossil fuels in the energy mix since the conclusion of COP28. These findings indicate a similar trend to that of InfluenceMap’s previous COP28 analysis, which showed that the majority of fossil fuel-related entities in attendance advocated against policy pathways aligned with delivering the goals of the Paris Agreement between COP27 and COP28.
As part of its COP29 Corporate Accountability Platform, InfluenceMap tracked, analyzed, and fact-checked the most prevalent narratives deployed by the fossil fuel industry in the year since the conclusion of COP28. InfluenceMap recorded over 2,400 instances of more than 100 fossil fuel companies and industry associations promoting these anti-transition narratives, with organizations such as the Australian Energy Producers and the American Gas Association ranking highest in anti-transition narrative use. Many companies and groups promoting these narratives—including American Petroleum Institute, Instituto Brasileiro de Petróleo e Gás, and International Gas Union—attended COP29. InfluenceMap finds that these narratives contradict the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s recommendations for achieving 1.5°C and that alternative energy sources are fully viable.
InfluenceMap’s COP29 Corporate Accountability Platform reveals that over 40 companies and industry associations in the fossil fuel value chain and included in the LobbyMap database were reported to attend the Baku conference. According to InfluenceMap data, a significant number of these companies and industry associations have continued to advocate against policy pathways aligned with delivering the Paris Agreement’s goals in the past 12 months (see table below). This entails advocacy pushing back against government climate policy proposals or promoting a continued role for fossil fuels in the energy mix.
This is a refresh of InfluenceMap’s COP28 analysis, which identified fossil fuel-related corporate attendees at COP28 and assessed their climate advocacy prior to the conference.
| Entity | InfluenceMap Climate Change Performance Band | Has advocated against climate policy since COP28? | Has advocated for a continued role for fossil fuels since COP28? |
|---|---|---|---|
 | D | N/A** | N/A** |
 | E- | Yes | Yes |
 | C | Yes | Yes |
 | C- | Yes | Yes |
 | E+ | Yes | Yes |
 | D | N/A** | Yes |
 | E+ | Yes | Yes |
 | D- | Yes | Yes |
 | D- | Yes | Yes |
 | C- | N/A** | Yes |
 | C- | N/A** | Yes |
 | C+ | Yes | Yes |
 | D+ | Yes | Yes |
 | C | Yes | Yes |
 | D | Yes | Yes |
 | E | N/A** | N/A** |
 | D+ | Yes | Yes |
 | D- | Yes | Yes |
 | C- | Unclear | Yes |
 | D- | N/A** | Yes |
 | D | Yes | Yes |
 | D | Yes | Yes |
 | C- | Yes | Yes |
 | D | N/A** | N/A** |
 | D- | N/A** | N/A** |
 | D | Yes | N/A** |
 | D | Yes | Yes |
 | D+ | Yes | Yes |
 | D- | N/A** | Yes |
 | C- | Yes | Yes |
 | D | Yes | Yes |
 | C- | Yes | Yes |
*The policies highlighted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to deliver the Paris Agreement's goals of limiting global temperature rises of well below 2°C and towards 1.5°C. This includes specific technology and policy-level insights that InfluenceMap’s analysis uses as Science-Based Policy Benchmarks(see here for full details).
**N/A indicates that no evidence supporting or opposing specific climate policy/ies or in relation to the role of fossil fuels could be found in 2024.
Similar to COP28, there has been significant controversy surrounding COP29 and its ties to the fossil fuel sector, with oil and gas executives and staff not only in attendance but invited as guests by the Azerbaijani government and granted host country badges. Members of companies such as Saudi Aramco, BP, and ExxonMobil received these passes. ExxonMobil’s CEO Darren Woods again used the conference as an opportunity to promote the long-term role of fossil fuels—he cited the role of fossil fuels in accommodating increasing global living standards and methods for addressing carbon emissions from fossil fuel use to justify their continued role.
InfluenceMap’s analysis indicates that the majority of over 40 fossil fuel-related companies and industry associations present at COP29 have supported net zero by 2050 or the equivalent national target in their regions. However, many of these entities have advocated against climate policy or for the continued role of fossil fuels in the energy mix since COP28. For example, the International Gas Union, the American Exploration and Production Council, the American Petroleum Institute, Eurogas, the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers, and the Asia Natural Gas and Energy Association (ANGEA) signed a joint letter to President Biden in January 2024 opposing the Biden administration’s decision to pause liquefied natural gas (LNG) export permits. This advocacy highlights a wide gap between the oil and gas industry’s public support for climate action and its engagement on specific climate policies. It also exposes the concerns and contradictions around their COP participation given their active advocacy against policies designed to advance the goals of the Paris Agreement.
InfluenceMap’s 2023 analysis of fossil fuel entities at COP28 similarly found that over 40 companies and industry associations related to the oil and gas sector and included in the LobbyMap database were reported to have been in attendance. The majority of these fossil fuel-related entities had also advocated against climate-related policy or for the continued role of fossil fuels in the energy mix in the 12 months between COP27 and COP28. For example, in August 2023, Chevron, Shell, Woodside, and BP sent a joint submission to the Western Australia Domestic Gas Policy inquiry supporting investment in new fossil gas supplies in Western Australia. This continued advocacy shows that not only do groups representing fossil fuel companies continue to have a significant presence at COPs, but neither their negative advocacy against climate policies meant to deliver the Paris Agreement nor their continued support for fossil fuels show signs of changing.
This briefing contains an overview of the corporate advocacy detected by InfluenceMap related to fossil fuels and climate for the month of November 2023.
In July 2024, InfluenceMap released a report on the oil industry’s influence on climate policy that identified an oil and gas industry playbook used to oppose alternatives to fossil fuels. The playbook consists of three broad narratives: “Solution Skepticism,” “Policy Neutrality,” and “Affordability and Energy Security.”
Continued analysis of these corporate narratives used to engage with climate policy is particularly important following the COP28 agreement to “transition away” from fossil fuels. InfluenceMap has tracked, analyzed, and fact-checked the most prevalent narratives deployed by the fossil fuel industry since the conclusion of COP28 on its Fossil Fuel Misinformation Tracker.
The results show extensive use of pro-fossil fuel narratives over the past year—InfluenceMap has detected over 2,400 instances of these anti-transition narratives promoted by more than 100 fossil fuel companies and industry associations since the conclusion of COP28.
A Historical Analysis of the Oil and Gas Playbook Against Renewables and Electric Vehicles
This suggests that the agreement made at COP28 to “transition away” from fossil fuels in the energy system has had limited or no impact on these companies' messaging tactics. The use of these pro-fossil fuel and anti-transition narratives poses a significant risk to past, present, and upcoming ambitious climate policy development while bolstering measures that facilitate ongoing fossil fuel supply. This places the goals of the Paris Agreement at risk, something the companies present at COP claim to support.
In general, industry associations tend to push these narratives with greater intensity than companies: the Australian Energy Producers ranks highest in anti-transition narrative use, followed by the American Gas Association (AGA). Many of the companies and groups that promote these narratives—including Petrobras, TotalEnergies, Eni, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, American Petroleum Institute, Instituto Brasileiro de Petróleo e Gás, and the International Gas Union—are often represented at COP and attended COP29.
"Solution Skepticism" aims to downplay alternative energy sources or amplify the perceived challenges of transitioning away from fossil fuels. It includes arguments that portray fossil fuels—especially gas—as “clean” or “low carbon” or that emphasize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from renewable energy alternatives. The narrative also includes claims that cast doubt on the viability of a renewable-dominated energy system, that understate the level of support needed for such a transition, or that support future technological innovations over immediate emissions reductions.
Fact-check: By contrast, the IPCC's recent report emphasizes that transitioning from fossil fuels to renewables contributes significantly to broader sustainable development goals and that alternative energy sources are fully viable.
This narrative has 1110 recorded uses since COP28, with entities including Williams Companies, EQT Corporation, American Gas Association, Australian Energy Producers, and International Gas Union employing the narrative most frequently.
The oil and gas sector pushes the “Policy Neutrality” narrative to insert fossil-fuel reliant technologies into policies and discussions that are specifically aimed at reducing fossil fuel dependence. As such, use of this narrative by fossil fuel interests reopens the debate on the best technology pathway for climate mitigation, diminishing the central importance of reducing fossil fuels and encouraging a “technology neutral” approach to reducing fossil fuel emissions instead.
Fact-check: Advocacy for an “all-of-the-above” or “technology neutral” energy strategy, while seemingly inclusive, can be misleading in the context of 1.5°C-aligned climate scenarios. The IPCC outlines how much of the progress made so far is down to “technology specific” policy.
This narrative has 276 recorded uses since COP28, with entities including Consumer Energy Alliance, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), American Gas Association, Australian Energy Producers, and EQT Corporation using the narrative most frequently.
The “Affordability and Energy Security” narrative includes arguments claiming that a transition away from fossil fuels threatens energy security, affordability, economic stability, or jobs. At the same time, the narrative highlights the economic benefits associated with fossil fuel development and use. The narrative aims to emphasize the economic and political risks of shifting from fossil fuels to alternatives while suggesting that renewables and electric vehicles will undermine security or fail to offer the same advantages as fossil fuels.
Fact-check: In contrast, the IPCC underscores that renewables can now compete without financial support and are often cheaper than fossil fuels in various regions. It adds that the development of renewable energy is a “crucial measure” for enhancing energy access and security and that electric vehicles can enhance grid stability.
This narrative has 1028 recorded uses since COP28, with entities including Australian Energy Producers, African Energy Chamber, American Gas Association, American Petroleum Institute, and Instituto Brasileiro de Petróleo e Gás (IBP) using the narrative most frequently.
