Connect the Dots

Whatever you call it, companies are telling half-truths and hiding some ugly stuff about their climate impacts. 

Greenwashing is, of course, nothing new: Companies have spent years hiding the anti-climate stuff they are doing behind the scenes. As we’ve covered in previous newsletters, many companies with climate goals (including Coca-Cola, Procter & Gamble, and Uber, among many others) remain dues-paying members of trade associations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce which spend millions lobbying against climate action. Others — from law firms to consulting and marketing firms to banks to insurance companies — may tout their work for climate tech companies or environmental nonprofits while neglecting to mention that their client lists also include fossil fuel companies. By helping the oil and gas industry win lawsuits, secure funding, and mislead the public about the consequences of its past and future impacts, these companies are complicit in the so-called “enabled emissions” the fossil fuel industry continues to generate at all of our expense.

Meanwhile, intimidated by the massive environmental rollbacks of the Trump administration, many companies are “greenhushing” — talking about climate action less, even if they’re making progress. A recent Bloomberg analysis of S&P 500 companies found that references to climate change on earnings calls were down 76% compared to three years ago. Some major companies, including Pepsi and Salesforce, are even watering down their climate goals. 

More insidious still: half-truths that downplay the scale of the climate crisis and of the rapid systemic changes needed, and create the illusion of progress now when any meaningful benefit is years or decades away. By celebrating their contracts for direct air capture or nuclear energy, some companies are promoting hypothetical future benefits without adequately acknowledging the present reality — glossing over the long and uncertain timeframe until those technologies scale, not to mention the risks and high costs.

Unsurprisingly, many of these discussions center around AI. A recent paper published in the journal npj Climate Action found that climate solutions made possible by AI could reduce global emissions annually by between 3.2 and 5.4 gigatons of CO₂-equivalent by 2035. The authors say this could outweigh the recent explosion in demand for energy to power AI data centers, which is increasingly being met by burning more fossil fuels. However, this estimate neglects to consider that these same companies are also selling their AI tools directly to oil and gas companies as a means for them to expand fossil fuel production — direct damage happening now in contrast to the hypothetical future benefits considered in the paper. This paints a misleading picture, like a CFO who touts company revenue while ignoring expenses. And coupled with repeated statements from company executives about how optimistic they are, it downplays the severity of the climate crisis and the need to act at scale now. 

Take Microsoft, for example. Since the company’s 2020 announcement of its goal to become “carbon negative” by 2030, its reported emissions have grown 29.1%, largely due to building and powering new data centers for AI. While Microsoft maintains that it still intends to meet this climate goal, the company is betting that carbon capture, which has never been done at such a large scale, can help fill the action gap. Worse, Microsoft is actively marketing AI technology for use by fossil fuel companies including Chevron and Exxon — enabling massive emissions today that far outweigh the benefits of its operational actions such as buying clean energy.

The problem isn’t just that companies aren’t doing enough for climate action; by being silent (or worse), companies are actively impeding possible political change. There is ample evidence that corporations can play a big role in influencing public opinion: just look at the impact of fossil fuel propaganda. Twenty years ago, there was broad agreement (both within government and public opinion) that climate change was a problem and we should act fast. Then, the fossil fuel industry and its allies invested heavily in marketing to push twin narratives: one of outright denial, and one of letting the free market solve the problem. That reduced the appetite among the public and politicians for serious policy changes, and helped lead to years of delayed and insufficient government action.

With billions of dollars in revenue behind them, these companies have a massive megaphone available to reach both the public and the government’s ears. It’s up to us to leverage their audience and call out their misleading marketing by filling in the rest of the story they’re leaving out.