Issue: Oil

As a climate advocate in 2026, it can be hard to see climate change as a top issue when there are so many crises competing for our attention. However, as the news cycle pushes out headlines highlighting just how much profit the fossil fuel industry is making from the conflict and instability in the Middle East, I’ve been thinking: if we transform our energy systems to be locally-controlled and sustainable, what could the ripple effects be for global peace and justice?

Clean Creatives has decoded the narrative shifts in fossil fuel campaigns between 2020 and 2024, detailing how narrative strategy in oil and gas companies’ advertising and PR campaigns has shifted. Their evidence documents how, between 2020 and 2024, oil and gas campaigns shifted from setting climate targets and saying “we’re part of the solution” to emphasizing fossil fuel dependence and convincing people “you can’t live without us.” In parallel, we saw shareholders follow suit and move from supporting climate action to prioritizing fossil fuel profitability. Oil majors have always been preoccupied with social license, but now, the fossil fuel industry is radicalizing. Companies like BP and Shell, which have a history of greenwashing and made net zero pledges in 2020. Now they are going all in on fossil fuels. They’re advertising false solutions like CCS, natural gas and biofuels, which increase fossil fuel dependence. Greenwashing is no longer the core strategy of the fossil fuel industry — it’s about power and political influence.

Skyrocketing gas prices, which have surged more than 60 cents per gallon since the start of the war with Iran, have ironically created a direct opening to reframe clean cars and EVs, as well as federal policy investments in them, as an economic and energy security imperative, not just a climate or environmental solution. Provides talking points, LTE, and social media guidance to hold the administration, and especially EPA and NHTSA, accountable for boxing us into this inescapable price volatility, while pivoting to the solution (i.e., that clean vehicles and especially those that run on stable, American-made electricity, structurally insulate drivers from global oil market chaos).

To support grid reliability and affordability communications in the Iran war or broader
geopolitical context, the Reliable Grid Project (RGP) offers messaging research,
resources, and guidance.

Extreme weather events like winter storm Fern offer a short window of opportunity when people are seeking information related to climate change. But while most Americans believe we are experiencing more extreme weather, many still don’t see it as driven by climate change. Climate communicators need to help people connect the dots.

Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) and the Climate Advocacy Lab fielded a statewide survey of Vermonters about attitudes towards their state’s Climate Superfund Act. We found that a majority of respondents agreed with the intention behind the law of holding fossil fuel companies financially accountable for climate damages incurred by the state. However, none of the messaging approaches we attempted seem very effective in increasing support for the policy. Qualitative responses suggest that the Act is not well-known and, while respondents favor corporate accountability, they also have concerns about the policy’s legality and government transparency. Notably, even among some of those who responded that they agree with the Climate Superfund, there was confusion about how fossil fuel companies contribute to climate-related impacts like flooding, suggesting the need for greater popular education around the chain of attribution. Distrust of government also surfaced as a concern about the Act.

Join us for our final Clean Energy Deep Dive of the year, featuring Clean Virginia, a group on the frontlines of the clean energy fight.