Climate Change & Putin's aggression see the Doomsday Clock at 90 seconds to midnight in January 2023

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is a media organization, publishing a free-access website and a bimonthly magazine. It began as an emergency action, created by scientists who saw an immediate need for a public reckoning in the aftermath of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Since 1947 it has published the Doomsday Clock, which to date has been updated a total of 24 times. “The closer the clocks’ hands move toward midnight, the closer humanity supposedly moves toward self-inflicted destruction. As well as assessing risks from nuclear war, the scientists incorporate dangers from climate change, bioweapons and more.” [Time Magazine, 24 January 2023]

Science and Security Board, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2023 Doomsday Clock Statement, 24 January 2023:

A time of unprecedented danger: It is 90 seconds to midnight

This year, the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moves the hands of the Doomsday Clock forward, largely (though not exclusively) because of the mounting dangers of the war in Ukraine. The Clock now stands at 90 seconds to midnight—the closest to global catastrophe it has ever been.

The war in Ukraine may enter a second horrifying year, with both sides convinced they can win. Ukraine’s sovereignty and broader European security arrangements that have largely held since the end of World War II are at stake. Also, Russia’s war on Ukraine has raised profound questions about how states interact, eroding norms of international conduct that underpin successful responses to a variety of global risks.

And worst of all, Russia’s thinly veiled threats to use nuclear weapons remind the world that escalation of the conflict—by accident, intention, or miscalculation—is a terrible risk. The possibility that the conflict could spin out of anyone’s control remains high.

Russia’s recent actions contravene decades of commitments by Moscow. In 1994, Russia joined the United States and United Kingdom in Budapest, Hungary, to solemnly declare that it would "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" and "refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine..." These assurances were made explicitly on the understanding that Ukraine would relinquish nuclear weapons on its soil and sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty—both of which Ukraine did.

Russia has also brought its war to the Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhia nuclear reactor sites, violating international protocols and risking widespread release of radioactive materials. Efforts by the International Atomic Energy Agency to secure these plants so far have been rebuffed.

As Russia’s war on Ukraine continues, the last remaining nuclear weapons treaty between Russia and the United States, New START, stands in jeopardy. Unless the two parties resume negotiations and find a basis for further reductions, the treaty will expire in February 2026. This would eliminate mutual inspections, deepen mistrust, spur a nuclear arms race, and heighten the possibility of a nuclear exchange.

As UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned in August, the world has entered “a time of nuclear danger not seen since the height of the Cold War.”

The war’s effects are not limited to an increase in nuclear danger; they also undermine global efforts to combat climate change. Countries dependent on Russian oil and gas have sought to diversify their supplies and suppliers, leading to expanded investment in natural gas exactly when such investment should have been shrinking.

In the context of a hot war and against the backdrop of nuclear threats, Russia’s false accusations that Ukraine planned to use radiological dispersal devices, chemical weapons, and biological weapons take on new meaning as well. The continuing stream of disinformation about bioweapons laboratories in Ukraine raises concerns that Russia itself may be thinking of deploying such weapons, which many experts believe it continues to develop.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has increased the risk of nuclear weapons use, raised the specter of biological and chemical weapons use, hamstrung the world’s response to climate change, and hampered international efforts to deal with other global concerns. The invasion and annexation of Ukrainian territory have also violated international norms in ways that may embolden others to take actions that challenge previous understandings and threaten stability.

There is no clear pathway for forging a just peace that discourages future aggression under the shadow of nuclear weapons. But at a minimum, the United States must keep the door open to principled engagement with Moscow that reduces the dangerous increase in nuclear risk the war has fostered. One element of risk reduction could involve sustained, high-level US military-to-military contacts with Russia to reduce the likelihood of miscalculation. The US government, its NATO allies, and Ukraine have a multitude of channels for dialogue; they all should be explored. Finding a path to serious peace negotiations could go a long way toward reducing the risk of escalation. In this time of unprecedented global danger, concerted action is required, and every second counts.

Countervailing dynamics: Addressing climate change during the invasion of Ukraine

Addressing climate change requires faith in institutions of multilateral governance. The geopolitical fissure opened by the invasion of Ukraine has weakened the global will to cooperate while undermining confidence in the durability, or even the feasibility, of broad-based multilateral collaboration.

With Russia second only to the United States in global production of both natural gas and oil, the invasion of Ukraine sparked a rush to establish independence from Russian energy supplies, particularly in the European Union. From the standpoint of climate change, this has contributed to two countervailing dynamics.

First, the elevated energy prices have spurred investment in renewables and motivated countries to implement policies that support renewables development. With this rise in deployment, the International Energy Agency now projects that wind and solar energy combined will approach 20 percent of global power generation five years from now, with China installing nearly half of the new renewable power capacity.

At the same time, however, high natural gas prices have driven a quest to develop new gas supplies, spurring investment in natural gas production and export infrastructure in the United States, the EU, Africa, and elsewhere, largely financed by major oil and gas transnationals and investment firms. This private capital continues to flow into developing new fossil fuel resources, even while public finance is facing pressure to pull out. All G7 countries have pledged to end public financing of international fossil fuel projects this year, and the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, a group of eight countries, has formally committed to end new concessions, licensing or leasing rounds for oil and gas production and exploration, and to set a timeline for ending production that is consistent with their Paris agreement pledges.

Notwithstanding these two processes, both of which should in principle reduce demand for Russian gas, Russia was on course in 2022 to earn as much as the previous year from oil and gas exports, largely owing to continued European demand.

As a consequence, global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, after having rebounded from the COVID economic decline to an all-time high in 2021, continued to rise in 2022 and hit another record high. A decline in Chinese emissions was overshadowed by a rise in the United States, India, and elsewhere…. 

Who is undermining Australia’s climate change mitigation goals?

 

2023 is the year Australians have to bite the bullet on climate change mitigation and accept that it’s never going to be enough to recycle the household’s glass, plastic, tin, paper or green waste. That though installing rooftop solar panels or being careful with the consumption of household water and energy might be admirable, the world and the nation has reached the stage where this will do little to halt the global & national climate emergency that is fast heading our way.

That while reducing our own household carbon footprint is a legitimate climate change tool, the only tool that will bring about the required rapid reduction in Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions is if as ordinary individuals, interest groups and communities we use the individual and collective power of our political will to force a rate of change on all three tiers of government and on all industries operating in this country and its territorial waters.

Commencing with the biggest polluters – the fossil fuel industries.

It’s time to use our voices and our votes, the power of our consumer choices and the sheer scale of peaceful political & physical activism that communities and regions when pushed to their limit can muster across Australia.

Below is a brief look at where we are at right now and at some of the businesses which are propping up the large petroleum & gas polluters by way of their paid propaganda and greenwashing, as well as some of those who are still investing in fossil fuel corporations.

The Guardian, 28 December 2022:

Australians are feeling the heat of climate change, and in May they voted accordingly, delivering a win to Anthony Albanese’s Labor party, which saw voters switching away from the Coalition, but to the independents and the Greens, rather than Labor. The showed the biggest issue for voters, more than the economy or the pandemic, was climate change, surprising many. This has since been confirmed by other research…...

For the fossil fuel industry, it’s still business as usual under the new government, which in August opened up 46,000 sq km to new oil and gas exploration. Approval after approval is going through for a maze of new gas projects, from the Scarborough and Browse projects off Western Australia to proposals to subsidise the Beetaloo basin in the Northern Territory.

In 2022 the world experienced a global energy crisis caused by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and the gas industry has seen this as a massive opportunity for expansion. Governments scrambling to replace Russian gas have overreached.

Within Australia, the gas industry has run rampant with excessive windfall profits while calling for massive expansion development and increased LNG exports. The government has tried to contain the damage being caused by increased eastern Australian electricity costs linked to insufficient availability of gas, leaving the domestic gas market exposed to the highly elevated prices of the international market.

The latter half of this year has seen states starting to get out of coal power, setting phase-out goals around 2035-2037. While this is an advance, it’s still relatively far from the power sector coal exit needed by 2030 across the OECD to be aligned with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C limit. The IEA’s net zero coal report carried a similar and more stark message….

The federal government is starting to move on reforming the primary tool it wants to use to curb industry emissions (including oil, coal and gas), the so-called safeguard mechanism, but it seems poised to continue allowing companies to offset their emissions at scale.

If this happens, there’s a serious risk the whole scheme will be viewed simply as a licensing system for increased fossil fuel production rather than one that actually results in real emission reductions. Some have labelled this as “state-sanctioned greenwashing.”

Australia has a terrible, 30-year history of claiming to meet its targets through dodgy accounting and, more recently, through offsets, but this cannot continue. The risk now is that if the government sticks to its apparent commitment to continue to use offsets, the country will find itself at the next federal election with industry sector emissions barely reduced at all, or worse, facing increased emissions from new fossil fuel projects…..

Read the full article here.

The Guardian, 27 December 2022:

Fossil fuel interests have signed more than 500 sponsorship deals with Australian arts, sport, education and community organisations, prompting accusations they are “engineering a social licence to operate” in the face of growing public pressure on coal, gas and oil.

The oil and gas company Woodside Energy was the most frequent entrant on a list of 535 sponsorship agreements, having signed 56 deals, including with AFL team the Fremantle Dockers and the West Australian Nippers surf lifesaving program.

Santos, another oil and gas business, had 41 known sponsorships. BHP, which maintains coal interests but this year sold its petroleum assets to Woodside, had 44 and was linked to another seven through an associated entity, the BHP-Mitsubishi Alliance….

The terms of sponsorship deals are rarely public and are often covered by non-disclosure agreements. Depending on the organisation and the type of partnership, some are thought to be worth a few thousand dollars. Others, including naming rights deals on major venues or events, can run into the millions.

Researchers working in partnership with the Australian Conservation Foundation have previously estimated the value of fossil fuel sponsorships to Australian sport were between $14m and $18m a year.

In some centres, such as Mackay, fossil fuel money has supported several major institutions within the city. In Canberra, Woodside and Shell sponsored the annual press gallery ball this year. Ampol and Shell also serve as gold partners to the Walkley Foundation.

Kelly Albion, senior campaigner with 350.org, said organisations should consider their policies governing accepting sponsorships, but responsibility ultimately lay with governments and companies…..

The survey found education institutions had 132 known sponsorship deals, community groups 124 and sports organisations 111.

According to the survey, the education organisations that partnered most frequently with fossil fuel companies included the Queensland Minerals Education Academy, a partnership between the Queensland government and Queensland Resources Council (20 agreements), Central Queensland University (10) and the Clontarf Foundation, which helps improve educational outcomes for Indigenous people (eight).

Central Queensland University disputed this count, saying one company identified was no longer a donor and another partnership arrangement advertised on the university website was double counted….

The head of the International Energy Agency has said the global goal of limiting global heating to 1.5C, included in landmark 2015 Paris agreement, meant no new oil and gas fields or coal power plants should open beyond 2021.

Market Forces, 18 October 2022:

Australia’s big four banks, ANZ, CBA, NAB and Westpac, recently co-financed a $1.4 billion dollar deal to major Australian oil and gas expander, Santos, related to its Barossa gas project. ANZ and Westpac lent $1.2 billion to Woodside, which is developing the huge Scarborough gas project.

An example of the less than stellar performance of superannuation funds with regard to ethical investing.

Market Forces, 18 December 2022:

The latest round of mandatory super fund disclosures reveal that most of Australia’s biggest super funds are selling shares in climate wrecking oil and gas companies Santos and Woodside. Some funds, however, have significantly increased their stake in these companies, which are both pursuing new oil and gas projects that are incompatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

For the first time since super fund investment disclosures became mandatory, we can compare how many shares funds have either sold or bought in their default investment options. Our analysis shows that 11 out of the 14 super fund default investment options captured in our study owned less shares in Santos at 30 June 2022 than at 31 December 2021 (see Figure 1). AustralianSuper, UniSuper and HESTA have sold down a significant number of Santos shares in their default options, selling down their stakes by 41.3%, 26.8% and 20.5%, respectively.

Hostplus’ Balanced option, on the other hand, is the only one in our study to have significantly increased its stake in Santos, with a 16.1% jump in shares. Why is Hostplus using members’ retirement savings to buy up so many shares in this climate wrecker? Supporting Santos’ oil and gas expansion plans wildly contradicts the net zero by 2050 portfolio emissions reduction target Hostplus set earlier this year.

Comms Declare, media release excerpt, 19 September 2022:

The F-List 2022 Report from Clean Creatives and Comms Declare reveals newly-uncovered information on the broad scale of the ad industry’s collaboration with the companies that are responsible for the climate emergency.

Following last year’s ground breaking report, the 2022 edition of the F-List includes a greater focus on Latin America and the Asia Pacific regions, showcasing the agencies actively under contract with the fossil fuel industry to aid them in covert attempts to greenwash.

Key findings include:

• 239 agencies have done recent work with fossil fuel companies. The vast majority of this work is not shared via agency channels, or with clients whose work may be affected by greenwashing claims.

• At least 17 agencies are working for Saudi Aramco, the world’s largest polluter, including a previously undisclosed Interpublic Mediabrands agency, Well7.

• Interpublic agencies McCann, UM, and Jack Morton have also led substantial work for Aramco, but all holding companies have some connection to the world’s largest oil company, and funder of human rights abuses.

• The world’s biggest coal exporter, Glencore is being referred to Australian regulators over a brand campaign ad that features EVs, solar panels and wind turbines – but doesn’t mention coal. Comms Declare understands Bastion Creative is behind the campaign. This complaint follows the barring of two employees of Anacta Strategies from lobbying the Queensland government. Glencore secured a lucrative bailout while employing Anacta.

• Edelman retains its role as the independent agency doing the most work for fossil fuel companies, despite a pledge in early 2022 to review its client policy. Some small signs of progress at the PR giant can be seen, but the company remains committed to working with polluters.

In Australia, Comms Declare, has calculated the top polluting agencies across several categories, using Scope 1 and 2 emissions data from their clients.

Most Polluting Clients (t- CO2 e)

Creative Agency: Big Red – 45, 774, 195

Media Agency: UM – 40, 670, 967

PR/Lobbyist: GRACosway – 20, 612, 667

Belinda Noble, Founder of Comms Declare said; “Big Red won the big prize nobody wanted – AGL’s creative account and, combined with its work for BHP, its Scope 3 emissions now represent more than 10% of Australia’s total greenhouse gas pollution – on par with Libya’s annual emissions.”

“We calculate UM’s Scope 3 emissions are more than Finland’s, also thanks to their work with AGL.

“GRACosway is the most polluting lobbyist, with clients including Santos, Glencore and BHP, meaning its total Scope 3 emissions are around 5% of Australia’s, or about the same as Kenya’s.

“Meanwhile GRACosway’s owner Omnicom somewhat hypocritically claims to be ‘actively working to harness our advertising power and influence to promote sustainable consumer choices and behaviors,’ Noble added.

Also in the report are details of efforts by international coal giant, Glencore, to improve its brand. In the wake of a bribery and price fixing scandal and its refusal to pull out of Russia, Glencore has boosted its Australian marketing efforts by hiring four lobbying firms (GRACosway, NEXUS APAC, Capital Hill Advisory, Anacta Strategies) and five other agencies (Bastion Creative, Brother & Co, Wahoo, Adoni Media, Campaign Edge Sprout).

It also launched its first brand campaign, ‘Advancing Everyday Life’ which has attracted legal complaints to the ACCC, ASIC and Ad Standards over greenwashing.

Belinda Noble added, “At least nine Australian advertising and PR agencies are helping coal giant Glencore portray itself as part of a clean energy future while the company is actually expanding coal operations. Agency executives need to wake up and realise they are actively helping the corporations creating global warming, which is generating unprecedented disasters around the globe.”

Duncan Meisel, Executive Director, Clean Creatives said: “Advertising and PR companies have had decades of warnings that their relationships with fossil fuel companies are harming their reputation, and their clean clients. Until now, executives have chosen to ignore those warnings, with serious consequences for the planet, and their ability to attract and retain young talent. Hundreds of agencies have pledged not to work with fossil fuels because working with polluters is bad for business, and bad for the planet.”

The release of the F-list comes on the eve of Comms Declare’s annual agency survey on climate change policies and actions which will be used to decide the winner of the third Climate Comms Champion award, for Australia’s most climate-friendly agency….

Clean Creatives, retrieved 28 December 2022:

THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY IS THE WORLD’S NUMBER ONE PRODUCER OF CARBON POLLUTION - AND GREENWASHING.

Approximately 90% of global carbon pollution comes from fossil fuels. In order to comply with the Paris Climate Agreement, carbon pollution needs to decline 50% by 2030.

Despite this, every major oil and gas company is currently planning to continue their expansion of fossil fuel production. Currently, their business plans will ensure that the climate emergency continues, with worsening impacts particularly affecting poor, and vulnerable people worldwide.

Fossil fuel advertising and PR does not match business reality. Shell has admitted that their “operating plans and budgets do not reflect Shell’s Net-Zero Emissions target” that is widely featured in their advertising. In 2020 and 2021, 80% of Chevron advertisements mentioned sustainability, while only 1.8% of their capital spending went to non-oil and gas projects.

These ads are creating legal and reputational risk for agencies. Over 1800 cases are pending worldwide related to climate action, many of them focused on misleading advertising. Both Shell and BP have been rebuked by regulators in the Netherlands and UK, respectively, demanding that they end campaigns that mislead the public.

Now, fossil fuel advertisements have been banned in France, and bans are being considered many places elsewhere. There has never been a better time to drop fossil fuel clients……

The F-List 2022: 230+ Ad and PR Companies Working for the Fossil Fuel Industry

The list below documents relationships between public relations and advertising agencies, and their clients in the fossil fuel industry, since approximately 2015.

Fossil fuel industry clients include the full range of corporations involved in the business of extracting, transporting, refining, and selling fossil fuels, their trade associations, and front groups representing their interests.

These relationships have been documented through industry publications, public disclosures by agencies or their contractors, and verified reporting.

CURRENT AND RECENT FOSSIL FUEL CONTRACTS:

WPP

AKQA

Barton Deakin

Burson Cohn & Wolfe

Cannings Purple

Geometry Global

Grey

Grey (Grey Argentina)

Grey (Grey Columbia)

Hawker Britton

Hill+Knowlton

Hill+Knowlton (Group SJR)

Landor

Mediacom

Mindshare

Mirum

Mutato

Ogilvy (The Brand Union)

Ogilvy (Ogilvy Brasil)

Ogilvy

OPR (Oglivy PR)

Rediffusion -Y&R

Scholz & Friends

Super Union

The Brand Agency

VMLY&R

VMLY&R (Young & Rubicam Brazil)

Wavemaker

Wunderman Thompson

Wunderman Thompson (Wonderman Thompson Brazil)

Wunderman Thompson (Wonderman Mexico)

OMNICOM

Adam & Eve DDB

BBDO

BBDO (AMV BBDO)

BBDO (BBDO)

BBDO (Sancho BBDO)

BBDO (R K Swamy BBDO)

DDB Canada

DDC Advocacy

FleishmanHillard

GRACosway

GSD & M

Ketchum

Marketforce (Clemenger BBDO/Omnicom)

Marketforce / Marketforce North

OMD

PHD

Porter Novelli

RAPP

TBWA\Singapore

Tribal Worldwide

DENTSU

Carat

Dentsu Creative

iProspect

INTERPUBLIC

Campbell Ewald

Carmichael Lynch

FCB (Draftcb Ulka)

FCB

HUGE

IPG Mediabrands (Ensemble Worldwide)

IPG Mediabrands (Well 7)

Jack Morton

McCann Worldgroup

McCann Worldgroup (Mercado McCann)

McCann Worldgroup (McCann Santiago)

McCann Worldgroup (WMcCann)

McCann Worldgroup (MRM Worldwide)

McCann Worldgroup (FP7)

McCann Worldgroup Espana

Momentum Worldwide

UM Media

Weber Shandwick

Lowe

HAVAS

Conran Design Group

Havas Events

Havas Media (Havas Media Ortega)

Havas People

Havas Sports

PUBLICIS

Carre Noir

Digitas UK

DPZ

Leo Burnett

MSL Group

Publicis Communications

Publicis Conseil

Publicis Media

Razorfish

Saachi & Saachi

S4 CAPITAL

Media Monks

WASHINGTON POST

Washington Post Creative Group

NYTIMES

T Brand Studios

INDEPENDENT

Edelman

Edelman (Blue Advertising)

Edelman (Edelman Australia)

Vaynermedia

FTI Consulting

FTI Consulting (Compass Lexecon)

FTI Consulting (Story Partners)

¡Mg! Consultora

ADK (Japan)

Adoni Media

Adsmovil

Advanced Outcomes

Advoc8

Africa

Agencia La Feria

Almaćen

Alt/Shift

Anacta Strategies

Anima

Artificial Group

Atenas Comunicado

Atomic 212

Atomix

Audaz

Australian Public Affairs

Barker Wentworth

Bastion Creative

Bastion Creative. Bastion Interactive

Big Red

Bold Partners

Bordó

Bright Yellow

Brivia

Brim

Brother & Co

Brunswick

Campaign EdgeSprout

Capital Hill Advisory

Cheil Worldwide

CHEP

Concept Communications

Content Labs

Continental Advertising

Costa Think Work

Critical Mass

Crosby Textor

Cuatro Coronas

Cullen Communications

Cummins and Partners

DOI Group

Demner, Merlicek, & Bergmann

Designate Group

Dezenhall Resources

Digitalwave

Don Argentina

DPG Advisory Solutions

EKO

Feed the Media

Fitch Ink

Flavor TV

Forrester Consulting

fri.to

Global Interactive

Govstrat

Greenroom Films

GUT Buenos Aires

Hardhat

Housten Group

ifahto

Intarget

Inter Ads

Inter Publicity

Interel

Iris Worldwide

ISLA

JPG Advisory

JWS Research

Kempner Communications

Kivvit

Kojo

La América

Leftloft

Liebre Amotinada

Locust Street Group

M & C Saachi

Match & Wood

McCoy Consulting

MFIELD

Michelson Alexander

MSQ

National Advertising

New Word Order

Newfields

Newgate Communications

Next Level Strategic Services

Nexus APAC

Northstar Public Affairs

Nove

Nunn Media

Paradise Outdoor Advertising

Peppery

Percept

Policy Works

Poolhouse

PowerDrift Studios Pvt Ltd

Primary Communication Partners

Propeg

Purple Strategies

Quigley-Simpson

Republic PR

Reputation Edge

Richardson Coutts

RPA

Saint Mob Media

Scarecrow Communications

SEC Newgate

Sense

Showpony

Siddhartha Advertising

Singer Associates

Sitrick and Company

Something Else Strategies

Spring Street Advisory

Statecraft

Strategic Political Councel

Talent Marcel

Tatil Design

TG Public Affairs

The Media Store

The Roma Agency

The Thinking Machine

The Visual Agency

The Zoo Republic

TLA Worldwide

Tribe

True North Strategic Communication

Twelve

VCCP

Wahoo Advertising

Willard Public Affairs

XY 01

What They Don’t Say — Where Holding Companies Stand:

The industry knows that they cannot remain silent about climate change.

But despite the sustainability commitments and net zero pledges that agencies and networks have made, they don’t say very much about how they plan to get there and what this means for their relationships with fossil fuel clients. In fact, most agencies have erased references to fossil fuel clients from their websites, so we’ve used web archives to get the full picture.

Here’s what we know so far.

WPP:

Mark Read, the CEO of WPP, told The Drum that WPP is “not naive about the challenges of climate change”, but demonstrates no intent to reconsider WPP’s large fossil fuel portfolio. Instead, he told Campaign that “Energy companies have to be part of the solution as much as anybody else.” In a conversation with AdWeek, Read said that “We want to work with companies that share our values and share our outlook for the future and energy companies are in the process of doing that…We should be there to support them on that transition.”

In June 2021, WPP made a commitment to “reach net zero in their value chain by 2030.” Read told Campaign that “we can’t engage in greenwashing”, but WPP continues to work for global oil giants that have been called out in court for manipulating and deceiving the public about climate change, including BP, Shell, ExxonMobil and Chevron. WPP's work for BP led to a lawsuit for using their “Advancing Possibilities” campaign to mislead people about their investment in renewable energy. Their work for Chevron is the subject of an active Federal Trade Commission complaint for greenwashing and their work for Shell is the subject of a lawsuit by New York City for misleading consumers. It’s unclear how they will reach net zero while continuing to work for the world’s largest polluters.

Interpublic Group (IPG)

In response to initiatives like Clean Creatives and the Creative Climate Disclosure, which called upon the advertising industry to disclose its fossil fuel clients, IPG and WPP told Reuters “they would not disclose their client lists. Omnicom and Publicis didn’t respond to a request for comment.”

In June 2021, IPG announced climate commitments to source 100% renewable electricity by 2030, reach net zero by 2040 and report their global energy and emissions performance data. In their Sustainability and Environmental Impact Policy, IPG advises their employees to choose double-sided printing, take public transportation and use low-energy lighting — but they haven’t said a word about their relationship with fossil fuel clients. On page 49 of the report, IPG has provided data on how their greenhouse gas emissions decreased from 2019 to 2020 (notably because of the pandemic), but hasn’t provided context for how this may compare with their clients’ carbon footprint. Despite IPG’s climate ambitions, they continue to work with ExxonMobil, Aramco, Valero, Repsol and Equinor — clients who largely have expressed an interest in increasing fossil fuel production. For example, Aramco has noted in their sustainability report that they plan to “increase oil production by 1 million barrels a day by 2027 and boost gas production by 50% by the end of this decade.”

Dentsu:

In 2015, Dentsu set a goal to use “100% renewable electricity across its worldwide operations where markets allow” and met that target in 2020. This was followed by a substantial decarbonization target that they set in 2021 to “reduce absolute emissions by 90% by 2040 across its entire value chain.” However, their agencies continue to work for Chevron, Saudi Aramco, and Ampol, and any sustainability changes they make across their network cannot balance out the climate impact of working for fossil fuel clients.

Publicis:

Like other agencies, Publicis has set a carbon neutrality goal for 2030 and committed to reduced consumption. However, their client list includes Total, which plans to restart a $20 billion liquefied natural gas fossil fuel project in Mozambique that has received criticism for displacing communities and causing corruption, violence and severe environmental impacts - along with other fossil fuel giants such as Saudi Aramco.

Omnicom:

In comparison to other networks, Omnicom has not made significant sustainability commitments. They have pledged to reach 20% renewable energy by 2023 and met their goal with 21.5% renewable energy in 2021, but still work with dozens of fossil fuel clients, including ExxonMobil, AGL, API, NAM and National Gas Industry. Omnicom’s CSR website says that “our industry has less of an environmental impact than others,” but that’s not true when you consider the impact of working for oil and gas majors.

Havas

In 2020, Havas launched a CSR wing called Havas Impact+ and the Climate Solidarity Initiative to make a financial contribution to climate projects with each campaign they produce, in an effort to offset carbon emissions. This will represent 0.2% of their overall quote for the service. They have also pledged to lower their greenhouse gas emissions by 60% and achieve carbon neutrality by 2025. So far, they are tracking their progress through office electricity consumption, recycling systems and planting trees. In their CSR report, they report that they have worked on 13 client campaigns that feature the issue of climate change, but have not mentioned whether their new sustainability standards are influencing how they work with fossil fuel clients.

Edelman

A quick Wikipedia search of Edelman shows an extensive history of creating astroturf campaigns and working with fossil fuel clients, which starts from the fourth sentence. Despite being a PR giant, their online presence is an interesting case study in public relations, with “controversies” as the largest section on their Wikipedia page. The Guardian has even named their CEO Richard Edelman as one of “America’s top climate villains”, alongside Mark Zuckerberg and Charles Koch, for Edelman’s work “peddling climate denial.”

One day after Clean Creatives’ #EdelmanDropExxon campaign in November 2021, Richard Edelman issued a statement saying “We do not accept climate assignments that aim to deny climate change and we do not work with coal producers.” However, in September 2021, Gizmodo reported that Edelman was involved in an Exxon campaign “encouraging people to oppose climate policy.” In March 2021, a BuzzFeed investigation revealed tax filings that show that Edelman was paid over $4 million for its work with the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers in 2019.

Edelman announced the results of a three month climate review of its clients in January 2022. Despite acknowledging the role its clients play in Edelman’s carbon footprint, they have made no public announcements of changes in client policy, or whether they have ended work with major polluters. The one exception seems to be that a contract with South African bank Standard Bank fell apart over Edelman’s unwillingness to work on behalf of the controversial EACOP oil pipeline, which Standard finances. While this is a sign of progress, it’s clear that more needs to be done…..

View and download the full 2022 report “THE F-LIST 2022:

230+ AD AND PR COMPANIES WORKING FOR THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY” at:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f5aab4d184791593e07cd03/t/6347466d77526e4144b4d3b6/1665615471218/WEB+Update+220923+Clean+Creatives+Report+2022+final+%2856pg%29+copy.pdf