​Climate Change Denialism: The denial machine that could cost us everything

While the world faces rising temperatures, rising sea levels, and more intense natural disasters, one question persists to haunts us: why do some people still deny the reality of the climate change crisis? The persistent denial is likely the result of the climate denialist machine, whose efforts can be traced back decades, aiming to deliberately sow doubt and confusion about climate science. Although ExxonMobil scientists predicted global warming already in the 1970s, reports indicate that ExxonMobil alone spent $30 million between 1998 and 2014 to fund groups casting doubt on climate science.

Climate change denialism is a term that is used by government officials, politicians, and NGOs, driven by growing concerns over climate crisis disinformation narratives. While often associated with right-wing-oriented voters and politicians, climate change denialism entails much broader and more nuanced efforts with more shared language across ideological divides than commonly assumed (Guenther, 2024). These efforts are often sustained by large sums of money and a network of different private and public actors who employ different strategies and tactics to further climate change denialist efforts with a main target audience: right-wing voters.

While right-wing voters are the main target audience that fails to recognize deception and often tends to further amplify climate denialist messaging and disinformation narratives, the root cause stems from other, much more powerful and influential actors. So, let us take a closer look at the key figures and networks to answer some critical questions: What is climate change denial? Who benefits from climate change denialist efforts? And who are the primary actors who disseminate climate denialist messaging?

Firstly, what is the concept of climate change denialism and how is it defined? The European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS) defines climate change denial (or global warming denial) as the “denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change…”. ECPS further states that climate denialism campaigns are designed “to undermine public trust in climate science, described as a ‘denial machine’ organized by industrial, political, and ideological interests, supported by conservative media and skeptical bloggers.” While ECPS highlights this complex web of actors, it tends to emphasize ideological factors, even though they are often primarily driven by the financial interests of the private market (e.g., fossil fuel lobbying of right-wing politicians, funding of conservative/right-wing NGOs, etc.). It is important to highlight these different angles which is why in this article, we focus on the actors and financial interests that are driving climate denialism and fueling the denial machine. 

The conversation of climate change denialism points in the direction of main actors such as ‘Big Oil’, which consists of major oil and gas companies such as ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, TotalEnergies, Chevron, etc., as identified by different researchers, media and documents provided by the U.S. Democrats. Despite being at the forefront of showing evidence of climate change, ExxonMobil has not changed their business model to address the damages caused by global warming but has instead employed a denial machine to shift the blame.

Expensive Denial 

During investigations into permafrost conditions and sea-level predictions, which were critical for long-term fossil fuel extraction planning, it was reported in The Harvard Gazette that Exxon Mobil had already gathered data on the consequences of global warming as early as the 1970s. Rather than altering their business models, the American Senate hearing reports reveal that major oil companies spent decades deliberately sowing doubt and confusion regarding the dangers of fossil fuels, despite possessing clear evidence of their harmful impact on the planet, as reported by The Guardian. 

As the effects of global warming have become increasingly undeniable, Big Oil has shifted from climate denial to more sophisticated strategies involving deception, disinformation, and doublespeak (ibid.). ExxonMobil alone spent $30 million between 1998 and 2014 to fund groups casting doubt on climate science. These efforts extend to the global scale, where Heffernan (2024) claims that climate disinformation campaigns are spread and funded globally by different fossil fuel companies with the aim of creating skepticism toward climate science and opposing environmental policies. 

A 2023 report by the Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD) coalition analyzed misleading claims circulating online during COP27 in Egypt. Besides finding that fossil fuel-linked entities spent approximately $4 million on Meta advertisements promoting false and misleading claims about the climate crisis, the report also noted a significant increase in outright climate denial content. The climate denial content included a spike in the Twitter (now X) hashtag #ClimateScam beginning in July 2022, months before the summit. Moreover, the analysis identified 3,781 advertisements, with the majority originating from a PR group affiliated with the American Petroleum Institute called Energy Citizens. At the same time, America’s Plastic Makers spent over $1 million on similar ads, and the Saudi Green Initiative ran 13 campaigns promoting fossil fuel narratives. 

These examples show how far and how much money fossil-fuel companies are willing to spend to contribute to the climate change denialist machine. The climate change denialist machine is an intricate system of actors, narratives, and incentives ranging from politicians and fossil fuel companies to neoliberal and conservative NGOs. 

The web of the neoliberal conservative climate change denial network

From 1997 to 2017, the Koch Network funneled over $127 million to 92 organizations that actively disseminate climate science denial narratives, often portraying themselves as experts, according to a report by Greenpeace. As early as 2013, The Guardian reported on secretive funding mechanisms that allowed anonymous billionaires to donate $120 million between 2002 and 2010 to more than 100 anti-climate groups dedicated to sowing distrust in climate science.

Despite increasing investments in green energy initiatives, fossil fuels continue to dominate global energy production. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), fossil fuels remain the primary source of the world’s electricity generation, with nuclear and hydro energy ranking second and third.

One reason for this continued dominance is the substantial financial support oil and gas companies provide to politicians who promote climate change denialism and oppose green energy initiatives. A study analyzing 28 years of U.S. campaign contribution data found that oil and gas companies systematically reward members of Congress who vote for anti-environmental legislation. Open Secrets data further reveals that U.S. politicians, including Mitt Romney, have received millions of dollars from oil and gas companies, with Romney’s contributions totaling $8.7 million.

Studies indicate that climate change denialism is particularly prevalent within right-wing populist movements and has gained traction in Western countries over the past few years (Jylhä & Hellmer, 2020). While the U.S. remains a key player in advancing climate change denial narratives, European nations have also seen a rise in such rhetoric. For instance, Spain’s far-right party VOX has consistently opposed climate policies, arguing that they represent an expensive solution to a non-existent problem (Hope, 2019).

Climate change denialism is a multifaceted challenge with deep implications. This denialism has eroded the public’s trust in science and has enabled politicians to push anti-environmental legislation while accepting financial backing from fossil fuel companies, which in turn has fostered widespread doubt about the realities of climate change. Addressing climate change denialism would require a complex approach from both politicians and the public. This would include initiatives that promote scientific, media, and digital literacy, and new policies that would provide public transparency when it comes to political funding and for corporations to take accountability for disinformation campaigns.