A groundbreaking trial dealt a major blow to the tobacco industry by proving it knew it was selling a harmful product, used deceptive advertising, and funded deniers. Behind the major case was lawyer Sharon Y. Eubanks, who served as the lead counsel. Now, she makes the point that the fossil fuel industry has been following the same game plan and faces the same legal problems.
For The Guardian, she wrote:
Eubanks notes that both industries funded fake science, gave big grants to skeptics and deniers, and even hired the same teams to run their campaigns. This is not new information. A 2016 article inScientific American showed how “from the 1950s onward, the oil and tobacco firms were using not only the same PR firms and same research institutes, but many of the same researchers.”
Eubanks noted that Big Tobacco eventually ran into trouble because the lawsuits just kept coming. “The weight of evidence became so great that the legal risks became systemic, requiring comprehensive action from governments,” she wrote, concluding that the same is happening to the oil industry, with more than 1,800 lawsuits already filed over climate liability.
However, it’s not just the legal strategy that we can learn from the fight against Big Tobacco. In my 2021 book, “Living the 1.5 Degree Lifestyle,” I credited other strategies—education, regulation, taxes, and societal attitudes:
I concluded this might well become the case with the use of fossil fuels.
In her article, Eubanks acknowledges we need more than just lawsuits and that marketing matters. She points to a report by Clean Creatives, titled “Smoke and Mirrors: The Legal Risks of Fossil Fuel Advertising,” which notes:
These 100 companies are fossil fuel producers, with 56% of the emissions coming from state-owned entities rather than public or private companies—and all of them have a vested interest in continuing to pump. But as we have noted before, the carbon emission problems with fossil fuels generally happen when you burn them, not when you produce them. This is a consumption problem, not a production problem.
The Clean Creative people call for advertising agencies to stop working for fossil fuel companies, telling the industry, “No matter what capacity you work in, you have an influence. We create work that moves people; we shouldn’t be complicit in deceiving the public. You can work to convince your company to stop working with fossil fuel clients or at least think more critically about your involvement in the climate crisis.”
But they should also be telling their industry to work on the consumption side—to avoid working for the automobile industry.
We are kidding ourselves if we just go after the fossil fuel producers in terms of lawsuits or marketing—our actions will have no effect on Aramco or The National Iranian Oil Company. It’s time to go after Dodge and Ford for their trucks. Or maybe Pulte, KB, and Toll Brothers for their leaky, gas-fired homes that they know are contributing to climate change. These are companies that could make decisions that significantly reduce carbon emissions, but would rather sell big trucks that drive to big homes, and they spend a lot on advertising to encourage it. Let’s go after the demand side—let’s go after them.
