In April of last year, the Greenpeace Canada Education Fund was provided with its first-ever research grant. The goal of this work was to conduct research, investigation, and education about the influence of oil, gas, and industry associations on the national climate discourse and policy-making process in Canada. We contracted this work to Greenpeace Canada, who hired Nola Poirier, a full-time researcher, in September. We introduced you to Nola in a blog post back in November.
JG: So it’s been a busy few months! What outcomes have you been most proud of so far?
NP: Yes, it’s been extremely busy. It’s interesting to try to think about what I’m most proud of, as every time we finish something, I’m already working on the next thing, there is so much to do. But if I have to pick something, I think the advertising complaint about the Pathways Alliance is a strong piece of work. I think it’s important. This actually goes for the work we did on banks’ greenwashing in the So Sue Me report as well. Words matter, and people do believe the gist of what these companies tell us, that they are trying, improving, that they understand the need to act and the urgency. But greenwashing is wasting valuable time, and what that means is the changes we need to make will be bigger and more sudden.
So, I’m not sure proud is what I’m feeling, but I do feel that calling out this doublespeak is important, and that this work, the Competition Bureau complaint in particular, has the potential to bring tangible change to the way the fossil fuel industry does business.
JG: Let’s start with the Competition Bureau complaint. What are the major misrepresentations you feel have been made by the Pathways Alliance in your investigation of their “Let’s Clear the Air” campaign?
NP: Our key arguments around the Pathways Alliance advertising campaign are:
- Net zero is meant to refer to the entire lifecycle of a product. Because their plan does not include burning the fuels that they produce, they are failing to incorporate the lifecycle of their product, which is also more than 80% of their emissions. Yet, even without a full emissions accounting, their own calculations do not result in them achieving net zero.
- The Pathways Alliance ads and accompanying website materials give the impression they are a climate leader, are moving toward net zero, and by specifically mentioning the significant emissions from the oil sands, they give the impression that the steps they are taking are proportionate with what is required to mitigate climate change. At the same time, however, they are expanding their fossil fuel production.
- Their advertising is also misleading because it’s based on future speculative technologies, specifically carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Pathways has indicated that the only issues facing their CCS project are related to financing and regulatory approval. However, there are many documented questions and concerns about the technology, in particular if it can be ready on time and if it would meet the efficacy needs of this proposal.
- The ads give the impression Pathways is a climate leader, when individually and through industry affiliations, Pathways members have advocated, advertised, and/or spoken against climate action in Canada.
JG: Let’s look at the use of greenwashing by Canadian banks. What major findings stick out to you about the gap in how they represent themselves versus what they actually fund?
NP: Canadian banks continually paint themselves as corporate climate leaders, while they continue to fund fossil fuel expansion, despite the fact that fossil fuel emissions are the greatest driver of climate change.
The big five Canadian banks (RBC, Scotiabank, TD, BMO, and CIBC) are still providing billions—and billions—of dollars to fossil fuel companies. Since the Paris Climate Agreement came into force in 2016, these five banks have continued to provide massive fossil fuel loans and investments, and even have allowed their funding to go towards fossil fuel expansion. In 2016, the five banks together provided $101 billion USD and in 2021, their funding increased to $131 billion USD. This is despite seven years of making public and investor-focussed announcements about their climate actions and commitments, and a warning from the International Energy Agency that new fossil fuel expansion must stop immediately if we are to limit global heating.
For example, in 2020, RBC said “RBC believes climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time, and we have an important role to play in supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy.” That same year they funded 100 fossil fuel companies, totalling over 19 billion USD.
In 2021, Scotiabank said, ““How we choose to bank impacts the world around us, from individual communities, to our broader society, to the natural environment. That is our purpose – to be there, for every future – as a force for good.” That year they funded 79 fossil fuel companies, totalling more than 30 billion USD.
All of the big five banks are in the top 20 global banks financing fossil fuel expansion, and two of them (RBC and Scotiabank) are among the top ten.
JG: Which research results overall have surprised you the most? Why?
NP: I didn’t think I would be surprised by my research, as I have researched oil issues for years, but in fact, I have been shocked and dismayed by the extent of the power the fossil fuel industry wields in Canada and around the globe. I was well aware of the might of the biggest companies as business entities, but didn’t fathom the extent of the interweaving of the industry into so much else: law, politics, research, public relations and marketing, and on. It’s the trust and respect the industry is given when they have proven themselves not worthy of such treatment. For example, look at the way the industry convinced governments back in the 1990s that they were on top of the “greenhouse effect” so regulation wasn’t required. And how that has led us here, where we face record-breaking weather events and widespread fires and flooding, and yet the industry is still allowed to call many of the shots when it comes to climate action. Or look at all the greenwashing around “net zero” and how that phrase is being rendered meaningless by the way the industry uses it in empty promises. Even something as seemingly insignificant as the use of the term “natural gas” has an indelible impact. That name worked to make it seem like a better, greener energy choice, when people might never have used the fuel, or might have switched away from it sooner, if it was called what it is: methane, a toxic greenhouse gas. I knew these kinds of facts individually, but when you pile them one upon the next, upon the next, the extent of it all is truly shocking.
JG: How are you bringing in other environmental partners into your efforts?
NP: We are fortunate to work with a lot of allies. There is a truly great network working on climate issues and fossil fuels in Canada. I regularly communicate and sometimes collaborate with CAPE (Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment) on greenwashing issues, we also network with CANRac (Climate Action Network Canada – Réseau Action Climat Canada), Environmental Defense, and other organizations around various aspects of our work.
JG: Tell us about your video series on lobbying by the Pathways Alliance. What do you hope to achieve?
NP: I want people to understand how much lobbying the fossil fuel industry is doing, and why that is a cause for concern. The videos are a little tongue in cheek, but are meant to introduce the idea of lobbying first, then to show just how much is going on and why that is problematic. The videos look at lobbies by just the six companies that make up the Pathways Alliance. One shows that they lobbied so much in 2022 that, if we assume each meeting was 45 minutes, it would be just shy of the runtime of all eight seasons of Game of Thrones. Since some lobbies are submitted in writing, in another video I show that, if we assume each lobby submission is two pages, just the six Pathways companies lobbied enough that it would cover as many pages as Tolstoy’s notoriously long novel War and Peace.
JG: What are the next steps in your work?
NP: I’m working on a series with the working title “Undue Influence” about different ways the fossil fuel industry is dangerously woven into key Canadian institutions as a way to expose the fossil fuel industry’s role in preventing climate action, and leverage this information into calls to hold them accountable. The first part of this work will come out in September, and then the full research launch is set for November, in the lead up to COP 28.
JG: If this research work was more deeply invested in, what else could be achieved?
NP: Oh, wow, so much. I was just in a meeting today talking about how I’d love for us to have the capacity to build a website that could offer an interactive way for the public and media to use the data I uncover for their research and information. Sometimes there is so much information, it needs data visualizations to make it clear, even to reveal what is there. Having more capacity would mean the stories would have more impact in the world. It would also be excellent to have another researcher (or two!) with complementary skills. There is so much to do, so many things to read and investigate.
If you would like to help the Greenpeace Canada Education Fund continue to support this kind of work, consider supporting us below.
