The Fight Against Illegal Mining

Big Tech has a major climate disinformation problem. Social media companies were unprepared for climate deniers, whatabouters, and the Big Oil PR and marketing machine to deploy their tactics of deceit on their platforms. 

On top of that, companies like Facebook and Twitter were happy to benefit from the engagement numbers that the spread of dis- and misinformation brought to the platforms for years. After all, keeping the numbers high attracted investors and advertisers. It was only when the public outcry and federal hearings started to threaten the loss of advertisers, investors, and employees that they began to roll out policies to confront disinformation.

But are these policies doing enough?

A new scorecard, created by a coalition including Greenpeace USA and allies, shows that Facebook, Pinterest, TikTok, Twitter, and YouTube are still failing to tackle the climate disinformation problem on their sites.

First, it might be helpful to explain what climate disinformation is and how it differs from misinformation. Put simply, “disinformation” is false or misleading information intentionally spread to deceive others, or to potentially benefit from its spread. This differs from “misinformation,” which is wrong or incorrect information that is spread by mistake, oversight, or naiveté. Sometimes, the “climate disinformation”—which has been called out by the scientific community in the IPCC’s latest report as a major threat to meeting our climate goals—is purposefully spreading wrong, deceptive, or misleading information about the climate crisis and its severity or about the technology and solutions we have to combat it.

For decades, the fossil fuel industry has been using disinformation as a tool to delay climate action by sowing public distrust in climate science and in solutions to confront the crisis. In October 2021, the House Oversight Committee held a hearing calling on the CEOs of some of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies to answer for their role in spreading disinformation. In February of this year, we confirmed yet again that the industry commonly uses greenwashing to mislead the public on what they say they are doing vs. what they are actually doing.

We sought to determine what social media platforms are actually doing to prevent the spread of climate disinformation. The report measured companies’ definitions, policies, and processes using a 27-point assessment. The higher the score, the more advanced the company is in identifying and disclosing how it hopes to prevent the spread of climate disinformation on its platforms. Only Pinterest and YouTube scored over 50%, both scoring 14 out of 27. Facebook, TikTok, and Twitter received 9, 7, and 5 points respectively.

For Facebook, TikTok, and Twitter, the failure starts with a poor foundation from which they build these policies. These three companies have not adopted a climate expert-informed definition of climate dis/misinformation. In the case of YouTube, its expert-informed definition only applies to paid content—that is, to advertising. Only Pinterest publicly articulates an expert-informed definition that applies to both paid and organic content.

We also found a gross lack of transparency from all five platforms. None of the platforms release regular reports that detail the scale and prevalence of climate dis/misinformation, or mitigation efforts taken internally. This means there is simply no way to tell if their policies are addressing the problem, if they’re consistently enforced, and if bad actors are able to game the system.

There are some simple actions that these companies could take to significantly curb and eventually stop their platforming of disinformation: adopt the most effective policies, follow through on enforcement, and be transparent about what’s happening.

It’s time for social media companies to stop aiding the planetary collapse that climate disinformation is pushing us towards. Disinformation is dangerous because it creates an erosion of trust in our communities and drives people to extremes. In reality, the only extremists are those pursuing an agenda of more fossil fuel exploitation, with the goal of billions in profits.

Politicians like to talk about how the U.S. should boost our domestic oil and gas drilling which would lower prices and make us less dependent on “foreign oil.” They pretend that more drilling will lower gasoline prices, but that’s just not how it works.

Since 2008, oil and gas production in the U.S. has boomed thanks to new technology such as horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking). We are now producing over twice as much crude oil and about 70% more natural gas than in 2008, and in 2019 the United States finally achieved that favorite buzz phrase of politicians: “energy independence.”

But if that’s true then why are gasoline prices sky-high? What happened? It’s a complex question, but part of the answer has to do with exports.

The first thing to know is that living in an area that produces a lot of oil and gas does not mean that we get a discount on high prices at the pump. Crude oil is traded all around the world and the price is set by the global market. So when Russia invaded Ukraine and many countries responded by refusing to import Russian oil, that sent a price shock through the oil market, directly leading to $6 per gallon gasoline here in the U.S.

Crucially, our “energy independence” did nothing to shield ordinary folks from this shock. Crude prices went up here, same as everywhere, because crude markets are linked. If a local U.S. driller can get a higher price by exporting their oil and selling it overseas, they’re going to take it. In a corporate-dominated market system, the oil always flows where it will generate the biggest profits. Currently oil companies are enjoying high profits, and they are not able or willing to rapidly increase production. Even if they did boost production, the added U.S. oil would only be a “proverbial drop in the bucket in the 100-million-barrel-per-day global oil market.”

The U.S. used to have a ban on crude oil exports, but Congress and President Obama lifted that ban in 2015. Since then, access to international markets has been one of the driving factors in the recent U.S. production boom and we now export around 3 million barrels of crude oil per day. At the same time, export shipments of liquefied natural gas (LNG) went from almost nothing in 2016 to over 3,500 billion cubic feet in 2021. In particular, these new export markets have super-charged drilling in the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico.

(To make matters even more complicated, the U.S. is also still a big importer of crude oil, largely because U.S. refineries are optimized for a heavier grade of crude than what is commonly produced here. This means that reinstating a crude export ban would dial back U.S. production and lower greenhouse gas emissions—a very good thing—but it probably wouldn’t immediately lower gasoline prices. However, rising natural gas exports do seem to be a factor driving up domestic natural gas prices.)

Thanks to these developments, the U.S. oil and gas industry is now fully integrated into the global market. The spike in oil prices due to the Russian invasion has been great news for Big Oil, which is reaping tens of billions in additional wartime profits, but it is putting the pinch on ordinary people, many of whom are still recovering from the pandemic downturn.

It is a bitter reminder that fossil fuels are among the most expensive and volatile sources of energy we have. Our reliance on fossil fuels is driving up inflation, in addition to fueling wars, driving the climate crisis, and spewing health-damaging air pollution. What’s worse, price spikes from the periodic “boom and bust” cycles of the oil industry are difficult to predict and even harder to protect yourself against.

The best thing we can do is to get off fossil fuels as fast as possible.

President Biden’s Executive Action Spurs Domestic Clean Energy Manufacturing

In June, the Biden administration announced that it will use the Defense Production Act to support clean energy, and this move to help unlock the potential of renewables is what we need more of to address the climate crisis, create a better future for our communities, support domestic manufacturers, and aid our allies abroad by weakening the fossil-fueled war in Ukraine.

This announcement demonstrates President Biden’s ability to ramp up the transition to renewable energy. Now he needs to go even further by invoking the Defense Production Act across all clean energy sectors, declaring a climate emergency, and addressing the root of the climate crisis by beginning an immediate and equitable phaseout of domestic fossil fuel production.

President Biden must articulate a clear vision for phasing out both fossil fuel production and consumption over the coming years. This includes keeping his campaign promise to end fossil fuel leasing on federal lands and waters, and rejecting permits for any new pipelines, export terminals, or other fossil fuel infrastructure.

Climate policy should aim to reduce both the supply and demand for fossil fuels in tandem. If the U.S. were to focus only on reducing our own fossil fuel consumption, while allowing production and exports to surge, that could spur greater emissions overseas and undermine our efforts here at home. If the oil industry gets its way, this massive buildout of infrastructure could lock the world more deeply into reliance on fossil fuels well beyond the date when we must shift to renewable energy. Every new terminal and pipeline that gets built makes it that much harder—economically, legally, and politically—to transition away from fossils as fast as we need to.

The war in Ukraine has exposed fossil fuels as a destructive dead end. Now more than ever we need to put them behind us and move forward into a future built on renewable energy and justice.

This year Coca-Cola committed to making at least 25% of its packaging reusable or refillable by 2030. This is the first time that a Big Brand has made any sort of commitment on refill and reuse metrics. Reuse and refill systems are nothing new—think of the milkman delivering bottles and collecting the empty ones to be cleaned and reused, or think of how you used to be able to buy a soda in a glass bottle, then return the bottle so that it could be used again.

Coca-Cola states that 16% of its packaging is already refillable and reusable, mostly in Latin America. They’ve got a long way to go before they can be a real leader in the fight against plastic pollution, but they’re currently leaps and bounds ahead of Pepsi. Pepsi’s packaging portfolio currently includes zero reuse and refill.

So in the spirit of the 1970s “Pepsi Challenge” that invited consumers to guess which cola they prefer in a blind taste test, Greenpeace is asking: How quickly will Pepsi aim to move a portion of their packaging to reusable systems? How ambitious will their commitment be? And of course, will Pepsi go above and beyond Coke’s commitment of 25% by 2030?

Pepsi has a huge opportunity to beat their long-time rival at something that many of us are ready for. People are extremely concerned about the plastic pollution crisis and climate change—and the two are very interconnected. Will Pepsi seize this moment and beat Coke in the refill and reuse race or will they come out with a weak commitment that underwhelms and disappoints us?

The path to a world with reuse and refill might not be the easiest one—it will require buy-in from customers, refill/reuse infrastructure, policy changes, and even collaboration among big brands like Coke and Pepsi—but we know it is necessary if we are going to stem the tide of single-use plastics flowing into our oceans every day. It might not be the easiest thing to do, but it is necessary. The plastic problem is vast, it impacts all of us, and it is time for the multi-billion dollar corporations who caused this crisis to actually do something to fix it.

With our collective voices pressuring the company, I am hopeful that Pepsi can be better than Coke by committing to at least 50% reuse and refill by 2030.

Cheap, throwaway plastic packaging pollutes our air, water, land, and climate, and harms our health from the moment it is created. Recently it has even been detected in our blood. 99% of plastics are made from fossil fuels. Further extraction of fossil fuels means increasing the chances and severity of disasters in an already drastically changing climate. 

From the continued expansion of mining into Indigenous lands to the record-setting deforestation catalyzed by the Brazilian government’s anti-environment policies to the ongoing threat of the Covid-19 pandemic, Indigenous Peoples throughout Brazil face intersecting threats to their homes and health.

Earlier this year, at the 18th Free Land Camp in Brasilia, thousands of Indigenous People came together for 10 days of non-violent, mass demonstrations to denounce the ongoing violations of their rights and to foster solidarity across Brazilian society. More than 5,000 leaders from 120 different Indigenous Peoples concentrated in the federal capital to demand the immediate demarcation of Indigenous territories as well as to discuss issues ranging from Indigenous health and education.

Denouncing the infamous #PacotedaDestruição—the Destruction Package—was especially urgent. This series of Executive and Legislative initiatives jeopardizes the physical and cultural survival of Indigenous People throughout Brazil as well as the thousands of square kilometers of native vegetation, especially forests from the Amazon.

“There are countless threats we receive, due to the non-demarcation of our lands, in addition to deforestation and invasion of our territories,” said Sônia Guajajara, a member of the Executive Coordination of Apib. “When it is not the persecutions against our representatives that oppose this misrule by Jair Bolsonaro, it is Congress that tries to massacre us with the ink of the pen.”

A group of Indigenous leaders, together with activists from Greenpeace Brazil and celebrities, delivered a petition with more than 517,000 signatures to the Ministry of Justice—“Enough of Violence against Indigenous Peoples!” The delivery of the petition was preceded by a walk in Brasilia with a totem pole made of gigantic red letters which carried the message “Enough with Violence!” and it was decorated with more than 20,000 ribbons, each bearing the first name of people who signed the petition. The ribbons were tied by participants of the Free Land Camp, reinforcing the message of peace and connection.

Protecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples and their lands means protecting everyone’s future. It’s crucial to protect the Guardians of the Forest and to ensure that the Brazilian government knows the world will be watching.

• A step forward for transparency in the tuna supply chain
  U.S. retailer Hy-Vee published their private label tuna supplier vessel documentation report following Greenpeace USA’s request for major U.S. grocery retailers to share more information about their seafood supply chain. In 2021 our inaugural report “The High Cost of Cheap Tuna: US Supermarkets, Sustainability, and Human Rights at Sea” found all 16 retailers surveyed to be failing in ensuring their tuna supply chains are free of both environmental harm and exploitative labor practices such as debt bondage and physical abuse. Hy-Vee, which earned fifth place on the list, was the only retailer that committed to publicly sharing a list of its tuna supplier vessels.
• Fossil fuel lease sales in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico canceled
  The Biden administration canceled proposed lease sales for fossil fuel projects in the Cook Inlet in Alaska and Gulf of Mexico. These projects would have fueled the ongoing climate emergency and had a direct impact on communities in the region, especially Indigenous, Black, low-wealth communities, and communities of the global majority who have been historically targeted by Big Oil and are already facing the disproportionate impacts of pollution and climate chaos. Greenpeace USA and the Build Back Fossil Free coalition of more than 1,200 groups are continuing to keep up pressure on the administration to declare a climate emergency, end the federal approval of all new fossil fuel projects, and usher in a renewable energy future that works for all.
• New EU law could protect journalists and activists from legal bullying
  The European Commission released a new draft EU directive against strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) that will make it harder for corporations, public officials, and powerful individuals to initiate costly and often baseless lawsuits with the aim of intimidating and silencing dissent in cross- border cases. Greenpeace and other environmental organizations have long been the target of SLAPPs and it’s encouraging to see the EU Commission taking decisive steps to tackle the growing problem of legal bullying in Europe.
• Legal grounds found to hold climate-destroying corporations accountable
  The Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines issued the final report of its multi-year investigation into 47 investor-owned corporations for human rights harms that result from their actions triggering climate change. The report is historic and a vindication for millions of people whose fundamental rights are being impacted by the corporations behind the climate crisis.