The fight for our planet can’t be left to back-room deals or corporate interests. It’s time to face the truth: a handful of fossil fuel corporations have captured our governments, bought our policies, and are steering the world toward collapse.

This isn’t left versus right — it’s people versus power. Whether you believe in climate science or simply see how global elites manipulate energy markets, we share a common enemy: greed. Fossil fuel monopolies have corrupted democracy, delayed clean energy, and put their profits above the survival of humanity.

Their lobbyists write our laws. Their money silences progress. They’ve funded misinformation, blocked renewables, and even turned public opinion against nuclear and other clean technologies — all while knowing for decades that their products were destabilizing the climate.

We don’t need another empty summit or another promise. We need action:

• End fossil fuel lobbying and ban corporate influence in environmental policy.
• Divest government funds from oil and gas companies.
• Massively invest in renewable, nuclear, and clean energy infrastructure.

We can still take back control — for freedom, for truth, for our future.

Stand with us.
No More Puppetmasters.

FACT SHEET: Fossil Fuel Lobbying in Canada & the United States & the World

 

Canada
1. Scale of Lobbying

Fossil fuel companies and trade groups held 1,255 meetings with federal officials in 2023 — that’s roughly five per workday.

In 2024, they logged 1,135 meetings — slightly less, but still the most active lobby sector in the country.
(Source: Environmental Defence, 2024–2025 reports)

2. Key Actors

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP): the most powerful energy lobby in Canada, representing nearly all major oil and gas firms.

Pathways Alliance: coalition of companies producing ≈95% of Canada’s oil sands output; met with top officials multiple times per month in 2023.
(Sources: Environmental Defence, The Narwhal, LobbyCanada registry)

3. Goals of Lobbying

Delay or weaken climate regulations and carbon pricing.

Secure tax breaks and subsidies for oil & gas expansion.

Block or dilute support for renewable and nuclear energy.

Rebrand Canadian oil as “clean” to maintain exports.
(Sources: Environmental Defence, InfluenceMap, The Narwhal)

4. Transparency Gaps

Canada’s Lobbying Act does not require disclosure of money spent or informal communications.

Many meetings and contacts go unreported, making total influence unknown.
(Source: Government of Canada, Lobbying Act Overview)
 
🇺🇸 United States

1. Lobbying Expenditure

Fossil fuel interests spent US $93 million on federal lobbying in 2023, and US $125 million in 2022.

Over the last election cycle, “Big Oil” spent roughly US $445 million on lobbying, campaign donations, and political ads combined.
(Sources: OpenSecrets, The Guardian, Center for American Progress, EarthDay.org)

2. Major Players

ExxonMobil — $7.7 million in lobbying (2022).
Chevron — $3.9 million (2022).
Trade associations such as the American Petroleum Institute (API) coordinate national policy efforts and anti-regulation messaging.
(Sources: OpenSecrets, API lobbying disclosures)

3. Tactics

Heavy funding of political campaigns and Super PACs that support deregulation.

“Revolving door” employment between government agencies and fossil companies.

Strategic funding of misinformation to delay climate policy.
(Sources: American Progress, Brennan Center, Union of Concerned Scientists)

4. Policy Outcomes

Billions in annual subsidies and tax breaks still flow to oil and gas.

Fossil firms shape energy rules, often framing gas as a “bridge fuel” to stall renewable growth.

Some climate incentives (like carbon-capture credits) are exploited to extend drilling rather than reduce emissions.
(Sources: Guardian, UCS, Congressional Budget Office)

Examples Around the World

🇬🇧 United Kingdom & Europe
In the UK, government ministers met with oil & gas lobbyists at least 343 times in 2023 — averaging 1.4 meetings per working day. 

Fossil fuel giants like BP, Shell, Equinor participated directly in external ministerial meetings on carbon capture and storage; their lobbying preceded the UK’s £22 billion CCS subsidy roll-out. 

Reports show fossil firms were able to weaken or shift climate policies using loopholes and undisclosed influence, capitalizing on weak UK lobbying laws. 

In Scotland and the UK more broadly, just 10 companies (mostly energy/fossil firms) accounted for 1 in 10 ministerial engagements nationally and in Scotland.

🇦🇺 Australia

Fossil interests have successfully lobbied to remove or soften criticism of their role in climate policy discussions. For example, the Australian government reportedly asked the IPCC to remove a reference to fossil fuel lobby influence in climate reports. 

Studies note deep structural links between the fossil-fuel regime and governance — lobbyists embedded in regulatory and political processes. 

InfluenceMap tracks that coal, oil, gas, and methane sectors are highly active in lobbying climate policy in Australia. 

🇮🇳 India
While overall opposition to climate policy is less overt than in some countries, there is evidence of “covert lobbying” by mining and oil firms to weaken environmental laws — e.g. reports on mining giant Vedanta’s lobbying efforts. 

In global climate forums, Indian fossil interests also secure seats: at COP29, over 1,700 fossil lobbyists from around the world, including 24 from India, were granted access. 

Industry associations like CII (Confederation of Indian Industry) are publicly supportive of climate goals, but critics argue their influence avoids advocating for deeply transformative change (e.g. they support coal having a continued role). 

Other Regions & Global Forums
Fossil interests have strong presence at UN climate negotiations (COP), often outnumbering national delegations, which allows them to influence agenda, side events, and negotiator access. 

Fossil fuel–producing nations (e.g. Saudi Arabia, OPEC states, Australia) have lobbied international climate science bodies (like the IPCC) to soften language around fossil phase-outs. 

In Latin America and the Global South, fossil and bioenergy firms lobby closely over land use, extraction rights, and energy policy. For instance, research into Brazilian bioenergy corporate lobbying shows intertwined influence over agricultural/energy policy.

MORE FUN FACTS OF FOSSIL FUEL MEDDLING IN POLITICS:

1. Lobbying & trade associations opposing nuclear subsidies or expansion

The American Petroleum Institute (API) has opposed nuclear power subsidies and lobbied to limit its growth. 

According to the Anti-nuclear movement page, entities such as the American Petroleum Institute, the Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association, and the Marcellus Shale Coalition have been engaged in anti-nuclear lobbying. 

2. Funding (or alleged funding) of anti-nuclear NGOs or campaigns

It’s been claimed that fossil fuel interests provided early funds to organizations that adopted anti-nuclear positions. For example, Atlantic Richfield (an oil company) is said to have given $80,000 (in historical dollars) toward creating Friends of the Earth, an environmental organization that had anti-nuclear stances. 
Some “dark money” or opaque funding channels from fossil fuel interests have reportedly been used to back misinformation campaigns about clean energy or nuclear in particular. Kleinman Center for Energy Policy
Critics assert that anti-nuclear NGOs often have funding sources or alliances that link to fossil fuel or natural gas interests. 

3. Messaging, framing, and public discourse influence

Fossil fuel interests have used rhetorical strategies to amplify the perceived dangers or risks of nuclear — focusing on accidents, waste, security, cost overruns — as a way to shape public and regulatory resistance. (These arguments are also used by genuine critics of nuclear, but the influence of industry money can magnify them.)
Some fossil fuel actors promoted the narrative that nuclear is too slow, too expensive, too unsafe — making “renewables + gas” seem more viable.
In campaigns, sometimes “technology-neutral” language is used to oppose specific backing for nuclear (i.e. “let the market decide,” but in practice blocking one technology) — a move that benefits incumbent fossil fuel sectors. 

4. Historical competition and strategic motives

In earlier decades, coal and oil industries viewed nuclear power as a competitive threat (to electricity generation) and sought to limit its market penetration. 
The fossil fuel sector gains from delaying or limiting alternatives to fossil-based electricity, so opposition to nuclear (which is low-carbon but centralized and capital intensive) can help preserve status quo.

 

1. Oil companies did internal climate research, and the results were serious

Exxon’s own scientists ran climate models from the late 1970s onward that projected warming accurately. A 2023 study (“Assessing ExxonMobil’s Global Warming Projections”) found that Exxon’s internal models from 1977 to 2003 closely matched observed warming trends. 

Internal documents show that in 1982, Exxon's environmental affairs office circulated a report warning of potentially catastrophic effects from climate change and noting that reductions in fossil fuel use might be needed. 

More broadly, fossil fuel companies (not just Exxon) began grappling with climate issues as early as the 1950s and 1960s, funding research into carbon cycles, atmospheric science, and pollution. 

The Union of Concerned Scientists and other analyses document that major oil firms were aware of climate risks decades ago. 

So the first piece — that they conducted research and internally recognized the climate risk — is well supported.

2. Later public denial, obfuscation, and funding of doubt campaigns

Despite accurate internal science, Exxon (and some of its peers) frequently challenged or publicly questioned the certainty of climate science, promoted uncertainty, and funded third-party groups to sow doubt. 

From 1998 to 2005, ExxonMobil reportedly gave around US$16 million to organizations that publicly disputed climate change impacts. 

A 2017 content analysis compared internal documents vs. public adverts and found that while ~80+ % of internal and peer-reviewed documents acknowledged climate science, the majority of Exxon’s public advertorials portrayed significant doubt. 

Congressional and oversight reports (e.g. the U.S. House “Examining the Oil Industry’s Efforts to Suppress the Truth About Climate Change”) document attempts to influence public understanding, regulatory processes, and suppress disclosures of research. 

Thus, the second piece — that they publicly downplayed or suppressed the implications of their own science — is also well supported.

 

THIS IS A GLOBAL CALL FOR A BAN ON FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES TO LOBBY, INFLUENCE, SWAY, BRIBE, PAY, OR PARTICIPATE IN POLITICS. 

THIS IS A GLOBAL CALL FOR GOVERNMENTS TO DIVEST IN FOSSIL FUELS, A PATH TO DEATH AND DESTRUCTION, AND INVEST NOW IN THE VIABLE, LOGICAL PATH OF RENEWABLES.