The Two-Faced Climate Game
Koch, Exxon, and others
Have Played on Us for Decades

A Good Actor Face

For decades, major oil and gas producers have accepted the science-based understanding about their climate pollution and said they take the threat seriously (1).  They claim to support policy solutions based on sound economic principles, such as a federal carbon fee charged on fossil fuel production and imports with a cash-back rebate to households of the money collected to protect household budgets, and a carbon border adjustment to protect U.S. business competitiveness (2).  They deny downplaying the scientific consensus understanding about the serious risks and costs, and deny manipulating politics and the public to delay legislation to address their pollution problem.

A Bad Actor Face

Also, for decades, they have strategically mislead the public about the risks of climate pollution from fossil fuels and manipulated politics and policies to delay passage of effective legislation to address their climate pollution (3).  They did this to maximize industry profits over preserving a livable world, despite knowing that doing so would result in increasing public damages and losses, and rising costs.  They fund Merchants of Doubt front groups and fake experts who create and promote anti-science propaganda, and Dark Money PACs that support politicians who play their game.  Those front groups sponsor conferences that make state legislators feel important, mislead them about climate science, and use them to push polluter industry-favorable legislation in their respective states.  See the ALEC page on this site for an example, and learn about Koch Network funding of the Heartland Institute and Americans for Prosperity for a glimpse of the bad actor side of the fossil fuel industry's two-faced game. 

There is no "clean gasoline".

Former Republican Congressman Bob Inglis' eventual acceptance of the science of climate change from fossil fuel pollution resulted in the fossil fuel industry's bad actor face being used against him.  The negative political advertising funded by fossil fuel interests in the following primary dropped his 80% approval rating down to 29%, and he lost.   This strategy sends a chilling message to Republican candidates about the risks they face from the fossil fuel industry's two-faced game if they speak up for science and facts regarding climate change.

The Koch Network and other fossil fuel interests have defrauded us by funding lies, propaganda, and politics to maximize their profits at great expense to us:  Not Just Koch.

They have accepted mainstream climate science for decades

Exxon funded its own climate science research in the 1970s and 1980s and came to the same conclusion that the major scientific organizations continue to warn about today:  "Human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence." - climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.

Exxon Still Agrees With the Scientific Consensus About Its Climate Pollution Today

From the CEO of Exxon, Darron Woods, in 2023:  “Allow me to share this with you – here’s what ExxonMobil knows:

corporate.exxonmobil.com/news/viewpoints/reframing-the-climate-challenge

Exxon's projections of rising CO2 concentrations in the air from fossil fuels and the resulting global warming, damages, and losses from decades ago have proven accurate.  These climate impacts now cost the U.S. hundreds of billions of dollars annually in damages and losses, higher taxes and insurance rates, and inflationary pressures from associated food and water challenges, and they are increasing.  These are the "external" costs of using fossil fuels - we don't see the costs in the price of fossil fuels, but we are paying the costs a rapidly growing rate in many other ways.  This is a giant subsidy we are giving to the fossil fuel industry, making it's products artificially competitive against better options.

A BP climate documentary (1991)
What Makes Weather

"The film recognizes the potentially 'devastating consequences' of climate change if fossil fuel use continues to grow." - ftm.eu/articles/bp-video-climate-change-1990-engels

BP's CEO was the first to acknowledg climate pollution

"On May 19th, 1997, BP chief executive officer John Browne took an unprecedented step. In a speech at Stanford University, he became the first head of a major oil company to directly and publicly accept the emerging consensus on climate change.  Over the course of his address, Browne called it ‘unwise and potentially dangerous’ to ignore the possibility of catastrophic climate change. He also said that ‘[i]f we are all to take responsibility for the future of our planet, then it falls to us to begin to take precautionary action now’...

"He was later visited by various oil chief executives, who came to ask if he had ‘lost the plot’" - Follow the money

Today:  Getting to Net Zero:  "We’ve set five aims to get bp to net zero by 2050 or sooner and five aims to help the world get there too" - bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/getting-to-net-zero.html

Shell's 1991 documentary about global warming from fossil fuel pollution.

Shell still claims to be concerned about this pollution problem today.

Shell:  A Climate of Concern

This documentary from Shell Oil in 1991 is about global warming from fossil fuel pollution. 

Our Climate Target (Today):  "Tackling climate change is an urgent challenge.  That is why we have set a target to become a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050. We believe this target supports the more ambitious goal of the Paris Agreement, to limit the rise in the global average temperature to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels." - shell.com/sustainability/our-climate-target.html

They also agree on climate solutions:  it shouldn't be free to pollute

Exxon's former CEO Rex Tillerson shared his recommended approach to address this pollution problem with the Economic Club of Washington while he was CEO:  a steadily rising cash-back carbon pollution fee on fossil fuel production - start at [26:18].

"Call it a refundable greenhouse gas emissions fee."

This same solution approach is recommended by thousands of U.S. Economists from across the political spectrum and as well as international experts:  carboncashback.org/carbon-cash-back.

Many co-benefits - including to family budgets and US businesses - of the Carbon Fee and Dividend solution have been identified in independent studies:  carboncashback.org/benefits.

They say they support carbon pricing

Exxon - “We believe a price on carbon emissions is essential to achieving net zero emissions”
 - corporate.exxonmobil.com/news/news-releases/statements/our-position-on-climate-policy-and-carbon-pricing 

BP - “BP supports a price on carbon because it's fair, efficient and effective”
 - bp.com/en_us/united-states/home/who-we-are/advocating-for-net-zero-in-the-us/carbon-pricing-in-the-us.html

Shell - “Shell advocates for governments to use carbon pricing”
 - shell.com/sustainability/transparency-and-sustainability-reporting/advocacy-and-political-activity/carbon-pricing.html 

Who else supports a cash-back carbon fee on fossil fuel production and imports? 

The majority of voters in towns across NH, including Merrimack, support legislation or consideration of this beneficial policy.

Nearly all leading U.S. economic policy experts from across the political spectrum agree that a border-adjusted cash-back carbon polluters fee on fossil fuel production and imports is the most cost-effective, powerful, fair, and beneficial to family budgets and US business competitiveness way to reduce climate pollution (carboncashback.org/carbon-cash-back).

Leading Conservative Economists:  The Winning Conservative Climate Solution.

 Business groups and many other organizations:  Carbon Cash-Back Support

Elon Musk

In 2024, Elon Musk shared an 8-minute video he narrated about climate science, the climate pollution problem, and the importance, pollution-reducing power, and co-benefits of putting a revenue-neutral carbon fee on fossil fuel production and imports.

Musk:  “The only action needed to solve climate change is a carbon tax”... using a revenue-neutral approach.  “It's Economics 101.”

They Agree With Experts, But Play a Two-Faced Game for Profit


The industry has long played a game of deception to delay the legislation of policies experts say are required to adequately address its pollution.  This Bad Actor Face was exposed by investigative journalists and academic researchers a decade ago.  Representative Notter remains tricked by it, and tricks others in Concord who trust her judgement.

Some fossil fuel industry players are now using the Shaggy defense, claiming "It wasn't me" who caused the multi-decades long delay in addressing this serious pollution problem.

Yet:  "toward the end of the 1980s, Exxon curtailed its carbon dioxide research. In the decades that followed, Exxon worked instead at the forefront of climate denial. It put its muscle behind efforts to manufacture doubt about the reality of global warming its own scientists had once confirmed. It lobbied to block federal and international action to control greenhouse gas emissions. It helped to erect a vast edifice of misinformation that stands to this day." - ICN

If Exxon is publicly in favor of carbon pricing, why did its top lobbyist recently get caught saying "carbon pricing isn't going to happen?

He must know of the virtually unlimited financial resources Exxon, Koch, and other fossil fuel producers have and use to confuse the public (and elected leaders like Representative Notter) about the science and solutions to prevent lawmakers from being able to address the pollution problem as we need them to do for our safety.

The fossil fuel industry funds disinformation about climate science and policies through "Merchants of Doubt" organizations (aka "Conservative Think Tanks" or simply "PR" firms) and so-called "experts" who are ideologically, financially, or otherwise motivated.  It knows the public would not believe long-refuted science myths and anti-sound economics propaganda if they came directly from the polluting industry players themselves.  So they pay others to peddle the messages, tricking people for profit.

Who does the dirty work of the fossil fuel industry's Bad Actor Face?  The Heartland Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and Americans for Prosperity are the big ones, but there are dozens of other national organizations like them.  Astroturf groups, PR firms, and ideologically motivated organizations funded directly by Koch Network billionaires and with Dark Money (presumably from polluting industry players via pass-throughs like DonorsTrust), including the State Policy Network (SPN), of which Josiah Bartlett Center is the New Hampshire node.  Watch out for groups with the words "Liberty" or "Freedom" in their names, patriotic terms misappropriated by the bad actors.   Search for any group your are unsure of on desmog.com: if you find it there, chances are good it is working with fossil fuel industry money to keep pollution free rather than to protect the rights and liberty of citizens to be pollution free. 

Bad actors knowingly fund disinformation and politics to delay addressing climate pollution

"Exxon disputed climate findings for years.  Its scientists knew better" - news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/.

"From 1997 to 2017, the Kochs funneled $127,006,756 to 92 organizations that advance the Kochs’ attacks on climate change science while presenting themselves as experts." - greenpeace.org/usa/climate/climate-deniers/front-groups/.

"Not Just the Koch Brothers:  New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort" - drexel.edu/news/archive/2013/december/climate-change.

Frontline: The Power of Big Oil

The state-level problem is not limited to New Hampshire.  Big Oil used brute financial force to kill two big citizen-led state-level carbon pricing and pollution initiatives.  They "dumped at least $47 million into efforts to crush ballot measures in Washington and Colorado." - vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/10/26/18026074/koch-industries-bp-colorado-washington-fracking-carbon-tax.

"In Shift, Key Climate Denialist Group Heartland Institute Pivots to Policy" - pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/in-shift-key-climate-denialist-group-heartland-institute-pivots-to-policy.

Optimism and Outrage podcast:  Lifelines Vs Deadlines:  The Need for Science-Based Policy.   A comprehensive summary of the delay tactics and players, and, at the one-hour mark, agreement that what we need is a durable price on climate pollution.

Time to Wake Up #295 - One of the best of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's [RI] truth-to-power Senate Floor talks about climate change - the science and economics, the fraudulent activities of the fossil fuel industry to delay action, and the financial, economic and human costs and damages to the natural world we are now paying due to those who play along with the polluting industry's two-faced game of delaying addressing climate change from fossil fuels.  At [4:22],  Senator Whitehouse notes, "Carbon pricing is coming, and that is good news, because there is no longer a pathway to climate safety without a price on carbon."

New Hampshire is Being Played

See the  "A Case Study", Receipts, and ALEC pages on this site for how the fossil fuel industry's profits-over-people two-faced game is played here in New Hampshire to manipulate a legislator to get her to oppose basic science, economics, what her constituents want, and what is best for New Hampshire.

Who Wants Fossil Fuel Businesses to Remain as Profitable as Possible by Setting Us Up to Pay the Consequences of Ignoring Mainstream Science and Economics and Delaying the Transition to an Efficient Clean Energy Economy?

Ask Representative Jeanine Notter of Merrimack, NH.  Then help her use her curiosity and critical thinking skills to consider the sources of influence (Receipts) that led her down a dead-end path that benefits out-of-state polluter interests at the expense of the citizens and economy of New Hampshire.   She has been used as a pawn in the fossil fuel polluters' two-faced game of propaganda and delay tactics, having been trained by them at over a dozen of their conferences that they paid for her to attend to teach her their talking points and legislative priorities.  She has been deceived by the bad-actor tactics of polluting corporate interests, and misrepresents her constituents as a result. 

A large majority of American adults (69%) support the country’s efforts to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050♥️.  It's time Representative Notter did so too.  The first step toward doing that is to help close the growing U.S. carbon price gap with a border-adjusted, cash-back carbon fee on fossil fuel production (bit.ly/carbon-price-gap-presentation).

♥️ - PEW RESEARCH CENTER (2022): “Americans Largely Favor U.S. Taking Steps To Become Carbon Neutral by 2050,”