2024 was the year that carbon-intensive companies rolled back their climate commitments, and many governments extolled the virtues of natural gas as the climate-friendly alternative to coal. The energy transition, already showing signs of sputtering in some countries, took one step forward and two steps back.
Global emissions and temperatures continued to rise this year, as did the rhetoric from those determined to maintain the status quo.
Shell abandoned a target to reduce emissions intensity and said it would keep oil production steady, having previously pledged cuts. BP scaled back a target to cut production, as oil prices and interest rates hurt the investment appeal of renewable energy.
Footwear brand Crocs and technology conglomerate Microsoft softened their climate targets too. Even sustainability pin-up Unilever, which had previously pledged to halve its use of virgin plastics by 2025, said it would now aim for a reduction of a third by 2026.
Last week, Coca-Cola, the world’s biggest plastic polluter, rolled back its voluntary sustainability goals and said it would shift its focus to plastic recycling, moving away from previous pledges to reduce virgin plastic use. The news came just a day after United Nations global plastics treaty negotiations in Busan, South Korea, concluded without a consensus, and even as the beverage company is a leading member of the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty.
“
From over-hyping false solutions to being a mouthpiece for big climate polluters, the media is not only failing to grasp climate-delay narratives but are among their most ardent promoters.
Belinda Noble, founder, Comms Declare
Governments wobbled too. In August, the United States was widely reported in a positive light to have taken a “policy shift” to be supportive of caps on plastic production before its negotiators headed for the plastic treaty negotiations. But it turned out that the American delegation did not support a cap on production. The Biden administration later backtracked and said mandatory production caps were not seen as a “landing zone” for the treaty. At what was supposed to be the fifth and final Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) meeting, alongside China, Saudi Arabia and Russia, it obstructed efforts for the world to come to a consensus on a production cap.
In November, at the COP29 climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia also acted as a “wrecking ball”, leading a bloc of countries that succeeded in reversing progress made at previous climate talks by opposing any text that committed to the phase-out of fossil fuels. In Southeast Asia, Indonesia baffled investors by classifying certain types of coal as “green” in its sustainable finance taxonomy, earning the ignominious accolade of Asia’s laxest taxonomy.
Belinda Noble, founder of Comms Declare, an Australia-based non-profit campaigning to curb fossil fuel promotion, noted three main trends in climate delay tactics in 2024: companies exploiting economic and security fears, pushing “false” solutions such as carbon capture technology, or trying to align themselves with clean energy.
She uses the example of the Minerals Council of Australia, whose members include coal firms, pushing for nuclear energy through the campaign “Get clear on nuclear“. This campaign positions nuclear as a clean, safe technology, undermining efforts to rapidly move the grid away from coal to renewables, Noble noted.
“As greenwashing rules are tightened, we will likely see more economic and security arguments from companies wanting to prolong and expand fossil fuel extraction in 2025,” she predicted.
Noble also acknowledged the role that the media has played in perpetuating the language of climate delay this year. “Media is producing, perpetuating and profiting from dangerous climate delay narratives, while under-reporting the consequences of global heating,” she told Eco-Business. “Big tech and old media are absolutely failing the public, which is still evenly split on climate policy despite accepting that the world is rapidly warming.”
“From over-hyping false solutions to being a mouthpiece for big climate polluters, the media is not only failing to grasp delay narratives but are among their most ardent promoters,” she said.
A special report by Eco-Business found that in Asia, journalists and members of the public believe that dirty energy advertising discredits climate-related content, but did not fully support a tobacco-style ban on fossil fuel advertising. Journalists in Bangladesh and India noted that advertising is less of a problem than who owns the media – which is controlled by the government or businesses with fossil fuel interests.
In this year-end listicle, Eco-Business casts a sceptical eye over the language some of the world’s biggest polluters used in climate discourse.
Fossil fuels, a “gift of God”
Don’t blame countries for having fossil fuels, said Azerbaijan’s president Ilham Aliyev. Image: President.az
Just before the COP29 climate talks in Azerbaijan, the oil and gas-rich country’s premier told the world that fossil fuels were a “gift of God”. Countries “should not be blamed” for having them, said president Ilham Aliyev, who blasted the media for “fake news” coverage of his country’s emissions. United Nations secretary-general António Guterres responded that expanding fossil fuels – which Azerbaijan plans to by ramping up gas production – was “absurd”. Reverend Fletcher Harper, executive director of Greenfaith, an interfaith environmental group, said: “Fossil fuels are a highway to hell, not a gift of God.’”
Plastics needed for “low-emissions economy”
Dow boss Jim Fitterling said plastics are vital for achieving the SDGs. Image: YouTube/Trellis Group
Jim Fitterling, chairman and chief executive of Dow, one of the world’s biggest plastic producers, said in a statement headlined “We can’t miss this opportunity to end plastic pollution” ahead of the global plastic treaty negotations that any agreement “must avoid the pitfalls of production limits” on plastics, which he said are “an essential building block” in many industries sectors and “vital for achieving our Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including a low-emissions economy, clean water, and food security”. Dow sent more representatives to the talks in Busan than any other company, according to analysis of fossil fuel lobbying at the talks by non-profit Center for International Environmental Law.
Smallholders are not ready for Europe’s deforestation law
Dr Musdhalifah Machmud said most smallholders are not EUDR-ready. Image: Agrofarm.co.id
Though it is true that many smallholder farmers are struggling to comply with the stringent rules of the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), palm oil lobby groups from Malaysia and Indonesia laboured the point in their opposition to EUDR in 2024 – and ultimately proved successful, as the regulation – the most ambitious in history to address forest loss – was delayed. Dr Musdhalifah Machmud, deputy minister for Indonesia’s food and agribusiness, pointed to a study that found that around 97.5 per cent of Indonesia’s palm smallholders – over 2.5 million people – “cannot meet the EUDR’s documentation requirements”. However, some smallholder groups, like Indonesia’s smallholders union, argued that a delay was “unnecessary” and called for the law not to be hollowed out. Malaysia and Indonesia are the world’s two leading producers of palm oil. Both governments have welcomed the EU’s controversial proposal to delay EUDR implementation.
Paris-friendly gas?
Woodside Energy boss Meg O’Neill said expanding gas production is compatible with her firm’s net zero ambition. Image: Image: Woodside / LinkedIn
As Asian nations came under growing pressure from the international community to curb coal consumption – which continues to rise, with the region accounting for 80 per cent of global consumption – natural gas lobby groups such as the Asia Natural Gas and Energy Association (ANGEA) clamoured to position gas as the climate-friendly alternative and necessary “bridge fuel” in the energy transition. Some oil and gas majors argued that expanding gas production – which the International Energy Agency has ruled out, if the world is serious about meeting the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C warming ceiling – aligns with some emissions pathways en route to achieving net zero by 2050. The chief executive of Australia’s largest oil major, Woodside Energy, told Eco-Business in an interview in September that in many of the Paris Agreement-aligned scenarios drawn up by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists, gas demand continues to be “robust”. Meg O’Neill also cast doubt over whether decarbonising its gas operations would be “the most effective use of shareholder capital”.
Gas essential for economy and jobs
Australia’s ‘keeping the country running’ campaign. Image: keepingthecountryrunning.com.au
In Australia, through lobby group Australian Energy Producers, the methane gas industry positioned gas as essential to the economy and jobs in 2024 with its “keep the country running” campaign. In marketing the fossil fuel, the lobby group said natural gas “keeps the lights on by supporting renewables to power Australian homes”. It also said that gas produces fewer emissions when burned than coal, “contributing to a clean energy future”. A recent study by Cornell University found that gas produces more emissions than coal when its extraction and export are taken into account.
Toyota’s EV range anxiety
Toyota’s EV-swerving boss, Akio Toyoda. Image: Probolinggo
At the start of the year, Akio Toyoda, chairman of the world’s biggest automaker, Toyota, tried to apply the brakes to the shift to electric vehicles (EVs) with a reality check about their overall efficiency and environmental impact. A full-throttle shift to EVs “isn’t the answer”, said the head of the company that invented the hydrid vehicle, who suggested that EVs will only reach 30 per cent market share, and the rest will be taken up by hydrogen fuel cell-powered cars, fuel-burning cars, and – yep – hybrids, he said.
“Fairly representing” climate-wrecking brands
The advertising industry came under fire for promoting fossil fuels this year, not least from UN secretary-general António Guterres, who said that ad agencies that work for oil majors are “enablers of planetary destruction”. WPP, the world’s biggest ad agency, which works for the likes of Shell and ExxonMobil, states in its sustainability report that it seeks to “fairly represent” the commitments of its energy clients and will not take on any work that is “designed to frustrate the objectives of the Paris Agreement”. Earlier this year, Shell, weakened a climate target to cut its emissions intensity – and it is not aligned with the Paris climate accord.
A “fair” energy transition for Asia
Gas will enable a “fair transition” for developing Asia, said the head of a natural gas lobby group. Image: ANGEA
Fossil fuels lobbyists pushed the narrative this year that developing Asia is entitled to burn fossil fuels as their economies develop and standards of living rise. “Natural gas will play an important role in ultimately enabling a fair transition to net zero within the limits of their natural resources, economic capacities and environmental responsibility,” said Paul Everingham, CEO of ANGEA, in a piece that positions gas as a bridge for Asia’s energy transition.
Reduce methane (but not fossil fuel extraction)
Southeast Asia’s largest oil and gas firms announced at COP29 that they believe they can play “a leading role” in the region’s decarbonisation efforts – by focusing on methane emissions reduction. Companies including Malaysia’s Petronas and Indonesian firm Pertamina said they would “develop activities in support of the Paris Agreement goals while recognising that national circumstances require tailored approaches” and would “advocate for a just and inclusive energy transition through meaningful dialogues that align with the climate aspirations set by governments”. Meanwhile Malaysian environmental watchdog Rimbwatch expressed concern over the presence of companies at COP that “have significant investments in fossil fuel expansion”.
Clean energy “too costly” for poor countries
Aramco boss Amin H. Nasser said that imposing an “unworkable and unaffordable” energy transition plan on poor countries would threaten their economic progress and social cohesion. Image: Robin Hicks / Eco-Business
In a speech that even oil and gas executives at the Singapore International Energy Week could barely believe they were hearing, the chief executive of the world’s largest oil company said that developing countries could not afford clean energy – in a year that the developing world has lost billions to climate-related disasters. Developing nations should invest in “secure and affordable” energy sources, such as oil and gas, or else see their dependence on pollutive coal grow, said Amin H. Nasser, CEO of Saudi oil major Aramco. Local media reported that Aramco was a sponsor of the energy conference and was on the event’s “highest sponsorship tier”.
An “ambition” not a target
Companies that do not seem to fully believe in their own decarbonisation promises prefer to use the word “ambition” rather than target. Malaysian oil giant Petronas did something similar in 2020, when it announced its “aspiration” to be net zero by 2050. Woodside and others did the same this year, as they work towards net zero targets while going full-throttle on fossil fuel extraction.
This story is part of Eco-Business’ Year in Review series, which looks back at the stories that shaped the world of sustainability in 2024.
