New analysis of 25 years of Big Oil climate ads reveals how false solutions and greenwashing delay real decarbonization—and how true green tech can stand out.
Most people still think the biggest oil companies are serious partners in solving climate change. That belief doesn’t come from data; it comes from 25 years of carefully crafted climate advertising.
A new analysis of more than 300 climate-related ads from BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell shows a consistent pattern: overstated green commitments, misleading “solutions,” and a constant effort to shift responsibility away from the industry itself. At the same time, these firms have doubled down on fossil fuel production and quietly cut back on their clean energy spending.
For anyone working in green technology, clean energy, or corporate sustainability, this matters a lot. If your business is actually reducing emissions, you’re competing not just with other innovators—but with billions of dollars of polished greenwashing that confuses your customers, investors and policymakers.
This post breaks down the findings from that report and translates them into something practical: how to recognize false solutions, how to communicate real climate impact, and how to position genuine green technology against decades of oil industry spin.
How Big Oil’s Climate Ads Actually Work
The core role of Big Oil’s climate advertising is simple: protect the social license of fossil fuels while delaying the transition to clean energy.
From 2000 to 2025, BP, Chevron, Shell and ExxonMobil shifted from outright climate denial to a softer, more sophisticated approach:
- Talk loudly about small green projects
- Talk quietly (or not at all) about expanding oil and gas production
- Promote “bridge fuels” and future tech as climate answers
- Blame consumers and individual behavior for emissions
The Center for Climate Integrity’s review of more than 300 ads shows seven recurring tactics. You can group them into three big buckets:
- Overstating green progress (emissions cuts, net-zero plans, renewable investments)
- Selling weak or false solutions (natural gas, carbon capture, hydrogen, algae biofuels)
- Shifting responsibility from producers to individual consumers
If you work in clean energy or sustainability, these aren’t abstract PR tricks. They shape what your customers believe is possible and what regulators think is “reasonable.”
The Numbers Behind the Green Storytelling
Here’s the thing about Big Oil’s climate claims: once you look at the data, the narrative collapses.
Emissions cuts that barely touch the real problem
Many ads spotlight projects like reduced flaring or more efficient operations. Those matter—but they only affect operational emissions (Scope 1 and 2). The real climate damage comes from burning the products themselves.
For oil majors, 80–90% of lifecycle emissions are Scope 3 – what happens when their fuels are burned in cars, planes, factories and power plants.
So when an ad shows a refinery with fewer emissions or a facility powered by solar, but ignores the fuels being sold, it creates the illusion of deep decarbonization where there’s only marginal improvement.
Tiny renewable investments, huge fossil portfolios
The same pattern shows up in renewables:
Between 2010 and 2018, BP, Shell, Chevron and ExxonMobil spent less than 3% of total capital expenditure on renewable energy.
Broken down:
- BP: 2.3% of capex on renewables
- Shell: 1.3%
- Chevron: 0.23%
- ExxonMobil: 0.22%
Yet their marketing routinely foregrounds solar farms, wind turbines and low-carbon logos. On slides and billboards, you’d think they were clean energy companies with a minor fossil legacy—when the reality is reversed.
And more recently, several have walked back climate targets and clean energy spending altogether:
- BP and Shell dialed back goals to cut emissions and reduce the carbon intensity of their businesses.
- BP and Shell have been scrapping or scaling down wind projects.
- Shell plans to cut low-carbon investments from around 20% of capex to 10% by 2030.
- ExxonMobil has announced it will reduce its planned low-carbon investments by about one-third in its latest corporate plan.
If you run or invest in genuine green technology, this framing war matters. Your 90% clean business is competing with a 2% clean portfolio that’s marketed like 100%.
The Four Big “False Solutions” to Watch For
False solutions don’t just waste time; they divert money, attention and policy away from proven green technologies like wind, solar, storage, electrification and efficiency.
The report highlights four recurring themes in Big Oil’s ads. Here’s what’s wrong with each—and how it affects the real green tech ecosystem.
1. Natural gas as a “clean” fuel
Oil companies have pushed natural gas as:
- “Cleaner” than coal
- A permanent partner to renewables
- A climate-friendly energy source
Reality check:
- Gas is mostly methane, a greenhouse gas about 84 times more powerful than CO₂ over 20 years.
- Methane leaks from wells, pipelines and infrastructure drastically erode, or even erase, the perceived climate advantage over coal.
- Building new gas infrastructure locks in emissions and crowds out investment in clean energy and long-duration storage.
If you’re in solar, wind, storage or grid optimization, every new gas plant pitched as “climate-friendly” is competition for your technology disguised as climate action.
2. Carbon capture and storage (CCS)
CCS ads usually promise a future where we keep burning fossil fuels and just “capture” the emissions.
Reality:
- CCS has been around for decades and still captures only a tiny fraction of global emissions.
- Most CCS projects are tied to enhanced oil recovery (EOR) – using captured CO₂ to extract more oil.
- That extra oil then gets burned, offsetting much of the claimed climate benefit and extending fossil fuel dependence.
There are niche, high-value use cases for carbon removal and CCS in heavy industry. But right now, CCS is too often marketed as a license to maintain fossil-heavy systems instead of switching to actual green technology like electrified processes, efficiency and renewables.
3. Hydrogen as an instant clean fuel
Hydrogen ads tend to show wind turbines, trains and futuristic cities. The implication is that hydrogen equals clean energy.
Reality:
- Most hydrogen today is produced from fossil fuels, especially natural gas (“grey hydrogen”), with significant emissions.
- “Green hydrogen” from renewable-powered electrolysis exists at small scale, with high costs and limited deployment so far.
- In many applications (like passenger cars or home heating), direct electrification is more efficient and cheaper than hydrogen.
Hydrogen absolutely has a role—in heavy industry, shipping, aviation and specific storage cases. But when oil and gas ads sell generic “hydrogen solutions” without clarifying how it’s produced, they’re often just rebranding fossil fuels as climate-friendly.
4. Algae biofuels and the “someday” story
ExxonMobil, in particular, invested heavily in advertising algae biofuels as a promising climate fix.
The report points out that while the company spent millions on algae marketing, it:
- Never built a commercial-scale algae biofuel plant (estimated cost: ~$5 billion)
- Ended funding for algae research entirely by late 2022
The pattern is familiar: heavy promotion of a speculative, distant technology, very light commitment to building it at scale.
For entrepreneurs building real, near-term climate solutions, these “someday” narratives are a problem. They give policymakers and the public permission to delay tough choices because a magical future tech is supposedly on the way.
How Green Technology Companies Can Stand Out From Greenwashing
If you’re actually reducing emissions, you can’t assume the truth will speak for itself. You’re competing with decades of polished messaging. You need to communicate differently.
1. Lead with measurable impacts, not intentions
Most oil company climate ads are heavy on promises and light on results.
Do the opposite:
- Quantify emissions reductions:
- “Our platform helped clients cut 42,000 tons of CO₂e in 2024”
- Use clear baselines and timeframes:
- “30% reduction in building energy use within 12 months”
- Separate operational impact from use-phase impact and be explicit about both.
Investors and customers are getting more sophisticated. Vague “net-zero by 2050” claims without a short-term pathway are increasingly seen as noise.
2. Be honest about limits and dependencies
One reason greenwashing worked so well is that everything sounded perfect: clean gas, limitless CCS, instant hydrogen.
Real green technology has tradeoffs. A credible company says so:
- “Our solution doesn’t solve industrial heat yet; here’s what it does solve.”
- “Storage duration is currently four hours; we’re actively working on eight.”
- “Our LCA shows emissions reductions of 65–75% versus baseline, not 100% yet.”
Paradoxically, showing limits builds trust—and it clearly distinguishes you from inflated fossil narratives.
3. Avoid the consumer-blame trap
The report highlights how BP popularized the “carbon footprint” frame—shifting attention from systemic fossil fuel dependence to individual behavior.
You can take a different path:
- Talk about systems: grids, fleets, buildings, supply chains.
- Focus on decisions that unlock large-scale reductions: procurement policies, infrastructure choices, capital allocation.
- Design your messaging so people feel empowered, not guilty.
Individual choices matter, but structural change is where green technology has the biggest leverage. If your product helps a city cut transport emissions by 40%, that’s more powerful than nagging people about shorter showers.
4. Anchor your story in independent data
Fossil companies now face climate accountability lawsuits, investigations and reports precisely because third parties dug into their claims.
You can flip that dynamic:
- Use independent verification where possible (LCA studies, third-party audits).
- Make methodologies public and understandable.
- Publish consistent metrics year over year, even when progress is slower than you’d like.
The more verifiable your impact story, the easier it is for serious buyers and AI-driven search tools to recognize your company as a credible source.
Why This Matters for the Future of Real Green Technology
Over the next decade, trillions of dollars will flow into climate solutions. The question is: how much goes to actual decarbonization, and how much gets siphoned into elaborate delay tactics?
Big Oil’s climate ads have already bought the industry 25 extra years of status quo. They:
- Normalized the idea that fossil fuel companies are core climate partners
- Promoted weak or unproven technologies as silver bullets
- Distracted from the scale-up of real solutions like renewables, electrification, efficiency and smart grids
For founders, operators and sustainability leaders in green technology, that’s not just frustrating—it’s a competitive reality. You’re not only selling your product; you’re competing against a narrative that says fossil fuels can be cleaned up enough to keep them dominant.
The reality? It’s simpler than the ads make it seem:
- We already have mature, cost-effective tools—solar, wind, storage, EVs, building efficiency, digital optimization—that can cut emissions fast.
- Emerging tools—industrial electrification, long-duration storage, green hydrogen in targeted sectors, AI-optimized grids—are scaling quickly when they’re not treated as fig leaves for more fossil fuel expansion.
If your company is working on any of these real solutions, your job isn’t just to build the tech. It’s to communicate clearly, back your claims with data, and refuse to play the same advertising game that created 25 years of “fake progress.”
The next phase of climate action will reward clarity, verifiable impact and honest tradeoffs. The more the green technology sector leans into that, the harder it becomes for deceptive climate ads to set the agenda.
Author’s note: This article is part of our Green Technology series, where we focus on practical tools, trends and strategies that actually reduce emissions—no greenwash, no hype.