The Fossil Fuel Façade
Authors: Gulliver Robyn 
Published: November 2024

Introduction
Our era of urgent climate action is underpinned by a perplexing paradox: a continued reliance on fossil fuels is presented as a solution to the very crisis it perpetuates. We live in a world where this logical inconsistency is normalised and accepted; an artificial fantasy realm where we can have our fossil fuel cake and eat it as well. In this realm, society, business, and government acknowledge the reality of climate change and its cause, yet do little to alleviate it. Instead, they express bi-partisan support for zero emissions targets while expanding fossil fuel projects, and promote corporate decarbonisation pledges while advocating against legislation reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They celebrate manipulated emissions reduction data while pushing aside the reality of rapidly breaking heat records (UN News) and decades of locked-in continuous emissions increases (Bhatia) through unabated approvals of coal and gas mines (Roe and Lowrey).
Our ability to construct and sustain artificial worlds is nothing new, having long featured in philosophical discourse. From Plato's Allegory of the Cave—where prisoners mistake shadows for reality—to modern conspiracy theories, people have long explored and exploited the notion that our understanding of the world has flexible epistemological foundations which can be easily manipulated. Modern scholars have expanded this analysis to a societal scale. For example, Jean Baudrillard explored how media and symbols can create a 'hyperreality' that obscures or replaces objective truth (Wolny), while Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman analysed the mechanisms of 'manufacturing consent', whereby public opinion is carefully curated to align with specific interests (Chomsky and Herman). Through our growing immersion in online communities, networks of power work to create epistemic bubbles and echo chambers. Information is curated to reinforce existing beliefs and exclude contradictory evidence, leveraging our tendency to reject information that does not align with our beliefs.
These blurred lines of the fossil-fuelled artificial reality can be difficult to discern given the entrenched role these resources play in our society. Australia is one of the world’s largest fossil fuel exporters, with one of the highest carbon emissions per capita (Grant and Hare). Fossil fuels hold a central place in the Australian economy, community, and psyche (Botrel et al.). The pervasive grip of the fossil fuel industry compels our continued consumption regardless of climate concerns while offering few pathways for escape. This creates a profound cognitive dissonance: we must simultaneously acknowledge climate change while participating in the very systems that accelerate it. Not only that: in managing this psychological tension, we acquiesce to the industry’s preferred narrative of an ongoing fossil-fuelled future (Wright et al.). In this mythical future, fossil fuel expansion will bring unbridled collective goods so long as we sweep away any inconvenient concerns about climate change from our thoughts. In doing so, the direct link between fossil fuel production and carbon emissions is severed: rendered trivial, eclipsed by the carefully constructed myth of fossil fuel dependence. And thus a new world comes into existence, one where the use of fossil fuels becomes both necessary and inevitable.
In this article, I explore the many channels by which the fossil fuel industry has constructed this artificial reality. I draw on parallels between the tactics employed by the fossil fuel industry and those previously used by other health- and planet-harming industries, particularly the tobacco industry (Lacy-Nichols et al.). Using data compiled from a comprehensive longitudinal database of state and federal lobbying registers, combined with online and archival sources, the following sections explore how the industry and its enablers wield these strategies to perpetuate this artificial reality.
The Construction of the Artificial Fossil-Fuelled World
Strategy 1: Constructing and Controlling the Narrative
Sustaining this artificial reality requires narratives that mask fossil fuels' climate destruction. A veneer of plausibility justifies acceptance of this reality, making it crucial for the industry to control the narrative of its societal role. Accordingly, industry-favoured solutions—such as carbon capture and storage—are framed as 'common sense' (Parkin). Mirroring Gramsci’s concept of "cultural hegemony", this pro-fossil fuel ideology is perpetuated through the extensive material, organisational, and communicative power of the industry, allowing it to be accepted as natural and inevitable (Blondeel). These resources fuel the small army of PR firms, lobbyists, think tanks, and 'junk scientists', who all play various roles in customising narratives for different audiences in a way that is most likely to maintain this artificial reality, as described below (Hoggan and Littlemore).
Promoting gas as a transition fuel. The idea of a ‘transition’ fuel has been highly effective in neutralising threats to fossil fuel extraction as well as renewable energy challenges (Heras 49). Through dedicated websites and industry reports like "Gas Vision 2050" the industry reframes gas as a climate solution while avoiding direct discussion of its climate impacts. This extends to misleading claims; the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) framed gas as 50% cleaner than an unspecified alternative fuel, in claims subsequently found to have breached environmental advertising codes (Ad Standards Community Panel).
Sowing doubt from denial to delay. Despite knowing about climate change since the 1960s, companies like Exxon Mobile promoted scepticism for decades (Bennett). Today, this narrative has now shifted from denial to delay (Hoggan and Littlemore). The industry acknowledges climate change while claiming its fossil fuel expansion serves the public good. Net zero targets are one particularly prominent narrative of delay: companies promote targets to postpone meaningful action while maintaining an appearance of progress (e.g., APPEA's rebranding to Australian Energy Producers). Another example is natural gas company Tamboran Resources, which mirrors this narrative in front-page claims about their net zero vision, despite its role in the controversial Beetaloo fracking project set to emit more greenhouse gases than all Pacific Island nations combined (Ogge, Emissions).
Emphasising economic benefits. The fossil fuel industry maintains legitimacy by emphasising economic benefits and jobs (Bryson). Both major political parties adhere to this framing, enabling fossil fuel expansion to continue unabated while the role of other industries in providing jobs—such as renewable energy and tourism in the Great Barrier Reef—gains little space in the narrative (Bryson). Companies like Origin Energy promote direct benefits to landowners as “a valuable addition to farm income” (Origin Energy), aligning themselves with economic growth, stability, and the broader national interest while downplaying their role in climate-related disasters (Wright et al.).
Capturing the media. Media outlets play a crucial role in reinforcing fossil fuel narratives. Some, like the West Australian, openly support the industry and attack climate initiatives (Dumas). More broadly, media outlets perpetuate the connection between fossil fuels and economic wellbeing, while overstating the industry's employment significance relative to environmental concerns (Nyberg and Wright).
Strategy 2: Camouflaging and Greenwashing
The second strategy used to maintain this artificial reality is camouflaging and greenwashing. These mechanisms actively work to disguise the industry's harmful impacts and present a deceptively eco-friendly image. They construct a picture of corporate virtue, allow destructive companies to deflect criticism, position themselves as solution providers, and act as mouthpieces for industry (Lacy-Nichols et al.). Fossil fuel companies seek to promote their public role through partnerships in the public sector, while sponsorship and advertising help deflect attention from emissions and minimise criticism (Nyberg and Wright; Plec and Pettenger). Three examples of camouflaging and greenwashing are presented below.
Promoting front groups. The Climate Leaders Coalition has 47 members each paying around $3000 a year to join and claim their title as a climate leader (Fernyhough; Climate Leaders Coalition, "About"). Members of the group include major gas producers Santos and Woodside, who ostensibly agree with the statement "We take climate change seriously in our business" (Climate Leaders Coalition, "About"). This group is used as a way to overlay a fake climate lens to climate emissions, with Santos even earning its own climate case study in the 2020 Roadmap to Zero report (Climate Leaders Coalition, Roadmap).
Fostering public-private partnerships. The Queensland Resources Council highlighted partnerships between Arrow Energy, Moranbah State High School, and Simply Sunshine Day Care (Queensland Resources Council), while Santos provided funding to Queensland police, regional councils, health committees, and government departments (Santos). Similarly, the Australian Earth Science Education Group is supported by Woodside, Santos, and Chevron, and promotes gas-positive education to children in Years 4-10 (AusEarthEd).
Sponsorship and advertising. The Australian Institute of Marine Science, despite its goal of supporting sustainable use and protection of oceans, is sponsored by BHP, Santos, Shell, and Woodside (Australian Institute of Marine Science, "World’s"; Australian Institute of Marine Science, "Industry"). Fossil fuel companies advertise and sponsor sporting venues like the Canberra Tennis Arena (Rimmer), while hundreds of health, community, and education organisations receive sponsorship from energy companies. Major initiatives like Bright-r invest $750 million in community projects (Bright-r), while partnerships with state governments, like Western Australia’s Resources Community Investment Initiative, further legitimise the industry. Collectively they create a discourse of community wellbeing, supported by actors across industry, politics, and the media (Wright et al.).
Strategy 3: Influencing Public Policy and Research
Narrative control alone does not maintain fossil fuel dominance. Instead, "petro-hegemony" describes how companies gain deeper political and economic control through lobbying, undermining science, and funding climate denial (LeQuesne 19; Parkin). Fossil fuel interests are crafted to appear synonymous with democratic governance (LeQuesne), enabling them to counter climate policies that threaten their business model (Böhler et al.). In this "carbon democracy" (LeQuesne), historical links between coal and politics give lobbyists significant policy influence, turning modest economic gains into remarkable political power (Baer 199). As demonstrated below, the industry's extensive financial resources allow for persistent lobbying that climate advocates cannot match (Botrel et al.) often resulting in business-friendly policy outcomes (Meng and Rode).
Lobbying. Major gas companies have been shown to engage in "predatory lobbying" to secure investments and influence policy (ACCR). This lobbying also involves developing alternatives to public policy, usually promoting options such as fast-tracking projects, tax breaks, self-regulation, or voluntary commitments. Industry bodies promote self-regulation and reduced climate reporting (EY; Minerals Council of Australia). The revolving door between politics and industry has been demonstrated to have influenced major projects (Lucas) and sought preferential treatment for certain companies such as Beach Energy, Sibelco, and Linc Energy (Aulby and Ogge). These lobbying efforts often emphasise decarbonisation risks to communities and employment, while highlighting the industry's economic contributions (Wright et al.; Minerals Council of Australia).
Undermining legitimate science. The distortion of evidence and exaggeration of uncertainty is a well-established tactic to neutralise threats to business models (Lacy-Nichols et al.). The Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance (GISERA) exemplifies this approach: funded 75% by gas companies and overseen by industry executives (Ogge, GISERA; Australia Institute, “CSIRO”; Bambrick et al.), GISERA has been accused of publishing biased reports, such as claiming fracking was environmentally safe based on a limited sample of just six out of Queensland's 19,000 coal seam gas wells, and conducting surveys that inflate apparent support for coal seam gas projects (Australia Institute, “CSIRO”; Lock the Gate). Meanwhile, a 2010 Australian Research Council project on CSG health risks was reportedly not undertaken due to the industry partner, Santos, withdrawing funding (McCarron).
Strategy 4: Leveraging State Power
The alliance between state power and fossil fuel interests combines financial support with dissent suppression, protecting industry interests while maintaining the narrative that fossil fuels are essential for national prosperity. State support for expansion alongside suppression of protection as described below, makes it increasingly difficult for sustainable energy alternatives to gain public traction.
Providing government support. State power actively supports fossil fuel expansion (e.g., see Nyberg and Wright), such as Queensland's backing of the Carmichael coal mine despite market doubts (Bryson). State support can be linked to political donations, as suggested by donations to the Western Australia Labor Party by Mineral Resources and Woodside during consideration of increasing gas export allowances (Readfearn). Financial support to the sector is also provided through the estimated A$14.5b annual cost to the state for various fossil fuel subsidies (Australia Institute, "Fossil").
Criminalising protest. Governments and corporations leverage state power to suppress, protest, and convert political communication practices into offences (Gulliver et al., "Criminalisation"). These include new anti-protest laws, expanded applications of existing discretionary powers, and portraying protesters as extremists (Brock et al.; Irwin et al.). Companies also use private security, strategic lawsuits, and surveillance, as well as attempting to remove environmental organisations' charitable status (Al-Azzawi et al.; Hoggan and Littlemore; Kirkwood).
Our Shared Duplicity: Moral Disengagement and Identity Capture
While personal choices offer accessible forms of dissent, a focus on individual responsibility to reduce individual emissions serves industry interests by deflecting attention from their role in perpetuating fossil fuel dependence. Two key psychological responses emerge to maintain fossil fuel control: moral disengagement and identity capture, both of which may help individuals cope with but ultimately reinforce the status quo.
Moral disengagement. The ubiquitous influence wielded by the fossil fuel industry only succeeds because of societal acceptance of fossil fuel norms (Blondeel). These norms are often at their most visible amongst those who work in environmentally destructive industries where employees justify carbon impacts through various strategies: by emphasising the positive outcomes as opposed to the negative influence of their efforts, through promoting gradual change or relying on future solutions, and by dismissing carbon data (Torres-Delgado et al. 1).
Identity capture. Simultaneously, climate change beliefs have become deeply tied to personal identity, with stronger identity attachments increasing resistance to change (Marquart-Pyatt et al.). Climate change beliefs are also substantially linked to, and constrained by, political affiliation (Hornsey et al.; Fielding et al.). This identity capture extends to professional spheres, as evidenced by Arctic tourism operators who morally disengage from their environmental impacts while portraying activities as sustainable (Vespestad et al.).
Dismantling the Artificial World
The industry gains popular consent by normalising the entrenched role of fossil fuels in our lives and rigorously challenging threats that question the assumptions, beliefs, and patterns that maintain these prevailing norms (Blondeel). However, history demonstrates that social movements offer a powerful mechanism for effectively challenging the status quo. Environmental movements constitute a counter-hegemonic force, mobilising resources, establishing alternative institutions, and developing organisational capacity to challenge the dominant power structure (Heras). In Australia, evidence suggests these efforts can be effective (Gulliver et al., "Understanding"; Gulliver et al., "Civil"). Advocacy groups across the country challenge the processes that enable fossil fuel companies and their enablers to perpetuate this artificial world by demanding greater action on climate change and transparency on climate-harming activities. Legal challenges focussing on climate accountability and greenwashing are proving to be effective avenues to shatter the industry's narrative veneer.
Yet, despite increasing awareness of these strategies used to maintain this artificial world, emissions continue to rise. Dismantling this artificial world, therefore, requires more: a multifaceted approach that dismantles the industry's narrative control, economic influence, and societal embeddedness. By shifting focus from individual actions to the systemic forces that lock in fossil fuel use, we can more effectively confront the power structures that underpin the fossil fuel industry’s power. This involves not only challenging the industry directly but also addressing the broader societal and economic structures that enable its continued dominance. Only through coordinated collective action, grounded in a thorough understanding of industry tactics, can society break free of this artificial reality and forge a new world free from its destructive constraints.
References
350.org. "Fossil Free Sponsorships." 25 Sep. 2024. <https://cutallties.350.org.au/>.
ACCR. "BHP, Origin Energy, Santos & Woodside Aiming to Destroy the Clean Energy Finance Corporation." 28 Aug. 2020.
Ad Standards Community Panel. Case Report 0119-23. 2023. <https://adstandards.com.au/sites/default/files/reports/0119-23.pdf>.
Al-Azzawi, Yusur, et al. Global Warning: The Threat to Climate Defenders in Australia. Human Rights Law Centre, Greenpeace, Environmental Defenders Office, 2020.
Aulby, Hannah, and Mark Ogge. Greasing the Wheels: The Systemic Weaknesses That Allow Undue Influence by Mining Companies on Government: A QLD Case Study. Australian Conservation Foundation and The Australia Institute.
AusEarthEd. 2022. <https://web.archive.org/web/20220311201637/https:/ausearthed.com.au/wa/#>.
Australia Institute. "CSIRO Report Misleads on Fracking Risks." 14 July 2020.
———. "Fossil Fuel Subsidies in Australia 2024." 2024.
Australian Institute of Marine Science. "Industry Partnerships." 27 Sep. 2024. <https://www.aims.gov.au/partnerships/industry-partnerships>.
———. "World’s Brightest in Marine Science Meet in Perth to Mark Major Milestone." 28 Feb. 2019.
Baer, Hans A. “The Nexus of the Coal Industry and the State in Australia: Historical Dimensions and Contemporary Challenges.” Energy Policy 99 (2016): 194–202.
Bambrick, Hilary, et al. Kicking the Gas Habit: How Gas Is Harming Our Health. The Climate Council, 2021.
Bennett, Briony. “Big Oil, Big Liability: Fossil Fuel Companies and Liability for Climate Change Harm.” NZJ Environmental Law 23 (2019): 153.
Bhatia, Aatish. Carbon Dioxide Levels Have Passed a New Milestone. 20 Apr. 2024.
Blondeel, Mathieu. “Taking Away a ‘Social Licence’: Neo-Gramscian Perspectives on an International Fossil Fuel Divestment Norm.” Global Transitions 1 (2019): 200–09.
Böhler, Heike, et al. “Does Climate Advocacy Matter? The Importance of Competing Interest Groups for National Climate Policies.” Climate Policy 22.8 (2022): 961–75
Botrel, Clara Almeida, et al. “Understanding the Lobbying Actions Taken by the Australian Renewable Energy Industry.” Journal of Cleaner Production 434 (2024): 139674.
Brock, Andrea, et al. “‘Go Home, Get a Job, and Pay Some Taxes to Replace a Bit of What You’ve Wasted’: Stigma Power and Solidarity in Response to Anti-Open-Cast Mining Activism in the Coalfields of Rural County Durham, UK.” Sociological Research Online (2022): 1–22.
Bryson, Finn. “The Rise of Fossil Fuel Authoritarianism in Australia.” Journal of Australian Political Economy 88 (2021): 52–76.
Chomsky, Noam, and Edward S. Herman. Manufacturing Consent. Penguin.
Climate Leaders Coalition. "About: Purpose and Vision." 25 Sep. 2024. <https://www.climateleaders.org.au/about/>.
———. "Roadmap to 2030: Shifting to a Low Carbon Future by CEOs for CEOs." 2021.
Dumas, Daisy. “Enemy at the Gate? The West Australian Turns Its Guns on Labor to Back the Mining Giants.” The Guardian, 13 Sep. 2024.
EY. Australia’s Oil and Gas Industry: Kickstarting Recovery from COVID-19. APPEA, 2020.
Fernyhough, James. Top CEOs Form Exclusive Climate Change Club. 25 Nov. 2020.
Fielding, Kelly S., et al. “Using Ingroup Messengers and Ingroup Values to Promote Climate Change Policy.” Climatic Change 158 (2020): 181–99.
Grant, Hannah, and Bill Hare. Australia’s Global Fossil Fuel Carbon Footprint. Climate Analytics.
Gulliver, Robyn E., Kelly S. Fielding, et al. "Civil Resistance against Climate Change." International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, 2021.
Gulliver, Robyn E., Robin Banks, et al. “The Criminalization of Climate Change Protest.” Contention: A Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Protest 11.4 (2023): 24–54.
Gulliver, Robyn E., Kelly S. Fielding, et al. “Understanding the Outcomes of Climate Change Campaigns in the Australian Environmental Movement.” Case Studies in the Environment 3.1 (2019): 1–9.
Heras, Augusto. “Supply-Side Climate Policy and Fossil Fuels in Developing Countries: A Neo-Gramscian Perspective.” International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 24.1 (2024): 49–74.
Hoggan, James, and Richard Littlemore. Climate Cover-up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming. Greystone Books, 2009.
Hornsey, Matthew J., et al. “Meta-Analyses of the Determinants and Outcomes of Belief in Climate Change.” Nature Climate Change 6.6 (2016): 622–26.
Irwin, Randi, et al. “Making Green Extreme: Defending Fossil Fuel Hegemony through Citizen Exclusion.” Citizenship Studies 26.1 (2022): 73–89.
Kirkwood, Ian. "Climate Group 350.org Investigated over 2016 Newcastle Harbour Coal Protest." Bendigo Advertiser, 2017.
Lacy-Nichols, Jennifer, et al. “The Public Health Playbook: Ideas for Challenging the Corporate Playbook.” The Lancet Global Health 10.7 (2022): e1067–72.
LeQuesne, Theo. “From Carbon Democracy to Carbon Rebellion: Countering Petro-Hegemony on the Frontlines of Climate Justice.” Journal of World-Systems Research 25.1 (2019): 15–27.
Lock the Gate. "Gas Company-Funded GISERA at It Again with Unreliable Report." 20 Apr. 2020.
Lucas, Adam. “Revealed: The Extent of Job-Swapping between Public Servants and Fossil Fuel Lobbyists.” The Conversation, 5 Mar. 2018.
Marquart-Pyatt, Sandra T., et al. “Understanding Public Opinion on Climate Change: A Call for Research.” Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 53.4 (2011): 38–42.
McCarron, Geralyn. “Air Pollution and Human Health Hazards: A Compilation of Air Toxins Acknowledged by the Gas Industry in Queensland’s Darling Downs.” International Journal of Environmental Studies 75.1 (2018): 171–85.
Meng, Kyle C., and Ashwin Rode. “The Social Cost of Lobbying over Climate Policy.” Nature Climate Change 9.6 (2019): 472–76.
Minerals Council of Australia. Immediate Reform Priorities to Accelerate Economic Recovery. May 2020.
Nyberg, Daniel, and Christopher Wright. “Defending Hegemony: From Climate Change Mitigation to Adaptation on the Great Barrier Reef.” Organization 31.2 (2024): 247–68.
Ogge, Mark. "Emissions from the Tamboran NT LNG Facility." The Australia Institute, August 2023.
———. "GISERA and Conflict of Interest." The Australia Institute, 2018,
Origin Energy. Submission to the Senate Select Committee on Unconventional Gas Mining. 14 Mar. 2016.
Parkin, Scott. “Climate Hegemony: Now Is the Time of Monsters.” CounterPunch, 2022.
Plec, Emily, and Mary Pettenger. “Greenwashing Consumption: The Didactic Framing of ExxonMobil’s Energy Solutions.” Environmental Communication 6.4 (2012): 459–76.
Queensland Resources Council. Submission to the Senate Select Committee on Unconventional Gas Mining. 2016.
Readfearn, Graham. “Mineral Resources and Woodside Donated to WA Labor While It Mulled Gas Policy Changes.” The Guardian, 21 Sep. 2024.
Rimmer, Matthew. “A Submission on the Environment Protection (Fossil Fuel Company Advertising) Amendment Bill 2024 (ACT).” Standing Committee on Environment, Climate Change and Biodiversity, ACT Legislative Assembly, 2024.
Roe, Isobel, and Tom Lowrey. “Government Green-Lights Three NSW Coal Mine Extensions, Angering Environmental Groups.” ABC News, 24 Sep. 2024.
Santos. Submission to the Select Committee on Unconventional Gas Mining. Mar. 2016.
Torres-Delgado, Anna, et al. “Self-Defence against Carbon Footprint Evidence: How Employees of Destination Management and Marketing Organisations Cope with Conflicting Environmental and Economic Data.” Annals of Tourism Research 104 (2024): 103722.
UN News. Another Month, Another Heat Record Broken: UN Weather Agency. 7 Aug. 2024.
Vespestad, May-Kristin, et al. “How Moral Disengagement Links to Destination Marketing Organisations’ Moral Muteness in Their Sustainability Communications.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism (2023): 1–17.
Wolny, Ryszard W. “Hyperreality and Simulacrum: Jean Baudrillard and European Postmodernism.” European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 3.3 (2017): 75–79.
Wright, Christopher, Daniel Nyberg, et al. “Beyond the Discourse of Denial: The Reproduction of Fossil Fuel Hegemony in Australia.” Energy Research & Social Science 77 (2021): 102094.
Wright, Christopher, Randi Irwin, et al. “‘We’re in the Coal Business’: Maintaining Fossil Fuel Hegemony in the Face of Climate Change.” Journal of Industrial Relations 64.4 (2022): 544–63.