While a stark 97 percent of the scientific community tirelessly advocates that human-induced climate change is, indeed, occurring, most Americans are not losing sleep over it [1]. Nearly a quarter of American adults claim to not have any concern about climate change, while more than half do not believe that the effects of climate change will have serious consequences in their lifetime [2]. Why does public indifference persist even when science conveys the urgency of this issue? Media narratives, corporate lobbying efforts, and political agendas keep Americans in the dark.

How American Media Fuels Climate Change Skepticism 

American media perpetuates climate change skepticism through its depiction of the topic. It is often filled with debates featuring one person who denies the existence of human-induced climate change versus another person who affirms the existence of the phenomenon. These segments come from well-known American news outlets, such as Fox News, complete with flashy titles like “The Hottest Debate on Earth” [3]. However, it is important to note that this fifty-fifty representation is statistically unrepresentative of the overwhelming majority of experts and advocates who accept climate change compared to the small minority of skeptics. Why do American news outlets like Fox News care to encourage skepticism about climate change? The answer lies in a complex interplay between viewer ratings and corporate interests. 

Approximately 65 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning Americans claim that Fox News is their news source of choice [4]. This preference for Fox News aligns with broader patterns of skepticism about climate change among Republicans; Republicans are less likely than their Democratic counterparts to view climate change as a critical threat. Only 23 percent of Republicans express significant concern about climate change, a figure that has remained largely unchanged over the past decade [5]. On the other hand, around 78 percent of Democrats affirm that climate change is “a major threat to the country’s well-being” [6]. Consequently, to appeal to its audience, Fox News publishes coverage regarding climate change that is often scientifically inaccurate [7]. Beyond audience ratings, corporate interests play a significant role in this narrative. As a part of its strategy, the media will feature contributors who represent organizations funded by industries opposing climate regulation. For instance, Justin Haskins, a research fellow at the Heartland Institute, made an appearance on Fox Business in which he claimed that global warming is only moderate and does not present a crisis [8]. It is important to note that the Heartland Institute, a public policy institute centered around denying the scientific climate change consensus, is funded by fossil fuel companies ExxonMobil and the Koch Foundation [9, 10].

This manipulation tactic is not limited to Fox News. Well-established news outlets like the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post exclude information about the financial ties between large fossil fuel companies and the people or organizations they work with [11].

The Profit over Planet Agenda

Large businesses’ financial connections to the media and climate change skepticism highlight one aspect of the broader corporate strategy to undermine the significance of human-induced climate change. Fossil fuel companies such as Chevron, Shell, and ExxonMobil go beyond shaping opinions, spending large sums of money on lobbying initiatives to sway climate-related policy outcomes [12, 13].

The fossil fuel industry makes trillions of dollars by exploiting the planet each year [14]. If people took the initiative to reverse climate change, fossil fuel companies would no longer be able to freely continue their lucrative business. Thus, fossil fuel companies utilize their vast financial resources to manipulate or even block climate legislation. The effects of this manipulation tactic are revealed in the case of the California Climate Crisis Act, which hoped to codify California’s goal of reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and would have restricted oil companies from using loopholes to meet this goal [15]. However, due to lobbying efforts by the Western States Petroleum Association, the oil and gas industry successfully altered the act before it even reached a committee meeting, allowing for more leeway in how the companies would meet their emissions targets [16]. It is clear why these corporations are so influential. In comparison to environmental advocacy groups in Sacramento, oil and gas interest groups spent four hundred percent more on lobbying initiatives [17]. Fossil fuel companies effectively use their financial resources to assert dominance over other interest groups.

Citizens United v. FEC: The Landmark Supreme Court Case that Enables Corrupt Lobbying

The lobbying potential of corporations can be traced directly to a landmark court case: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act (BCRA) passed. It was intended to restrict corporations and non-profit organizations from influencing politics through large financial contributions [18]. During the 2008 Democratic presidential primary elections, Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization, created a film to destabilize Hilary Clinton’s presidential campaign [19]. However, due to regulations on corporate spending on political campaigns imposed by BCRA, the movie was deemed illegal because it attempted to influence the election through corporate-funded media. Citizens United challenged the BCRA in a case that reached the Supreme Court of the United States. Using the constitutional principles outlined in the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United, claiming that the BCRA violated corporations’ right to free speech [20]. 

This landmark case established that corporations’ spending is considered an expression of speech, allowing businesses to freely allocate unlimited amounts of money to lobbying initiatives. In the context of climate policy, it is the precedent set by Citizens United v. F.E.C. that enables fossil fuel companies to use money to drown out environmental advocates and block climate change legislation. 

How Lobbying by Fossil Fuel Companies Affects Americans

Private exchanges between big corporations and politicians influenced by corporate interests create a corrupt system that undermines democracy. A striking 77 percent of Americans want regulations on the amount of money large corporations can spend on political campaigns. 43 percent of Americans believe that donors who contribute large sums of money to campaigns have more influence on political issues [21]. Transactional interactions between corporations and politicians, where political leverage can simply be bought, decrease public confidence, creating the false narrative that the average American citizen has no power over policy outcomes. Corporate political control undermines the very structure of American democracy, creating a system where an elite minority dictates policy outcomes while dismissing the American people’s voices. 

The political influence of polluting corporations threatens our democracy and our lives. According to the World Health Organization, the years between 2030 and 2050 are projected to be marked by hundreds of thousands of deaths annually from the consequences of climate change [22]. Inaccurate media coverage and powerful lobbying efforts from big corporations distract the government from taking charge of the most pressing issue the world faces today. 

A Call to Action

To tackle the spread of climate misinformation and the threat to democracy presented by corrupt lobbying on behalf of fossil fuel companies, reforms must be implemented at both the systemic and individual levels. 

At the systemic level, a solution to corporate lobbying includes Congress passing a version of the Disclose Act of 2023 to increase transparency regarding campaign donations and symbolically overturn the landmark decision made in Citizens United v. F.E.C. [23]. The Disclose Act is a bill designed to strengthen existing campaign finance disclosure laws and prohibit foreign financial contributions to American political campaigns [24, 25]. A more effective version of the Disclosure Act should prioritize imposing limits on the amount of money that domestic corporations can spend on political campaigns and limiting foreign intervention. If transparency is increased, corporations are more likely to be held accountable or even discouraged from engaging in corrupt lobbying practices. Transparency may decrease the influence that fossil fuel companies have on impacting policy outcomes regarding climate change. Thus, American citizens should push for an improved Disclose Act in the upcoming congressional session. 

At the individual level, it is every person’s responsibility to think critically about the information they consume. This process includes taking charge of one’s knowledge of human-induced global warming by reviewing scientific literature about the phenomenon rather than drawing from potentially unreliable news outlets. As consumers, we can collectively boycott and speak out against corporations and news outlets that engage in harmful practices, reinforcing that ecological responsibility is non-negotiable. 

Mitigating the effects of global climate change demands a united effort to combat misinformation, curb corporate influence, and push for systemic reforms that prioritize the planet over profits. With effective government action, collective advocacy, and informed personal choices, scientific findings about human-induced climate change can be valued over misinformation and progressive environmental policy can triumph over corporate greed.