Rajan Wilcox
The tobacco and fossil fuel industries have both been accused of using deception to further their interests. In the case of the tobacco industry, there is a long history of denying the harmful effects of their products, including the link to cancer and the addictive nature of nicotine. Tobacco companies have also been known to target youth with their marketing and to create doubt and confusion around public health research. On the other hand, the fossil fuel industry has been accused of deceiving the public about climate change and blocking actions to reduce carbon emissions. They have also been accused of greenwashing, or presenting themselves as part of the climate solution while simultaneously working to undermine climate policies. With both industries facing lawsuits and growing public awareness of their deceptive practices, the future of their respective businesses may be at stake.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Use of shared playbook | The tobacco and fossil fuel industries used a shared playbook that originated with the oil industry |
| Misinformation | Both industries used PR firms and researchers to spread misinformation and create doubt about scientific evidence |
| Funding | They funded organisations and scientists to produce research that supported their interests and cast doubt on established facts |
| Regulatory influence | The industries influenced regulators and governments to avoid action and regulation that would impact their profits |
| Youth marketing | Both industries used marketing tactics to target young people and create lifelong consumers |
| Denialism | They denied the harmful effects of their products, including cancer and climate change |
Explore related products
$14.99 $14.99
What You'll Learn
- Tobacco and fossil fuel industries use the same PR firms and researchers
- They fund scientists to produce research that casts doubt on scientific consensus
- They fund think tanks and organisations that promote their interests
- They use misleading marketing campaigns to target youth
- They use front groups to attack science and create uncertainty
Tobacco and fossil fuel industries use the same PR firms and researchers
The tobacco industry playbook or disinformation playbook describes a strategy used by the tobacco industry in the 1950s to protect revenues in the face of mounting evidence of links between tobacco smoke and serious illnesses, primarily cancer. The tobacco industry actively recruited fellow enemies of the EPA, setting up the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), a fake grassroots group. The playbook has been adopted by the fossil fuel industry in its efforts to stave off global action on climate change.
The tobacco and fossil fuel industries used a shared playbook that originated with the oil industry. The tobacco industry used and refined the playbook for decades in its fight to keep people smoking, and the fossil fuel industry is using it to keep the world burning fossil fuels. Both industries hired public relations company Hill & Knowlton Inc., an influential New York firm, for outreach as early as 1956. Theodor Sterling, a mathematics professor known for research on smoking that was favorable to the tobacco industry, was also studied by lead for Ethyl Corp. in 1962. Ethyl was a joint venture between General Motors Corp. and Standard Oil.
There is also the Stanford Research Institute (SRI), now known as SRI International. Founded in 1946, SRI studied smog and pollution and received funding from tobacco and oil companies. SRI scientists also generated climate change research for the American Petroleum Institute in the 1960s and '70s. Documents show that oil companies tested toxicity in cigarettes in the 1950s, and some, including Exxon and Shell, patented cigarette filters worldwide for decades.
Many of the consultants who worked for the tobacco industry have also worked for fossil fuel companies against action on climate change. A former Standard Oil executive recommended numerous oil-connected scientists for the Tobacco industry’s Scientific Advisory Board, many of whom went on to work for tobacco.
Wind Turbines: Better Energy Alternative to Fossil Fuels?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
They fund scientists to produce research that casts doubt on scientific consensus
The tobacco and fossil fuel industries have a long history of using deceptive tactics to protect their profits, often by funding scientists to produce research that casts doubt on scientific consensus. This strategy, known as the "tobacco industry playbook" or "disinformation playbook", was first employed by the tobacco industry in the 1950s to counter mounting evidence of the link between tobacco smoke and serious illnesses, including cancer. The oil industry soon followed suit, using similar tactics to support the use of tetraethyllead in gasoline.
The tobacco industry, recognizing its lack of credibility with the public, actively recruited allies in their fight against regulation. They funded front groups with innocuous names that claimed to represent grassroots opinion but were actually working on behalf of tobacco industry interests. These front groups helped to disseminate talking points and research that cast doubt on the scientific consensus on the harms of tobacco.
Similarly, the fossil fuel industry has adopted the tobacco industry's playbook to stave off global action on climate change. They have funded scientists and created their own research institutes, such as the Stanford Research Institute (SRI), to generate research that sows uncertainty about the impact of their products on the climate. For example, SRI scientists acknowledged some uncertainty concerning the relation between carbon emissions and rising temperatures, despite carbon dioxide being the most likely cause of the greenhouse effect.
The tobacco and fossil fuel industries have also used the same PR firms and researchers, with many consultants working for both industries. This has allowed them to share strategies and tactics for undermining scientific consensus. For instance, some of the same individuals who claimed that tobacco smoking was safe were later recruited by the fossil fuel industry to attack climate science.
The funding of research by these industries is often done with the explicit goal of protecting profits and advancing specific causes, rather than seeking scientific truth. This has led to concerns about the bias and conflicts of interest inherent in industry-funded research. While scientific consensus is a legitimate tool in public debate and regulatory decisions, it should be approached with caution when used in scientific discussion, especially when the consensus benefits the funding agency or when there are potential conflicts of interest.
Fossil Fuels: Organic or Not?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
They fund think tanks and organisations that promote their interests
The tobacco and fossil fuel industries have a long history of funding think tanks and organisations that promote their interests. These groups often identify as "free-market" think tanks and are coordinated through networks such as the Atlas Network, which connects them to resources and helps them advance their agendas. The Atlas Network, founded by Antony Fisher, works with hundreds of organisations worldwide.
MIT Associate Professor David Hsu's analysis revealed 35 think tanks based in the US, UK, Australia, and New Zealand that promote both the tobacco and fossil fuel industries' interests. Of these, 32 have taken direct donations from the tobacco industry, 29 have taken money from the fossil fuel industry, and 28 have received funding from both. Two key networks, centred around the Koch brothers and the Atlas Network, are involved in coordinating and funding these think tanks.
Hsu's research also found that many of the same individuals and organisations fighting tobacco regulations are also working to spread climate change denialism. He noted that the strategies used in the tobacco debate are being applied to the climate debate, with the fossil fuel industry funding disinformation campaigns to prevent societies and countries from taking action on climate change.
One notable example of a think tank influenced by the tobacco and fossil fuel industries is the IEA. The IEA was caught in an undercover sting, suggesting that it was willing to have its research directed by funders and offer access to ministers in return for donations. The IEA was censured by the UK's Charity Commission for breaking impartiality rules meant to prevent political lobbying by registered charities.
Another example is the Heritage Foundation, a DC-based organisation that has hosted several UK politicians, including International Trade Secretary Liam Fox and Brexit figurehead Nigel Farage. The Heritage Foundation has received funding from both the tobacco and fossil fuel industries and is coordinated through the Atlas Network.
Fossil Fuels: Ancient Organisms Powering Our World
You may want to see also
Explore related products
They use misleading marketing campaigns to target youth
The tobacco industry has a long history of using deceptive marketing campaigns to target youth and maintain its customer base. Young people are particularly vulnerable to tobacco advertising, and research has linked exposure to a higher likelihood of young non-smokers taking up smoking. Tobacco companies have been known to use strategic product placement, direct and indirect advertising, and diverse portfolios of tobacco products to attract new, young customers. They also employ "brand ambassadors", essentially paid influencers with large numbers of young followers.
In recent years, tobacco companies have turned to social media to target youth. In 2021, Japan Tobacco International (JTI) ran disguised adverts on social media to promote its cigarette brands, focusing on areas of interest to young people, including music and travel. These adverts were listed under categories like "festivals" and "communities", making it seem like organic content rather than advertising.
Tobacco companies also target specific demographics of young people with tailored marketing campaigns. For example, they have created brands specifically for women, using themes of social desirability, empowerment, and independence, conveyed through advertisements featuring slim, attractive, and athletic models. They have also targeted African American communities with campaigns that use urban culture and language to promote menthol cigarettes, including tobacco-sponsored hip-hop bar nights and specialty menthol cigarette samples.
The fossil fuel industry has also been criticized for its deceptive marketing campaigns aimed at youth. In recent years, companies like Shell, ExxonMobil, and BP have attempted to rebrand themselves as environmentally conscious and aligned with the youth environmental movement. Their campaigns often feature young people and narratives that point towards saving the future, despite their ongoing contributions to climate change.
Additionally, the fossil fuel industry has engaged in economic scaremongering, increasing advertising spending on television and social media each time climate regulations loom. They have also been known to target individuals and households with advertisements that focus on "routine human activities" and "lifestyle choices", seeking to confuse the public about the climate crisis and delay action.
Fossil Fuel Careers: Where to Begin?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
They use front groups to attack science and create uncertainty
The tobacco and fossil fuel industries have a long history of using deception to protect their profits. Both industries have employed similar strategies, with the tobacco industry's playbook being adopted by the fossil fuel industry. One of the key tactics is the use of front groups to attack science and create uncertainty.
Front groups are organisations that are funded or influenced by the tobacco and fossil fuel industries to act in their interests. These groups may be deceptively named and claim to represent grassroots opinion or scientific research. They are used to spread doubt about the scientific consensus and create the appearance of a debate where none exists. This tactic is often referred to as "astroturfing".
An example of a front group is the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), which was set up by the tobacco industry to cast doubt on the scientific evidence linking tobacco smoke to cancer. TASSC hired prominent figures in climate change denial, such as Frederick Seitz and Fred Singer, who had previously worked for the tobacco industry.
Another example is the Stanford Research Institute (SRI), which received funding from tobacco and oil companies. SRI scientists generated climate change research for the American Petroleum Institute in the 1960s and 1970s, contributing to uncertainty about the relationship between carbon emissions and rising temperatures.
Other front groups include the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, The Heritage Foundation, and the Hudson Institute, which have been funded by both the tobacco and fossil fuel industries and actively take part in climate change denial. These front groups work to undermine scientific consensus and create uncertainty, allowing the industries to continue operating without regulation and protect their profits.
The use of front groups is just one of the many tactics employed by the tobacco and fossil fuel industries to deceive the public and policymakers. By attacking science and creating uncertainty, they aim to shape public opinion and influence decision-making in their favour.
Fossil Fuels: Non-Renewable, Finite Energy Sources
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The tobacco industry playbook, or the disinformation playbook, is a strategy used by the tobacco industry to protect revenues by casting doubt on the scientific evidence linking tobacco smoke to serious illnesses, primarily cancer.
The tobacco industry used deception by fabricating or funding "front groups" to act on their behalf, claiming to represent grassroots opinion. They also used the same tactics to target young potential smokers with colours and flavours.
The fossil fuel industry has used the tobacco industry's playbook to sow doubt about established scientific facts, mislead regulators, and skirt regulations that would otherwise reduce emissions and protect public health. They have also funded scientists to produce research that casts doubt on the scientific consensus.
The tobacco and fossil fuel industries have shared a playbook for decades, with evidence suggesting that it originated with the oil industry. They have used the same PR firms, researchers, and front groups to spread misinformation and attack science.
