The fossil fuel industry allegedly knew about the serious climate risks associated with methane emissions and leaks as early as the late 1960s, yet continued for more than 50 years to present natural gas as a “clean” source of energy.
This is the central conclusion of an investigation published by the US-based Center for Climate Integrity, which reconstructs the communication, political and scientific strategies adopted by the gas sector over several decades.
The report on the “clean” gas myth
The roughly 80-page document includes data, charts, tables and testimonies. It is titled The “Clean” Natural Gas Fraud: How Big Oil and Gas Created the Myth That Natural Gas Is a Climate Solution.
According to its authors, the industry promoted gas as a climate-compatible solution despite already being aware of the problems caused by methane released into the atmosphere.
The report argues that this narrative helped protect corporate interests and supported a major expansion of gas infrastructure, particularly over the past two decades.
The findings were published as governments around the world debate further expansion of natural gas extraction and use. The report also refers to the European Union’s decision to suspend until 2029 planned penalties for non-EU companies that fail to comply with certain methane import requirements.
The evidence examined by investigators
The Center for Climate Integrity based its reconstruction on recently discovered documents, public records requests, internal industry communications, confidential reports and scientific articles.
The authors also interviewed climate scientists, industry consultants and representatives of environmental organisations.
Earlier reports and investigations had already examined how oil and gas companies responded to concerns about carbon dioxide pollution. The new report focuses specifically on the industry’s reaction to the climate impact of methane, placing it within a broader history of delay, minimisation and public communication campaigns.
The first warnings date back to 1968
The evidence presented in the report allegedly shows that the gas industry had been warned about methane pollution as early as 1968, earlier than previous investigations had established.
A review commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute reportedly linked methane in the atmosphere to both oil fields and leaks from gas distribution systems.
The document also warned that the environment’s natural mechanisms for absorbing methane could be overwhelmed by excessive emissions.
According to the investigation, this material shows that the industry already possessed significant information about the potential climate consequences of its activities.
The public relations campaign launched in 1971
At the beginning of the 1970s, as public awareness of environmental issues increased, the gas sector reportedly feared losing customers.
In 1971, the industry launched a public relations campaign called Gas: Clean Energy for Today and Tomorrow.
According to the investigation, the campaign aimed to strengthen the image of gas as a less polluting alternative to other fossil fuels. Media outlets owned or supported by the industry allegedly minimised methane’s contribution to global warming at the same time.
The report cites examples of content suggesting that methane was not a significant greenhouse gas or that it presented no meaningful disadvantages.
The methane study published in 1996
Another section of the investigation concerns a methane study published in 1996 and co-funded by the US Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA.
According to internal communications included in the report, gas companies were able to influence the outcome of the research.
Some EPA officials reportedly acknowledged that they lacked the expertise required to independently examine all the data supplied by the industry. As a result, the report argues, methodological problems may have gone undetected.
The study, published with the federal agency’s endorsement, was later used by the gas industry to minimise concerns about fugitive methane emissions.
The expansion of gas in the United States
Natural gas consumption in the United States rose sharply in the decades following the launch of campaigns presenting it as a clean energy source.
According to the Center for Climate Integrity, the positive image developed by the industry has had long-term effects on public opinion and political decisions.
A survey conducted by Data for Progress and the Center for Climate Integrity found that 50% of likely US voters now consider natural gas a form of clean energy.
After respondents were given information about the connection between natural gas and fracking, as well as the communication strategies described in the investigation, overall support for gas reportedly fell by 46 points.
Support for possible legal action
The same survey found that almost three in four US voters would support legal action against oil and gas companies accused of misleading the public about the damage associated with natural gas.
The authors present the result as evidence of growing demand for corporate accountability.
The report argues that the “clean” gas narrative has influenced not only public perceptions but also investments, regulations and energy development programmes.
Wiles: “A myth created to expand business”
Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, said major oil and gas companies had known for decades that methane was a harmful climate pollutant.
According to Wiles, the idea of “clean” natural gas was developed to protect and expand the industry’s business while failing to adequately consider the consequences for public health and the climate.
He also criticised public officials who continue to justify greater dependence on natural gas by describing it as clean or safe for the climate.
In his view, these arguments repeat communication strategies and scientific interpretations developed by industry executives and public relations teams decades ago. Making this history public, Wiles concluded, could represent a first step towards establishing accountability.