The science of climate change is essentially a physical science, but the study of climate denial is a subject for the social sciences. Individual denial of the science of climate change is more a topic for psychologists who deal with climate denial, whereas collective denial of the science of climate change is explored more by sociologists who study the “climate change countermovement” or “climate denialism”. A brief overview of both sciences is presented below.

An early report specifically on the psychology of climate denial appeared in 2001. The study examined “socio-psychological denial mechanisms”. The authors found that “The most powerful zone for denial was the perceived unwillingness to abandon what appeared as personal comfort and lifestyle-selected consumption and behaviour in the name of climate change mitigation” (Stoll-Kleemann et al., 2001, p. 113). In a second study 2 decades later, a dichotomy arose. The majority accepted the serious nature of climate change and supported “mitigation in the abstract” but were still not doing much individually, waiting for others to act first (Stoll-Kleemann and O'Riordan, 2020, p. 12; see also Bushell et al., 2017; Wullenkord and Reese, 2021; Berkebile-Weinberg et al., 2024).

Several cognitive biases in climate denial (attentional, perceptual, recall, confirmation, present, status quo, pseudo inefficiency, and single action) and ways of overcoming them have been reviewed (Zhao and Luo, 2021). Psychologists have found that prebunking (“first, an explicit warning of an impending disinformation attempt and, second, a refutation of an anticipated argument that exposes its fallacy”) is more effective than debunking in the case of the climate propaganda (Lewandowsky, 2021, pp. 11–12; see also Lewandowsky et al., 2020).

In November 2022, a collaborative publication between the journals Nature Human Behaviour and Nature Climate Change was called “Climate change and human behaviour” (Antusch and Yan, 2022). In this series, an article titled “A toolkit for understanding and addressing climate scepticism” by Hornsey and Lewandowsky (2022) examined the psychological origins of climate denial and how to challenge it (see also Wong-Parodi and Feygina, 2020; Ekberg et al., 2023). The abstract for the paper began with the following:

Despite over 50 years of messaging about the reality of human-caused climate change, substantial portions of the population remain sceptical. Furthermore, many sceptics remain unmoved by standard science communication strategies, such as myth busting and evidence building. To understand this, we examine psychological and structural reasons why climate change misinformation is prevalent. (Hornsey and Lewandowsky, 2022)

They examined the interplay between personal and organized drivers of climate denial in Europe and on a global scale. In Europe, the denial machine was delaying action to stop climate change. The following strategies were presented for reducing the damage of climate denial:

“appealing to sceptics through value-based frames”,

For the degree of climate denial outside of America, see also Dunlap and McCright (2015, pp. 318–320), McCright (2016, pp. 79–82), Eichhorn et al. (2020, p. 16, p. 45), Nartova-Bochaver et al. (2022), McKie (2022, 2023), Berkebile-Weinberg et al. (2024), Vowles (2024), and Brulle et al. (2024).

Also, in this special Nature issue, an article by Jenny and Betsch was titled “Large-scale behavioural data are key to climate policy”, where they explained that “improving individual knowledge through better communication alone is insufficient” (Jenny and Betsch, 2022, p. 1444) and that industries must be targeted to deal with the climate crisis. Their main message was that not enough attention was being paid to behaviour science and concluded the following:

In addition to the structures that allow data collection, we urge governments to install structures that foster exchanges between scientists, politicians and the administrations to finally facilitate the actual use of behavioural evidence. (Jenny and Betsch, 2022, p. 1447)

Barriers stand in the way of public knowledge about climate change, including climate denial, which is serving vested interests, such as hard-line conservatives and the energy-industrial complex (Oreskes and Conway, 2010, Chap. 6; McCright and Dunlap, 2011; Dunlap and McCright, 2015; Hornsey et al., 2018; Lewandowsky, 2021; Hornsey and Lewandowsky, 2022; Kutney, 2024; Brulle et al., 2024). Stephan Lewandowsky has warned that “These political implications have created an environment of rhetorical adversity in which disinformation abounds, thus compounding the challenges for climate communicators” (Lewandowsky, 2021, p. 1) and that “The terrain for climate communications is treacherous” (Lewandowsky, 2021, p. 8) because of the adversarial environment created by climate denial. Stoetzer and Zimmermann reached similar conclusions:

If protecting one's [political] group identity outweighs other motives, then from a policy perspective, reducing the existing misperceptions will be a difficult task. The key challenge would be to change group identities or weaken them altogether, which seems uncharted territory for policymakers. (Stoetzer and Zimmermann, 2024)

In the introduction to the paper “The differential impact of climate interventions along the political divide in 60 countries”, the researchers stated the following:

[S]cientific consensus messaging (i.e., informing the public that most scientists are in agreement about the climate crisis) has had limited effects on climate sceptics' support for climate action, or has even sparked reactance and decreased support for climate policy. (Berkebile-Weinberg et al., 2024)

The climate-denial wall stands high and strong, hindering climate communications, knowledge building on the science of climate change, and climate education.

By the turn of the millennium, sociologists had found climate denial to be a social countermovement (McCright and Dunlap, 2000). The fear held by conservatives is not the existential threat from climate change but from a perceived threat to the world view of conservatives and their traditional American values, especially their interpretations of individual freedom and free enterprise (McCright and Dunlap, 2000, pp. 504–505). McCright and Dunlap studied over 200 climate-denial reports from 30 right-wing think tanks between 1990 and 1997 (notably, most of the reports appeared in 1997, the year of Kyoto Protocol). Two arguments were present in more than half of the think tank reports: the science of climate change is highly uncertain (63 %), and climate change policies would harm the national economy (58 %) (McCright and Dunlap, 2000, pp. 510–518). In 2010, McCright and Dunlap reviewed again the opposition of conservatives to environmental issues as a countermovement to defend the “industrialist social order” (McCright and Dunlap, 2010, p. 104). Later, McCright wrote that “the climate change denial countermovement as a collective force defending the industrial capitalist system” (McCright, 2016, p. 77; see also Brulle, 2014; Dunlap and McCright, 2015). Recently, Ruth McKie concluded:

The USA was the birthplace of the organized opposition that emerged to challenge environmental legislation and climate action. Its roots stemmed from the purposeful consolidation of an action plan by the fossil fuel industry and vested interests … If it were not for this organized campaign, countermovement opposition organizations across other countries may not have had the opportunity to emerge and garner success. (McKie, 2023, p. 43)

In summary, public opinion surveys, investigative reports, and social science studies support the premise that climate communication is under siege by a powerful foe – climate denial, which is antithetical to climate education. Are schools directly being targeted by climate-denial organizations?

Climate denial in the classroom includes petro-pedagogy. The term has been used to describe the energy-industrial complex funding energy and climate education programmes for K-12 education, especially in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education (Eaton and Day, 2019, p. 462). A general relationship has unfolded: non-profit education programmes+energy-industrialcomplex sponsorship  =  petro-pedagogy. Beware of the energy-industrial complex bearing gifts. Petro-pedagogy is a Trojan Horse with climate denial stealthily hidden within and brought into the classroom, attempting to convert children and teachers into fossil fuel enthusiasts. Petro-pedagogy teaches that oil is a benefactor to humanity and that modern civilization cannot exist without fossil fuels, but says little, if anything at all, about the connection of fossil fuels to the climate crisis (Eaton and Day, 2019; Tannock, 2020). This newer expression of climate denial is one also used by “oil apologists” who laud fossil fuels by exaggerating how indispensable their contribution is to society yet are silent on their negative impact on the climate; this is climate denial by omission (Kutney, 2022).

A synopsis on the climate-denial organizations and petro-pedagogy organizations promoting climate-denial in the classroom is presented below (see Fig. 2 for editorial cartoons reflecting conservative climate denial views and liberal views of petro-pedagogy). While many groups have attempted to influence climate education in primary and secondary schools, the impact of these climate-denial organizations requires further research (some of the organizations do provide statistics on the number of teachers, for example, that have taken their educational programmes).

An example of such a petro-pedagogy programme is from Energy4me, offered by the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Their home page states the following:

Energy4me promotes fact-based education to help demystify the industry. It is designed to promote an energy conscious and educated society, and create interest in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) careers. (Energy4me, 2024a)

On their page on sustainability, they acknowledge the movement away from fossil fuels: “Though the world is reducing its footprint and moving towards more sustainable and cleaner energy, it will be a slower transition than most expect” (Energy4me, 2024b; see also 2024c–d). Energy4me does cover climate change better than most petro-pedagogy sites, but a direct influence of fossil fuels on the climate crisis is still lacking.

NXplorers is “Shell's flagship education programme” (Shell, 2024). The Shell educational programme is better than most fossil fuel companies, mentioning renewable energy, greenhouse gases, the Paris Agreement, climate change, and that the burning of fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide. However, aspects of petro-pedagogy are present in the programme. Shell's vital solutions to a low-carbon future include natural gas and carbon capture and storage and that some industrial sectors “will continue to rely on hydrocarbons for decades to come” (Shell NXplorers, 2018; see also Shell, 2018). Shell acknowledged climate change, but only as a long-term issue. NXplorers was included in a list of the “growing problem” of “children's marketing in schools” (Reclame Fossielvrij, 2024).

Most corporate examples of climate denial in the classroom are connected to the petroleum industry, but Agri Aware in Ireland is associated with the agricultural industry. Agri Aware states that it “provides a number of primary and secondary programmes that are all interlinked with the national school curriculum” (Agri Aware, 2022).

In an investigative report on the influence of the agriculture industry on what Irish students learn about climate change, John Gibbons examined Agri Aware, the National Dairy Council, and the Irish Farmers' Association-funded booklet “Irish Food A–Z” written by a former Agri Aware executive; they concluded the following:

Big Ag proponents are influencing classrooms in Ireland with learning materials that misrepresent the role of agriculture in contributing to climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss, DeSmog can reveal. This undue influence is occurring due to a lack of government oversight of educational resources provided to primary schools. (Gibbons, 2020)

A notable organization in petro-pedagogy is BP, which: “has successfully embedded itself at the heart of elite UK science and education policy and practice networks” (Tannock, 2020; see also Gandolfi, 2021). The BP Educational Service (BPES) has had a significant influence on the UK school system:

Overall, 84 % of UK schools are registered with BPES.

BPES has reinvented itself as Energising Futures (BPEF), which was launched on 20 February 2023.

BP works with the Association for Science Education (ASE) on its school programmes. The ASE site had a web page on key “collections” from BPES, including Climate.Speaks, which “introduces arguments positioned through different stakeholders such as government, activists, energy and transport companies, and agriculture” (Association for Science Education, 2020). However, Climate.Speaks no longer exists on the BPES or BPEF websites. Not long after I contacted the ASE about Climate.Speaks no longer being on the BP websites, the web page of ASE was taken down.

Very little information on climate change appeared on the new BPEF website anywhere (BP, 2024a, b). Climate change and its connection to the burning of fossil fuels are given a perfunctory recognition. Tannock found that the petro-pedagogy of BPES “poses a significant threat to our collective efforts to tackle the global climate crisis” (Tannock, 2020). No indication of BPEF being any better was found.

The interaction of oil industry representatives with secondary teachers and students is supported by the European Union (Andrée and Hansson, 2023, p. 2, p. 5). Andrée and Hansson looked at Scientix (EU-funded programme for advancing STEM teaching) promoting careers in the petroleum industry for secondary science students and concluded that

the petrochemical industry representatives communicated petro-pedagogy interests, beliefs and narratives directly to students participating in classrooms across Europe … it might be difficult for teachers as well as policymakers to see through the “smokescreens” of the webinars. (Andrée and Hansson, 2023, p. 13)

Their webinars (Scientix, 2024) on career paths, produced in collaboration of the European Petrochemical Association (EPCA), were examples of petro-pedagogy by promoting the petrochemical industry as responsible corporate citizens, which were essential to modern society and saving the world from global environmental crises (yet distancing themselves from the role of fossil fuels in the climate crisis).

Petro-pedagogy in The Netherlands has been criticized by the group Fossielvrij Onderwijs (Fossil Fuel Education) and its sister organization Reclame Fossielvrij (Advertising Fossil Free). Fossielvrij Onderwijs criticized the educational programmes of the Dutch energy-industrial complex, such as those of Shell: “Whatever they teach children, it is fundamentally wrong for them to be in front of the classroom. The fossil industry puts its own business model above the interests of these children to grow up safely and healthily. They present children with a world view that is already outdated” (Fossielvrij Onderwijs, 2024). Fossielvrij Onderwijs placed Shell second in a ranking of Dutch climate deniers because of their “misinformation campaign aimed at children” (Fossielvrij Onderwijs, 2019b; see also Fossielvrij Onderwijs, 2019a; Reclame Fossielvrij, 2021; Sleegers, 2024; Duineveld et al., 2024).

In April 2024, the Alberta government issued “The Guiding Framework for the Design and Development of Kindergarten to Grade 12”, and the Vision Statement included the following:

Students … will know the global significance of Alberta's vast oil reserves and Alberta's reputation as the most ethical producer of oil in the world. They will also understand the importance of natural resources in enabling and sustaining Alberta's society and Albertans' quality of life. Students will learn about advancements for cleaner extraction of natural resources and about renewable energy sources. (Alberta Government, 2024, p. 10)

In terms of climate change the document included that “students will learn … about environmental stewardship and sustainability, with content about natural historic and prehistoric cycles of climate change … scientific data related to human impacts on the environment and climate, including global warming” (Alberta Government, 2024, p. 13). An article from CTV News raising concern about the changes to the school curriculum was titled “Kids to learn Alberta is `most ethical producer of oil in the world' in school” (Amato and Penrose, 2024).

FortisBC reports that “We work together with organizations to provide educational materials to teachers and students around energy efficiency, conservation and how to be positive environmental stewards” (FortisBC, 2024). Their programmes include Energy is Awesome for grades 2 to 5 (the company has suspended this programme) and Energy Champions for K-7 in partnership with the popular Canadian Football League (CFL) team BC Lions (Canadian Football League team in Vancouver) promoting the programme. Energy Champions is about energy conservation and building a low-carbon energy future. The FortisBC website provides few details about their educational programmes.

A review of climate education by FortisBC criticized their programmes to be a “sales pitch” by the company (Cruickshank, 2022; see also Gamage, 2022). Emily Eaton had been quoted in the article:

But what many people have called the new climate denialism is this idea that we're actually denying the scale and speed, or pace, of the changes that are needed to rescue a habitable planet. And so that's the kind of denial that I see in these types of resources. (Cruickshank, 2022)

A new programme in Canada is Energy Creates, which is offering five scholarships of up to CAD 100 000 for youths 15 to 25 to attend post-secondary institutions (Energy Creates, 2024a). Energy Creates is not directly in schools but is aimed at youth planning to go on to post-secondary education.

The generous scholarships offer a unique opportunity for students, but there is a catch – all applicants must watch the film Global Warning (Energy Creates, 2024b) to be eligible for the major scholarship. Applicants must then pass a test on the movie and then prepare a creative work on the Canadian energy sector. The film, written and directed by Matthew Embry, is on climate change policy and science, including the opinions of oil apologists (e.g., Danielle Smith, Gwyn Morgan, Alex Epstein, and Fritz Vahrenholt) and contrarian scientists (e.g., Patrick Moore and Ian Clark). Overall, Energy Creates is a combination of oil apology and direct climate denial.

An Alberta-based organization Inside Education has a mission to “support teachers and inspire students to better understand the science, technology, and issues related to our environment and natural resources” (Inside Education, 2024). Inside Education has been promoted by the Canadian Energy Centre, which is sponsored by the Alberta government (CEC Staff, 2023). Part of their programme “Stewardship, Energy, Climate & You” includes a teacher's guide, which provides a reasonable enough snapshot of climate change on the surface, including the increase in extreme weather events associated with global warming. However, the Guide promotes personal action and not collective action or policies to restrict the production of fossil fuels (Inside Education, 2018; see also Eaton and Day, 2019, p. 465; Hodgkins, 2010).

Safety in Schools (SiS) Foundation offers occupational health training courses to high school students (Safety in Schools Foundation, 2024). In October 2023, SiS issued an announcement promoting the energy literacy programme of Inside Education and others but made no mention of the participation of SiS” (Safety in Schools Foundation, 2023a). Two months later, SiS launched their Energy Career Literacy programme, where “students can access invaluable industry insights, resources, potential employers, mentorship opportunities, and much more” (Safety in Schools Foundation, 2023b). In the fall of 2023, SiS also lobbied the Alberta government to include oil and gas studies in the curriculum for junior high and high school (Amato and Penrose, 2024).

Another fossil fuel industry sponsored organization, SEEDS Connections, provided “educational programmes related to leadership, environment, energy and diversity, for Kindergarten to Grade 12 students across Canada … and distributes this programme to over 2000 schools across Canada” (SEEDS Connections, 2019a). A web page is titled “Teaching Activities for Climate Change”, which only promotes energy saving and completely ignores the problem with burning fossil fuels (SEEDS Connections, 2019b). Their website has not been updated for the last few years. SEEDS Connections has been accused of promoting propaganda in schools (Eaton and Day, 2019, p. 463, p. 466).

Ten Peaks describes itself as a “not-for-profit with a mission to engage, inspire, and educate Alberta's youth about energy, the environment, and our climate and how they can play an essential role in the future of our province” (Ten Peaks, 2024). Not much information on climate change (Ten Peaks, 2020) was found in their website, but many details related to fossil fuels populated the site.

Many of the above organizations demonstrate that petro-pedagogy in Canada is Alberta-centric, which comes as no surprise since this province is the centre of the oil and gas sector. More information on climate education in Canada can be found in “Climate Change Education within Canada's Regional Curricula: A Systematic Review of Gaps and Opportunities” (Field et al., 2023; see also 2019) and Canada's entry in Profiles Enhancing Education Reviews (PEER; UNESCO, 2022b).

A survey (N= 938) found that 75 % of registered voters in the US supported the idea that “schools should teach children about the causes and consequences, and potential solutions to global warming”; the results varied by political affiliation:

Liberal Democrats – 98 %,

Political initiatives have been attempted at the federal level on climate education – namely, the Climate Change Education Act, which was first introduced by Senator Barack Obama and Representative Michael Honda in 2007 (under the name of the Global Warming Education Act), which was re-introduced by Senator Edward Markey (Markey, 2021) and Representative Debbie Dingell (Dingell, 2021); the bill was introduced again in 2024 (Markey, 2024; Dingell, 2024).

Education in America is decentralized and generally controlled by the state. In the last 5 years, 90 proposals have been introduced in 21 states to support climate change education (Branch, 2024). A review of climate education has warned about the following:

The story of climate education in the US has to also include examples in which states or school districts are actively fighting against teaching that the climate crisis is real and that it is damaging to the planet. (Coon et al., 2024, p. 26)

Climate Changemakers had initiated an email campaign to have climate change included in the state education standards and to teach educators about the climate crisis (Climate Changemakers, 2020).

Climate education is included in the important K-12 content of Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; a collaborative, state-led process of 26 states called Lead State Partners), which recommends the teaching of climate change beginning in middle school, ages 11–13:

Human activities, such as the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, are major factors in the current rise in Earth's mean surface temperature (global warming). Reducing the level of climate change and reducing human vulnerability to whatever climate changes do occur depend on the understanding of climate science, engineering capabilities, and other kinds of knowledge, such as understanding of human behaviour and on applying that knowledge wisely in decisions and activities. (Next Generation Science Standards, 2017, p. 59)

The NGSS had been adopted by 20 states, and 24 others are using them as guides (National Center for Science Education and Texas Freedom Network, 2020, p. 2) for their science curriculum, and in 2022, Pennsylvania became the latest state to use the NGSS as a guide (Branch, 2022), leaving only five states not using the NGSS to some extent at least.

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund prepared a state-by-state report card on public school science standards on climate change. The grade of the 20 states following the NGSS was a B+, and 10 states received poor grades (those in italic font were not guided by the NGSS in 2020): Florida, Indiana, Ohio, and West Virginia received the D grade and Alabama, Georgia, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia received the F grade (National Center for Science Education and Texas Freedom Network, 2020).

Previously, in late 2014 to early 2015, an extensive survey (N= 1500) was conducted on climate education in American schools by the NCSE. Among science teachers in middle and high schools, 75 % discussed global warming for at least one class, but almost a third were teaching that according to many scientists, recent global warming was “likely due to natural causes” (Plutzer et al., 2016a, pp. 15–16; see also 2016b).

A study of climate education reviewed “802 publicly available education policies across the United States” and

used a whole institution approach for data collection and analysis and considered four institutional domains of potential climate change activity: (1) institutional governance, (2) teaching and learning, (3) facilities and operations, and (4) community partnerships. (MECCE and NAAEE, 2022, pp. 4–5)

Among their findings was that all states had policies mentioning climate change, but 33 states had very low focus, and 14 states had low focus on climate change content (MECCE and NAAEE, 2022, pp. 9–11, p. 24, p. 40). States that followed the NGSS were more likely to include climate change content (p. 9, pp. 24–26). When energy was taught, little mention of climate change was presented (p. 9, pp. 31–37). The report highlighted the issue of climate denial: “For decades, political and social will to act on climate change was quickly swept away in a current of denial, avoidance, and political posturing” (MECCE and NAAEE, 2022, p. 3; see also p. 7, p. 28, p. 44).

In “Miseducation, How Climate Change is Taught in America”, investigative reporter Katie Worth identified cases of interference in American schools by the energy-industrial complex and writes about the “intentional miseducation of our children” (Worth, 2021a). Similar results were reported in a series of podcasts and reports by Noor and Westervelt (Noor and Westervelt, 2023), “The ABCs of Big Oil”. And a video by Climate Town presents an excellent overview of “The Brainwashing of America's Children”. Early in the video, the narrator Rollie Williams commented:

The oil and gas industry has spent millions of dollars trying to influence American school children … there is a massive paper trail of oil-funded lesson plans and workbooks. They produce propaganda videos and pro fossil fuel cartoons … and a whole gaggle of shady tactics to push their agenda on kids … these efforts to influence what children hear in public schools seem to be working. (Climate Town, 2023)

Below are organizations of petro-pedagogy and conservative climate denial infiltrating American schools (for more on American climate education, see Bhattacharya et al., 2020; UNESCO, 2023).

This group offers education programmes for students and teachers:

The Arkansas Energy Rocks Education Outreach Program was created to bring the oil and natural gas industry to classrooms across the state. This programme provides curricula and programmes to reach students from elementary school through high school. (Arkansas Energy Rocks, 2019a)

A website page for students provides a link about “Addressing Climate Change and Energy Production”; the link is to the American Petroleum Institute (Arkansas Energy Rocks, 2019b).

Such petro-pedagogy organizations exist in many states (four more are discussed below); in their detailed study, Katie Worth located such groups in “Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and, of course, Arkansas” (Worth, 2021b; see also Coon et al., 2024, p. 26).

A well-known conservative climate-denial group is the CO₂ Coalition (DeSmog, 2024b). They describe themselves as “comprised of more than 100 of the top experts in the world who are sceptical of a theoretical link between increasing CO₂ and a pending climate crisis while embracing the positive aspects of modest warming and increasing CO₂” (CO₂ Coalition, 2023, p. 1).

On 23 March 2023, they issued a booklet attacking the position of the National Science Teaching Association on climate change, using standard climate-denial talking points. The final conclusions of the booklet were the following:

As a result, students are undergoing an indoctrination into a dangerous political agenda that ignores the enormous benefits of CO₂ … We respectfully urge the National Science Teaching Association to seriously consider a rejection of their previous endorsement of scientific censorship and return science education to the foundations of reason, open scientific debate and tolerance for alternative thinking. (CO₂ Coalition, 2023, p. 16)

The booklet was released as the National Science Teaching Association was holding a convention where the CO₂ Coalition had a booth and distributed the booklet and a comic book Simon the Solar-Powered Cat depicting carbon dioxide as being good for the planet. An article in the Washington Post about the episode warned that the CO₂ Coalition literature could cause teachers to spread propaganda about the science of climate change to their students (Joselow, 2023).

The latest “educational comic book” of the CO₂ Coalition was described as follows:

Once Upon a Time: A true story about the miracle molecule–carbon dioxide provides scientific information in a manner that is simple enough that even a young child can enjoy and understand … carbon dioxide (CO₂) is the miracle molecule that is necessary for life on earth to exist and that increasing CO₂ is helping plants to grow faster and bigger. (CO₂ Coalition, 2024)

On the web page for this comic book, a comment is made on how children have been taught incorrectly, as carbon dioxide is not the “demon molecule”, but the “miracle molecule” (CO₂ Coalition, 2024). A request to CO₂ Coalition for permission to post the cover cartoon of Once Upon a Time received no response.

EverBright Media, a for-profit organization founded by former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, claims that “more than 700 000 families are enjoying [their] products” (EverBright Media, 2024a). Their pamphlets, decorated with cartoon covers, include the “Kids Guide” to “Free Markets”, “Fighting Socialism”, and “The Truth about Climate Change” (EverBright Media, 2024b). Regarding the latter, issued in 2023, one commentary concluded, “they deliberately undermine children's scientific education … They're not just trying to create climate sceptics … They're actually eroding trust in science and the scientific community” (Gopal, 2023), while another had the title “Huckabee's climate-denial book targeted at children” (Fisher, 2023). When the website of EverBright was checked again in June 2024, the “Kids Guide to The Truth about Climate Change” could not be found. A request to EverBright for permission to post the cover cartoon of “Kids Guide to The Truth about Climate Change” was declined.

The conservative think tank Heartland Institute states what they do: “We focus on issues in education, environmental protection, health care, budgets and taxes, and Stopping Socialism” (Heartland Institute, 2024a). On their web page announcing the release of Climate at a Glance (see below), Heartland proudly publicized that “The Economist magazine called Heartland `the world's most prominent think-tank promoting scepticism about man-made climate change”' (Heartland Institute, 2023).

In 2009, a booklet from Heartland, “The Skeptic's Handbook”, challenged “conventional wisdom” on global warming and was sent to 14 000 public school board presidents (Taylor, 2009). The contents were debunked by a series of posts on DeSmog (Jacquot, 2008).

Six years later, the so-called Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), supported by the Heartland Institute, prepared Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming (Idso et al., 2015). The book dismissed the scientific consensus on climate change and accused the IPCC of not being a credible source. The Heartland Institute distributed 300 000 copies of the book to K-12 and college science teachers in the US (Heartland Institute, 2024b). This elicited an angry response from the executive director of the National Science Teaching Association, warning its members of the propaganda (see Bast, 2017), and a complaint by the NCSE about Heartland forcing its “climate change denial literature on science teachers” (Branch, 2017; see also Lee and Banerjee, 2017; McKenna, 2017, 2018; Climate Town, 2023). Senator Sheldon Whitehouse described the climate-denial propaganda by the Heartland Institute on the floor of the United States Senate:

I would like to explore the Heartland Institute's latest gambit, which is to airdrop climate-denial propaganda directly into children's classrooms.

Another assault against climate education from the Heartland Institute was the book – Climate at a Glance for Teachers and Students (Watts and Taylor, 2022) – mailed out to 8000 middle and high school teachers in early 2022. The banner for the release of the book read that the “Book intended to be `supplemental' to standard curricula and counter alarmist narrative with facts on the climate that reflect current data and research” (Heartland Institute, 2023; see also Climate at a Glance, 2024).

The Heartland Institute, EverBright Media, CO₂ Coalition, and PragerU (see below) are typical conservative climate-denial organizations. The CO₂ Coalition is unique among this group as climate denial is their only focus.

The goal of the Illinois Petroleum Resources Board is to “improve the image and credibility of the Illinois oil and gas industry”, and this is accomplished through seven objectives, of which the first is “Education: create an understanding of the Illinois oil and gas industry and good safety practices through programmes with schools, organizations and the public at large” (Illinois Petroleum Resources Board, 2024a). They offer a series of professional development programmes for middle and high school teachers (Illinois Petroleum Resources Board, 2024b). No connections between fossil fuels and climate change were found on their website. Blogs on their website generally defended petroleum, including one titled “Benefits of Fossil Fuels to Humanity Have Far Outweighed Negatives” (Whitehead, 2022).

An article criticizing the Illinois Petroleum Resources Board was called “A Fossil Fuel Miseducation”, which stated, “the IPRB doesn't appear to deny climate change – they mostly seem to avoid mentioning it at all. Instead, the group focuses on economic arguments about the oil and gas industry, which they claim will be a good source of jobs for decades to come, despite mounting evidence to the contrary” (Gopal, 2024).

Kansas Strong is “providing accurate information, they are helping Kansans learn more about the realities of the energy industry to create a more informed society and prepare for the future” (Kansas Strong, 2024a), and the organization offers “workshops with curriculum for K-12 teachers and students. Kansas Strong's curriculum and lesson plans are designed to meet Kansas State Department of Education Teaching Standards” (Kansas Strong, 2024b). Programmes for various grades of students are also available (Kansas Strong, 2024c). Few details of the education programmes were provided. A statement was found on climate change that “natural gas production and achieving climate goals are not mutually exclusive” (Kansas Strong, 2024d).

The Ohio Natural Energy Institute “is dedicated to educating people about the indispensable industry that makes life better for every Ohioan” (Ohio Natural Energy Institute, 2023a), and “natural energy” to them is natural gas and oil. Their website has sections for both students and teachers, offering a variety of one-page pamphlets praising the fossil fuel industry. Teacher workshops have been attended by 3310 educators from 1632 schools in the state (Ohio Natural Energy Institute, 2023b). No mention of climate change or global warming was found on their website, but their home page did boast of a 37 % reduction in emissions without acknowledging why such emission reductions were important. The group has been accused of indoctrinating children with the benefits of fossil fuels while ignoring how fossil fuels contribute to climate change (Zou, 2017).

Five state petro-pedagogy organizations are discussed in this review, Arkansas Energy Rocks; Kansas Strong; Illinois Petroleum Resources Board; Ohio Natural Energy Institute; and, as the earliest, Oklahoma Energy Resources Board (OERB). An issue with OERB's climate education is their cartoon mascot Petro Pete, who appears in their audio-book series, “Petro Pete's Adventure” (Oklahoma Energy Resources Board, 2022a), and in their curriculum called “Little Bits” for K to second-grade students (Oklahoma Energy Resources Board, 2022b) and “Fossils to Fuel 2” for third- to sixth-grade students (Oklahoma Energy Resources Board, 2022c). Workshops for teachers are offered at no cost, along with a stipend of USD 100 to teachers. The Center of Public Integrity has pointed out that “Oklahoma remains the epicentre of oil-industry puffery in the classroom” (Zou, 2017; see also Wertz, 2017; Atkin, 2020; Tannock, 2020; Worth, 2021b; Climate Town, 2023). A request to OERB for permission to post the cover cartoon of “Petro Pete's Adventure” received no response.

Prager University, well known for its climate-denial views (DeSmog, 2024c), is a conservative media outlet and not an accredited academic institution. However, in the summer of 2023, videos by PragerU were allowed in Florida schools. An article in Scientific American criticized the adoption of the PragerU material by the state in an article titled “DeSantis's Florida Approves Climate-Denial Videos in Schools” (Waldman, 2023b; see also Waxman, 2023). Other states have expressed interest in the PragerU programmes, including Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Texas (PragerU, 2024a; see also 2024c).

In an article from their PragerU Educational Magazine for Kids named “Ania's Energy Crisis”, climate change is presented as an “unproven and debated” theory (PragerU, 2024b, p. 6). While Ania supports action to phase out fossil fuels, her parents want her to hear “the other side” (PragerU, 2024b, pp. 12–13). Her father, who “reads scientific journals and talks with researchers at his university”, shares a series of standard climate-denial talking points with his daughter, and her mother also chimes in with more climate-denial points. Finally, the young girl wonders if it was possible that she had only been taught one side of the story. Ania is quickly learning the denial lesson to doubt the science of climate change, and so will other children who read this story. A request to PragerU for permission to post the cover cartoon of “Ania's Energy Crisis” received no response.

The STEM Careers Coalition of Discovery Education lists the American Petroleum Institute and Chevron as content partners: “Content Partners will support expanded student impact while sharing existing inspirational and high-quality content and provide subject matter expertise” (Discovery Education, 2024a; see also Winkel, 2022). The STEM Careers Coalition reached over 10 million students by the end of 2024 (Discovery Education, 2024b). One of their STEM Careers Coalition programmes is a lesson plan for grades 3 to 5 called Effects of Petroleum on Our World, which makes no mention of climate change (Discovery Education, 2022). A programme was found on the impact of climate change on health (Discovery Education, 2024c). The STEM Careers Coalition is another petro-pedagogy programme.

Switch Energy Alliance is known for its films and videos promoting fossil fuels globally. The chairperson and founder of the group is Scott Tinker, a professor of geology at the University of Texas. In Scientific American, Scott Tinker stated, “Unfortunately, those who are the most passionate about addressing climate change seem to not like the answers from the energy experts” (Tinker, 2019b; see also Tinker, 2019a, 2023).

Switch Energy Alliance is “dedicated to inspiring an energy-educated future that is objective, nonpartisan, and sensible” (Switch Energy Alliance, 2024a). One of their programmes, Switch Classroom, “provides innovative tools and expert-driven content to enable students to think critically about energy” (Switch Energy Alliance, 2024b). No information was found on the importance of reducing the burning of fossil fuels to resolve the climate crisis, but criticisms were often raised about renewable energies.