compared to companies in non-fossil fuel related sectors like tech, finance, healthcare and retail. Thus, despite the escalating warnings from the scientific community on the need for policy and implied reductions in fossil fuel usage, the industry appears to have been successful to date in preventing any policy measures that may materially impact their ongoing business operations. The Evolution of Climate Lobbying Oppositional corporate influencing on climate makes use of two increasingly linked strategies. The first involves capturing the political narrative and public understanding of climate change. This has the effect of reducing the likelihood of obtaining robust climate policy even before it makes significant political progress. The second involves more direct efforts to block, oppose or repeal regulations once politicians or policymakers have proposed or implemented them; in other words, what is more traditionally referred to as lobbying. The wider definition of lobbying used in this research covers both of these strategies. In the past, companies like ExxonMobil and the networks they fund have sowed doubt around scientific consensus on climate science. As these tactics become increasingly unviable, they have moved to more subtle messaging tactics. These range from stressing the potential negative impacts of climate action on jobs and growth, to promoting the need to focus on gradual or incremental climate solutions based on as-of-yet unproven decarbonisation technologies. Another key trend is the increased outsourcing of direct, oppositional lobbying on climate regulations to powerful thirdparty industry groups such as the American Petroleum Institute. This evolution is illustrated in the timeline of statements from key ExxonMobil executives and those of its key lobbyists from the late 1990s to the present. 7 InfluenceMap March 2019