BP 2

see ceo lawler

MERRI OK

bp knew 1954?

see princeton ccs methane

see BP oil (main) and tag

mattera dirt diggers

Violation Tracker Current Parent Company Summary

Current Parent Company Name: BP

Ownership Structure: publicly traded (ticker symbol LSE: BP)

Headquartered in: United Kingdom

Major Industry: oil and gas

Specific Industry: oil & gas

Penalty total since 2000: $36,486,562,463

Number of records: 409

TOP 5 OFFENSE GROUPS (GROUPS DEFINED)	PENALTY TOTAL	NUMBER OF RECORDS
environment-related offenses	$34,582,215,109	285
consumer-protection-related offenses	$669,467,567	6
financial offenses	$525,000,000	1
competition-related offenses	$408,000,000	8
government-contracting-related offenses	$160,001,800	5

TOP 5 PRIMARY OFFENSE TYPES	PENALTY TOTAL	NUMBER OF RECORDS
oil spill	$32,619,835,000	9
air pollution violation	$1,438,789,598	76
consumer protection violation	$669,315,000	4
investor protection violation	$525,000,000	1
price-fixing or anti-competitive practices	$390,250,000	6

gmail 2 25

British energy giant had planned a big switch to green energy. That's been shelved.

===

JOINT REPORT

https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fossil_fuel_report1.pdf

CHAPTER 5: TARGETING UNIVERSITIES, THE PRESS, AND CRITICS

I. CULTIVATING RELATIONSHIPS WITH ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS

The oil and gas industry cultivates partnerships with academic institutions as a way to

influence climate research toward an energy transition that favors maintaining fossil fuels for as

long as possible; bolster its ability to claim expertise on climate science; and gain access to

thought leaders.232 In the words of one BP official, the academics’ research was to be “informed

by the business challenges we need solved.”233 Although the existence of relationships between

industry and academia has long been known, documents released by the House Oversight

Committee (1) reveal for the first time previously unknown funding amounts and (2) shed light

on how companies condition grants on cooperation from academics and their perception of the

relationship’s business value.

228 SOC-HCOR-123228.

229 BPA_HCOR_00156030.

230 Id.

231 Id. Other documents discussing the work of the NPC include: BPA_HCOR_00135544;

BPA_HCOR_00089421; BPA_HCOR_00089557; BPA_HCOR_00091900; EM-HCOR3-00246788; EM-HCOR3-

00246789; EM-HCOR3-00246789; EM-HCOR3-00246790; EM-HCOR3-00246791; EM-HCOR3-00246796; EMHCOR3-00246797; EM-HCOR3-00246798; EM-HCOR3-00246807; EM-HCOR3-00246934; EM-HCOR3-

00246926; EM-HCOR3-00246940; EM-HCOR3-00246942; EM-HCOR3-00246947; SOC-HCOR-123223; SOCHCOR-123228; BPA_HCOR_00135813. Other documents showing collaboration between companies through

third-party organizations include: BPA_HCOR_00114332.

232 Princeton’s Climate Research: In the Service of BP,Daily Princetonian (Feb. 6, 2023) (online at

www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2023/02/princeton-bp-carbon-mitigation-initiative-greenwashing-climatechange-reputation).

233 BPA_HCOR_00141678.

...

Funding and Shaping Academic Research Programs

Six fossil fuel companies, including BP, Chevron, Exxon, and Shell, spent an estimated $700 million on academic research programs between 2010 and 2020, though exact figures are unknown because disclosure requirements for university funding are limited.234 The funding the companies have provided has filled a research-shaping role the companies’ funding facilitated. As one study found, research centers funded by fossil fuel interests are more “favourable in their reports towards natural gas than towards renewable energy,” especially in communications that specifically mention fossil fuel companies. Programs less dependent on fossil fuel industry funding show the reverse, with a more neutral sentiment towards gas, and more favorability towards renewable energy.235

BP’s sponsorship of Princeton University’s Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI) spans over 20 years and is the longest among the industry-university relationships. CMI seeks “to design safe, effective and affordable carbon mitigation strategies.”236 One spreadsheet reveals that, between 2012 and 2017, BP funded CMI at levels between $2.1 and $2.6 million annually.237 BP also provides funding to climate policy academic programs at Harvard and Tufts, including the Harvard Kennedy School and the Climate Policy Lab at the Fletcher School at Tufts University.238 BP gave “$416k to Harvard and $250k to Tufts, per year” between 2019 and 2021, for programs focusing on “policy themes including but not limited to: carbon pricing, land use and carbon offsets, transportation, and technology innovation.”239 One BP email memorialized a conversation with a Princeton University climate systems modeler about research BP requested on the use of carbon capture technologies from Princeton’s 234 Fossil

NOTE Fuel Companies Donated $700 Million to US Universities over 10 Years, The Guardian (Mar. 1, 2023) (online at www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/01/fossil-fuel-companies-donate-millions-usuniversities); Data for Progress and Fossil Free Research, Accountable Allies: The Undue Influence of Fossil Fuel

...

Similarly, Chevron has partnered with major universities for workforce development and facility upgrades, including the Colorado School of Mines; Louisiana State University; MIT; Stanford University; Texas A&M University; UC Berkeley; UC Davis; the University of Texas, Austin; Tuskegee University; North Carolina A&T State University; Prairie View A&M University; and Florida International University.249 It does not appear that Chevron produced relevant documents on this subject, even though the scope of the House Oversight Committee’s subpoena covered these documents.

B. Conditioning Grants on Cooperation from Researchers

Fossil fuel companies conditioned their funding to academic institutions on the extent of their cooperation and sensitivity to industry business needs. A 2016 internal document marked “confidential” reveals that BP officials recommended cutting the budget for Harvard and Tufts research partnerships because it was finding it difficult to “obtain more value” as compared to the perceived success of BP’s partnership with Princeton, explaining that the “CMI discussions are directly relevant to BP whereas the Harvard/Tufts discussions” were not. Accordingly, the official recommended cutting funding to Harvard in favor of “a tighter focus limited to climate policy and geopolitics,” which “should enable a more integrated approach between the policy work at Harvard/Tufts and the scientific work at CMI.” The official recommended marginalizing researchers with whom BP worked less well and propping up those who were more favorable to BP. His final recommendation was to renew the Harvard grant at a “[m]aximum of $400k,” preferring “zero for geopolitics but understand[ing] it may need to be $50–$100k if necessary to manage the relationship.”250

...

D. Using Academic Programs to Bolster Access to Policymakers

Fossil fuel companies sought to gain access to policymakers and influential thought

leaders by funding academic research programs. One internal BP email describes the Tufts

program as “the policy complement to our longstanding Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI)

climate science program with Princeton,” noting that it benefits BP because “many of their

faculty are former senior government officials with deep insight, credibility and influence with

US and global policymakers.”255 Similarly, a “confidential” document from around 2018

describes the benefit of the BP partnership with Harvard and Tufts as “access to unparalleled

expertise at the forefront of research in the areas of climate change science, technology and

policy,” which helps BP “provide a business perspective to help shape international policy.”256

In a 2020 email, BP coordinated with Princeton officials on the Net Zero America study,

which maps different pathways by which the United States could decarbonize its economy.257

251 BPA_HCOR_00028087; In a 2014 internal document noting both Tufts’ and Harvard’s Energy Policy

and Geopolitics Programs, BP’s budget allocation for universities included a combined $700 thousand distributed

amongst several researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. An additional $215

thousand was allocated to Tuft’s Fletcher School. BPA_HCOR_00117652.

252 BPA_HCOR_00043055.

253 BPA_HCOR_00029996.

254 BPA_HCOR_00029996.

255 BPA_HCOR_00115928.

256 BPA_HCOR_00028087.

257 Princeton University, Net-Zero America, Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and

Impacts (online at https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/?explorer=year&state=national&table=2020&limit=200)

(accessed Apr. 29, 2024).

...

II. TRACKING CRITICS AND PRESSURING NEWS OUTLETS

Documents obtained by the House Oversight Committee reveal that the fossil fuel

industry actively tracks individuals, organizations, and news outlets critical of the industry.

One particularly disturbing email demonstrates that Exxon’s chief security officer was

tasked with tracking a specific activist, noting that he “has been very active in his

communications of late. We are monitoring his location (now living in Vermont) and his social

media.”260

The activist in question, a retired petroleum and industrial engineer who used to work for Exxon, provided testimony to the Vermont state legislature on fossil fuel infrastructure and

had written op-eds concerning presidential climate plans, among other advocacy activities. A

Shell email similarly demonstrated that climate activist activity is shared internally. The email,

from May 2020, acknowledges that the coronavirus pandemic limited the ability of activist

groups to protest, but that there was, in turn, a “sharp spike—43% more than average in social

media ad spending.” This caused concern that the activists “are not sitting on their hands—they

are adapting and we expect that they will raise more than $1 billion this year to build their army

of boots-on-the-ground supporters with the goal of killing off the fossil fuel industry.”261

Other documents show that fossil fuel companies tracked outside advocacy efforts related

to emissions reductions and environmental accountability. A BP official expressed concern

about an “uptick in citizen suits” due to the “wide availability of high-tech monitoring devices”

that citizens can use to measure pollution from hazardous chemicals in their local environments.

258 BPA_HCOR_00064996.

259 BPA_HCOR_00115928.

260 EM-HCOR3-00196006.

261 SOC-HCOR-357654.

...

He worried that “NGOs will have more info” than what industry is required to report to the EPA.262 Documents produced by BP include numerous “Weekly Activist Report[s]” that track global critics and protest activity focused on the fossil fuel industry’s role in climate change. One Weekly Activist Report identified specific activism, such as “Protests in Washington as part of ‘Green New Deal’” and “Sunrise Movement occupies office of US Representative in Washington, DC.”263

API also tracked activities of climate activist groups via an email from an outside consulting group, which promised to contact API “if there is any concerning or threatening content related to API.”264 The fossil fuel industry tracks critical social media content. One email from API to its internal Communications email list, titled “API Media Monitoring,” appears to be part of a regular mass email blast that tracks critics of the industry. A 2017 email describes social media conversations on climate change following damaging snowstorms and wildfires throughout the country.265

Another shows Exxon tracking social media content, including public posts on Facebook and Twitter discussing ExxonMobil and climate change, including “a review of tweets that use the hashtags #ExxonKnew and #EnergyLiesHere.”266

Internal documents show companies pressuring news outlets pursuing stories that the companies believed were instigated by activists. In a 2016 email, an Exxon Media Relations Manager reacted angrily to questions from a Reuters journalist on Exxon’s relationship with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a nonprofit organization that has frequently undertaken political advocacy activities that appear to violate Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules governing its tax-exempt status.267

Providing a statement that could be used “if Reuters is taking this crap seriously,” the official responded “how tone deaf are these guys for asking the IRS to investigate ALEC – an organization made up of more than 2000 conservative state lawmakers – after the IRS scandal last year? Of course anything passes for news when you slap the ‘climate denier’ label on it.” When the journalist responded, “I hear

you,” the Exxon media relations manager replied, “Don’t hear me. Kill the story.”268

CHAPTER 6: OBSTRUCTION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION

As documented in the House Oversight Committee’s memorandum dated December 9, 2022, Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, API, and the Chamber refused to fully cooperate with the House Oversight Committee’s investigation, even after then-Chairwoman Maloney issued subpoenas to each company. Their obstruction is evident in many of the documents reviewed by the House Oversight Committee and released today.

I. ATTEMPTING TO UNDERMINE CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION LEGAL FRAMEWORKS AND NORMS A. Power and Scope of Congressional Investigative Authority There is a clear legal framework supporting Congress’s broad latitude to conduct investigations and requiring private sector entities to comply fully with congressional subpoenas. The Supreme Court has long recognized Congress’s power conduct investigations, a power inherent in the legislative process, holding as early as 1927 that “[t]he power of inquiry—with process to enforce it—is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function .... A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information.”269 The Supreme Court has also made clear that such power is broad: “[The] power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes.”270 Indeed, the “scope of the power of inquiry ... is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution.”271 Courts defer to Congress’s “broad power” to seek information “when the purpose asserted is supported by references to specific problems which in the past have been or which in the future could be the subjects of appropriate legislation.

ymail 4 24

In 2021, Congressional Democrats subpoenaed Big Oil for internal documents detailing the industry’s role in worsening the climate crisis.

Some of the documents have already been released. But today, we got some more.

The internal materials are from Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Chamber of Commerce. They’re being released today as part of the Senate Budget Committee’s upcoming hearing on Wednesday morning, titled “Denial, Disinformation, and Doublespeak: Big Oil’s Evolving Efforts to Avoid Accountability for Climate Change.”

Source: X

Both the hearing and the documents mark the revival of the House Oversight Committee’s two-year investigation into the fossil fuel industry, and its role in misleading Americans about climate change. That investigation was put on ice when Republicans won back control of the chamber in late 2022.

Democrats say their new findings provide “a rare glimpse into the extensive efforts undertaken by fossil fuel companies to deceive the public and investors about their knowledge of the effects of their products on climate change and to undermine efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.”

HEATED got a chance to review the new documents prior to their publication today. And while we don’t think the revelations are necessarily all that “rare,” here are five things we found notable.

1. BP really, really loves Princeton

To influence academia, fossil fuel companies have spent at least $700 million on partnerships with U.S. universities. The longest-running of these partnerships is between BP and Princeton.

The new documents provide some insight into why: because Princeton gives BP unprecedented access to discussions about research. In 2016 emails, BP officials discussed cutting funding to Harvard and Tufts and boosting it for Princeton, because research discussions at Harvard and Tufts “are directed by the universities and much less relevant to BP.” They said “personality and structural issues” at Harvard and Tufts made it “difficult to achieve the same BP focus.”

Achieving a “BP focus” meant two things: pushing research about the benefits of carbon capture and methane gas. And that’s what Princeton’s Carbon Mitigation Initiative did.

In 2018, an internal BP presentation marked “confidential” recommended Princeton CMI director Stephen Pacala as a preferred expert in defending methane gas as a climate solution. And in a 2020 email, BP officials discussed an upcoming call with Pacala, in which BP would recommend developing a net zero plan “with emphasis on CCUS [carbon capture utilization and storage] — building ‘backbone’ of pipelines to transport carbon from emitters to the Permian and Gulf Coast sites.”

CMI did eventually develop a net zero study with an emphasis on carbon capture. BP officials celebrated, writing, “Princeton’s net zero study is expected to be a guide for the Biden Administration.”

Today, sure enough, the Biden Administration is making massive investments in carbon capture—just as BP’s vice president of U.S. policy and regulatory affairs predicted. In a 2020 email, he said BP’s relationship with Princeton was “becoming increasingly synergistic.” If Biden won, the VP said, “I would not be surprised to see some of our friends in senior government policymaking roles, as well!”

2. Oil companies know they can’t meet their public climate goals

While they publicly tout their efforts to fight climate change, oil companies privately say they don’t believe the world could ever reach a safe, livable climate.

For example: Exxon first publicly supported the Paris Agreement in 2015, but internally the company revealed that it did not believe the climate treaty’s goals were realistic. “We don’t yet see the world even approaching a 2°C pathway … let alone a 1.5°C pathway,” Exxon’s former manager of environmental policy and planning Peter Trelenberg wrote in a 2018 email. “Both 2°C and 1.5°C would require unprecedented changes to the global energy system and economy, at a rate and scale never before demonstrated, and with technologies not yet available and affordable.”...

===

---

bp knew 1954?

GMAIL 2 24

fossil-fuel-companies-paid-for-proof-of-their-climate-destruction-in-1954

New documents confirm the oil industry was not only warned of the dangers their products posed to the climate in 1954 — they paid for the proof.

The fossil fuel industry notoriously cast doubt on climate science for decades. Newly uncovered documents, however, confirm that the fossil fuel industry was not only informed that climate change was real and measurable in 1954 — they were the ones who funded the research to prove it.

In 1954, the automobile and petroleum industries paid climate scientist Charles Keeling via a private foundation to research carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, and that research continues to underpin our modern-day understanding of climate change. Documents, discovered by researcher Rebecca John and published in DeSmog, show that representatives from the American Petroleum Institute, Western States Petroleum Association, and BP all held influential roles at the private foundation funding Keeling’s work.

The uncovered documents show that the potential climate impacts of burning fossil fuels were communicated to the private foundation in November 1954. A research proposal sent to the fossil fuel-funded foundation warned that the “possible consequences of a changing concentration of the CO2 in the atmosphere with reference to climate … may ultimately prove of considerable significance to civilization.”

The oil industry has historically produced and advanced climate change research. Exxon’s scientific researchers predicted climate change with shocking accuracy in the 1970s, for example. However, the discovery of Keeling’s 1954 fossil fuel funders is the earliest example of the industry’s instrumental role in establishing evidence on the devastating impacts of oil and gas emissions on the climate — which they proceeded to publicly deny for decades.

“These findings are a startling confirmation that big oil has had its finger on the pulse of academic climate science for 70 years – for twice my lifetime – and a reminder that it continues to do so to this day,” climate accountability researcher and professor Geoffrey Supran told The Guardian. “They make a mockery of the oil industry’s denial of basic climate science decades later.”

This additional evidence of Big Oil’s climate deception further bolsters the evidence against fossil fuel companies in a growing number of climate accountability lawsuits that are steadily marching toward trial.

---

desmog 12 22

Congressional investigators released a new set of documents that underscored the oil and gas industry’s ongoing attempts to block climate policies and confuse the public about their long-term investments in fossil fuels. The latest tranche of documents caps off a nearly two-year investigation that appears set to come to an end with Republicans taking control of the House of Representatives in January.

On December 9, the U.S. House Oversight and Reform Committee published its latest set of documents as part of its ongoing investigation into the oil industry’s history of climate denial and obfuscation. The documents offer more evidence showing that the industry’s “greenwashing” continues up to the present day.

“They’re basically saying, ‘we’re going to increase production, we’re going to increase emissions, but we’re also going to be able to claim being this clean tech company, this green company, because we can take some symbolic actions that make it look like we’re in the climate fight,’” Rep. Ro Khanna, (D-CA), a member of the committee, told NBC News.

“The cynicism was breathtaking, and unfortunately, it was quite successful,” he said, “It’s been a successful PR strategy.”

[twt]

the framing over the role of methane gas offers one glaring example. For years, the industry and its supporters have claimed that methane gas serves as a “bridge fuel” due to its perceived climate benefit over burning coal. That claim has not been backed up by the science, which increasingly shows that methane leaks can erase the upside of gas compared to coal.

But even if true, internal communications show that despite their external claims, oil executives view gas not as a temporary “bridge,” but as something more permanent.

“For sure the bridge is very long in any event, but it is conceivable that gas could serve as a destination fuel to back up intermittent renewables (possibly with CCS) in the much longer term,” Bob Stout, a former BP vice president said in a 2017 email. “We would not want to spell all this out, but also not implicitly concede the point by referring to it mainly as a ‘bridge.’”

Another revelation points to the oil industry’s efforts to cultivate influence through its financial support for Ivy League universities. In another 2019 email from Stout, in which he discusses BP’s efforts at “nurturing” its relationship with Princeton University, he admits that ties with major American universities is part of a strategy of burnishing the industry’s image and also enhancing its influence.

“I would only add that in addition to the value in informing our understanding of climate science and policy, these relationships (along with those we have with Harvard, Tufts and Columbia) are key parts of our long-term relationship-building and outreach to policy makers and influencers in the US and globally,” Stoutwrote. He added that BP gets “valuable intel” from its ties to the handful of prestigious universities, and that the company is able to “tell the story of what we are doing and why in a more personal and compelling way,” adding that “[i]n return they are able to give us valuable input on our strategies and messaging.”

DeSmog has previously reported on the oil industry’s attempts to push its agenda through Ivy League universities. And a podcast collaboration between Drilled and Earther explored how oil companies have long been influencing American education for corporate benefit, from elementary schools to universities like Harvard. The latest release adds even more explicit evidence of an intentional strategy.

BP and Princeton University did not respond to a request for comment....

---

ff ceo memo, not just br fuel

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2022-12-09.COR_Supplemental_Memo-Fossil_Fuel_Industry_Disinformation.pdf

---

ff ceo memo, not just br fuel

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2022-12-09.COR_Supplemental_Memo-Fossil_Fuel_Industry_Disinformation.pdf

p 11

...In line with this plan, Chevron included “deliver higher returns and lower carbon” as part of its strategy to double down on oil and gas and reported to board members that, unlike other companies, Chevron’s strategy is to “grow production.”37 This document suggests that even if other companies ultimately agree to reduce oil and gas production or substantially diversify into non-emitting energy, Chevron is prepared to swoop in and expand its own fossil fuel business. If it executes this strategy, Chevron would jeopardize carbon reductions other companies may pursue, as their emissions effectively shift to Chevron’s ledger.38 B.

BP’s Mixed Record on Climate

BP’s most recent climate promises and investments are more ambitious than Chevron’s and include investments in clean energy and reduced output of oil and gas.39 Despite its relative ambition compared with its American counterparts, top environmental, social, and governancerating firm MSCI notes that BP’s current climate plans are aligned with global warming of 2.4 degrees Celsius, meaning it “is misaligned with global climate goals and is in line with a business-as-usual scenario.”40 Internal documents reveal BP’s continued emphasis on its fossil fuel business. In July 2017, an internal position paper was distributed to BP employees, including John Mingé, thenChairman and President of BP America, to proactively use in communications about the energy transition. In the memo, BP acknowledged the “urgency of the climate challenge,” noting that to address climate change, “reductions are required across the board” and “consumers need to change [their] behavior.”41

While the company promised to help “advance the transition” “towards lower carbon sources, driven by technological advances and growing environmental concerns,” BP also noted, “we will shift our focus towards gas,” and touted new technologies that help “produce more oil, more efficiently from existing resources.”42 Talking points prepared for Mr. Mingé to use at a conference on October 12, 2016, cite BP’s own energy transition projections in support of this assertion, stating, “according to the most likely scenario outlined in BP’s latest Energy Outlook report” fossil fuels will still make up no less than “80 percent of the global energy supply in 2035.” Even under BP’s “faster transition scenario, fossil fuels will remain 70 percent of total energy in 2035.” 43 When former President Trump announced his intention to remove the United States from the global Paris Agreement in 2017, BP released a public statement disapproving of the decision, stating: “BP has long supported the Paris agreement, and we hope the Trump administration follows through on its intention to find a way for the U.S. to reenter the [Paris Climate] accord … .”44 Nevertheless, just months after denouncing the decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, BP doubled down on its plans to explore for and produce oil and gas. BP’s Q3 2017 Operational Performance Review, an internal assessment evaluating the company’s strategic goals and outlook for the upcoming year, described BP’s future plans for the lower 48 states: “Significantly increase development in regions with oil potential” and “focus primarily on projects in current basins that generate the highest rate of return.”45

Two years later, in May 2019, notes labeled “Chairman’s Report to BPA Board” discussed climate change shareholder resolutions that had recently received a vote at BP’s annual stockholder meeting. The notes show the Chairman of BP America’s Board admitting, “we continue to balk at taking accountability for the emissions of our products.” At the time, BP’s climate pledges did not address the downstream emissions of its products—a position the company later softened, but that Exxon has clung to. In 2019, BP had opposed a shareholder proposal which would have required the company to pledge cuts in its downstream emissions, while supporting a separate resolution brought by investor group ClimateAction 100+ that would require BP to disclose in a report how its climate plan aligned with the Paris Agreement.46

...

...BP is boosting oil and gas supplies in the short-term in response to the global energy crisis.47 Continued oversight will be necessary to ensure that BP sticks to its long-term climate pledge to cut its oil and gas production by 40% by 2030.48

II. THE INDUSTRY’S INADEQUATE CLIMATE PLEDGES AND ACTIONS ARE INTENDED TO PROVIDE COVER

TO CONTINUE SELLING FOSSIL FUELS FOR DECADES TO COME

In 2021, natural gas contributed to 34% of U.S. energy-related emissions and 22% of emissions globally. 62 Documents obtained by the Committee show fossil fuel companies and lobbying groups seek to publicly position natural gas as a clean source of energy and part of the transition to renewables, even as the industry is privately planning for expanded natural gas production over the long term. In November 2017, a group of major oil companies, including Exxon, Shell, andBP, announced “Methane Guiding Principles.” The group acknowledged, “Since natural gas consists mainly of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, its part in the transition to a low-carbon future will be influenced by the extent to which the oil and gas industry reduces it methane emissions.” 63 Yet internal Shell documents suggest that the companies initially intended this document to serve as a defense of the long-term use of natural gas well beyond a mere “transition.”

In a September 29, 2017, email, Dick Francis, Manager of Regulatory Policy for Shell Exploration & Production Company, distributed the first draft of the Guiding Principles document to his Shell colleagues, writing: Also included in the document is an important preamble that clearly makes the case for natural gas and identifies the need to address methane emissions. Linking the natural gas preamble to the principles is an important element. Because supporting the principles will also signal acknowledgment of natural gas’s place in a low carbon future. Internal BP documents from 2017 and 2018 reveal that the company engaged a public relations firm—the Brunswick Group—to develop an advocacy campaign for gas and methane.64

A PowerPoint presentation prepared by Phil Drew, a Partner at the Brunswick Group, was presented to Robert Stout,BP’s Vice President & Head of Regulatory Affairs, and Mary Streett, BP’s Senior Vice President, U.S. Communications and External Affairs, describing the campaign that the Brunswick Group developed for BP. The overall goal of the campaign was to “Advance and protect the role of gas—and BP—in the future of energy conversation.”

62 Energy Information Administration, Where Greenhouse Gases Come From (online at www.eia.gov/energyexplained/energy-and-the-environment/where-greenhouse-gases-come-from.php) (accessed Nov. 9, 2022).

63 Climate and Clean Air Coalition, Reducing Methane Emissions Across the Natural Gas Value Chain – Guiding Principles (Nov. 2017) (online at www.ccacoalition.org/en/resources/reducing-methane-emissions-acrossnatural-gas-value-chain-guiding-principles). 64 BPA_HCOR_000246

---

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/05/guardian-investigation-fossil-fuel-oil-gas-industry-plans-exploration-climate-disaster/

no lnx gfs

...The money

When BPreported its quarterly earnings in a presentation to financial institutions in February, one analyst said he “really enjoyed the camaraderie and the positivity that you’re generating,” before asking about the company’s cash position.

“We’ve given you a lovely little chart,” said Murray Auchincloss, BP’s chief financial officer. “Certainly, it’s possible that we’re getting more cash than we know what to do with. For now, I’m going to be conservative and manage the company as if it’s $40 [a barrel] oil. Anything we could get above that just helps, obviously.” At the time, the oil price exceeded $90; today it is $106.

The oil industry is awash with cash. The money companies have belongs to shareholders, including pension funds, or in the case of national oil companies, to governments and, in theory at least, citizens. But the investment plans of the biggest oil companies are sharply at odds with the goal of halting the climate crisis.

Data obtained by the Guardian from the think tank Carbon Tracker shows a dozen of the world’s biggest companies are on track to commit a collective $387 million dollars a day of capital expenditure to exploiting oil and gas fields through to 2030.

A significant portion of this is for maintaining production at existing projects—some oil and gas will still be needed as the world weans itself off fossil fuels—but the exact amount is not publicly available. Nonetheless, it is clear that at least a quarter of this investment—$103 million a day—is for oil and gas that cannot be burned if the worst impacts of the climate crisis are to be avoided, money that could instead be spent ramping up clean energy.

Even more worryingly, the companies have developed further project options that might lead them to spend an additional $84m a day that would not even be compatible with a devastating 2.7C of global heating.

The world’s governments agreed in the Paris climate accord to limit global heating to well below 2C, and pursue efforts to limit the temperature rise to 1.5C. For the latter, stricter goal, no new oil and gas projects are possible.

The Carbon Tracker data, compiled in September, uses a temperature of 1.65C to represent the well below 2C target and finds that 27 percent of the companies’ projected investments are incompatible with this.

ExxonMobil has the largest of these climate-busting investment plans at $21 million a day through to 2030, followed by Petrobras ($15 million), Chevron and ConocoPhillips (both $12 million), and Shell ($8 million).

In terms of the most dangerous investments—those that could help drive temperatures beyond 2.7C—Gazpromaccounts for $17 million a day of this, ExxonMobil $12 million, Shell $11 million and PetroChina $9 million.

“Companies that continue to develop projects based on business-as-usual demand are betting on the failure of policy action on climate.”

If governments act on the scientific advice to rapidly reduce carbon emissions by boosting clean energy and cutting fossil fuel burning, the companies would have to write off these colossal sums as losses, hitting shareholders, pension funds and public finances. If governments do not act, the companies could cash in as the world burns.

Overall, the international oil companies are making the biggest bets, with almost 40 percent of their projected investments incompatible with 1.65C. ExxonMobil is particularly high, at 56 percent.The national oil company average is 17 percent,although 56 percent of Petrobras’s planned capital expenditure is incompatible with 1.65C.

“Companies that continue to develop projects based on business-as-usual demand are betting on the failure of policy action on climate and underestimating the disruptive potential of new technologies, such as renewables and battery storage,” said Mike Coffin at Carbon Tracker. “Such projects are either not needed or they lead to warming well in excess of Paris goals.”

A separate recent analysis based on Rystad Energy data fromApril, after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, found that 20 of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies remained on course to spend huge sums—$932 billion—by the end of 2030 developing new oil and gas fields.

Freeing the world from the grip of fossil fuels is made far harder by huge ongoing subsidies for the fuels, making them far cheaper than their true cost when the damage they cause is included—especially air pollution, which kills 7 million people a year. The G20 group of leading economies pledged in 2009 to phase out the subsidies but little has been achieved.

Hundreds of billions of dollars in direct financial supportis received by the producers and consumers of fossil fuels every year—but they benefit from far larger subsidies by not paying for the harm burning fossil fuels causes. When the damage from the climate crisis and air pollution is accounted for, the fossil fuel subsidies reach $6 trillion a year, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).The Guardian analysis shows this is equivalent to $11 million a minute globally, $4 million a minute in China and more than $1 million in the US.

The Guardian analysis of more detailed IMF data shows drivers in the US, Canada, and Australia, along with Saudi Arabia, are the world’s biggest beneficiaries of subsidies for road fuels, with some governments under pressure to increase these during the current energy crisis.

The per capita-subsidy for petrol and diesel across the population of Saudi Arabia was more than $1,000 a year in 2020. In the US, the road fuel subsidy per capita is $644 and about $500 in both Canada and Australia.

Japan and Germany also appear in the top 10 of the road fuel analysis, which focused on the 54 large countries with more than 25 million people and that account for 90 percent of global population and subsidies. The UK per capita subsidy for road fuels was only $10 a year, indicating taxes on petrol and diesel in 2020 were close to the level of the damage burning the fuels causes.

The US is also high on the list of the biggest per capita subsidies for all fossil fuels with $2,000 a year, behind only Saudi Arabia ($4,550) and Russia ($3,560). After these countries, only Iran ($1,815) is ahead of Australia ($1,730) and Canada ($1,690).

“Taking the Paris agreement seriously requires a rapid shift away from fossil fuels,” said Simon Black, a climate economist at the IMF. “Getting fossil fuel prices right will help enormously in accelerating this transition.”

The transition

The shift from burning oil and gas cannot happen overnight, and a declining amount will still need to be burned during the transition to a net zero emissions global economy in 2050. The question is whether companies and governments are moving fast enough.

The Guardian wrote to the oil and gas companies named in its analysis and asked for their response.

“Under the IEA net zero emissions scenario, and all Paris-aligned scenarios, all energy sources remain important through 2050, and oil and natural gas remain essential components of the energy mix,” said a spokesperson for ExxonMobil.

However, the role of oil and gas would be vastly reduced in 2050, and the IEA said: “Beyond projects already committed as of 2021, there are no new oil and gas fields approved for development [in our net zero scenario].”

ExxonMobilplanned to invest more than $15 billion on initiatives to lower greenhouse gas emissions over the next six years, the spokesperson said, including carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and biofuels. The company aimed to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 but only from its own operations, not the fuels it sold, therefore covering only a small fraction of the emissions from the oil and gas it sells.

A spokesperson for Shell cited recent company statements: “As a result of [our] planned level of capital investment, we expect a gradual decline of about 1-2 percent a year in total oil production through to 2030, including divestments.

“By 2025,Shellexpects its expenditure on [low and zero-carbon] products and services across its businesses will have increased to around 50 percent of its total expenditure,” a recent report by the firm states. In 2022, the proportion is expected to be more than 35 percent. In 2021, “Shell achieved its annual investment targets in renewables and energy solutions of $2bn-3bn,” the report says.

“Our goal is to support an orderly transition that matches supply to demand and focuses on [financial] returns.”

ConocoPhillips also cited a recently published net zero emissions plan:“Our goal is to support an orderly transition that matches supply to demand and focuses on returns on, and of, capital while safely and responsibly delivering affordable energy.”

The document states that profits from oil and gas projects are significantly higher than from investments in renewable energy.

ConocoPhillips has allocated $200 million in 2022 to reduce emissions from its operations. To reduce emissions from the burning of the fossil fuels it supplies, the company advocates an “economy-wide price on carbon that would help shift consumer demand from high-carbon to low-carbon energy sources”.

“Petrobras plans its investments considering that the Paris agreement will be successful and global temperature will be kept below 2°C,” a spokesperson for the company said. “Oil will remain important in the coming decades, even in accelerated transition scenarios.”

The spokesperson said the IEA’s scenario for 1.65C indicated some investment in upstream projects was needed. “We are planning for highly resilient assets competitive in scenarios aligned with Paris due to their low production cost and low emissions. Petrobras is following its strategy of maximizing the value of its portfolio, [with 99 percent of the investment on exploration] focusing on deepwater and ultra-deepwater assets.”

TotalEnergies pointed to its recent sustainability report, which it said “showed our stakeholders that we are already on the right track.” The company has a target of a 30 percent cut in emissions from oil and gas sales by 2030 and to increase the proportion of its energy sales that are renewable from 9 percent in 2021 to 20 percent in 2030.

Saudi Aramco and Eni responded to the Guardian but declined to comment. The other companies did not respond to the Guardian’s request....

---

BP quit WEA but hired

met w/ WEA

:{:{}:

---

Downey Magallanes, the former deputy chief of staff to former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, left the departmentin August 2018 to work for the oil giant BP. Vincent DeVito, an energy advisor to Zinke, similarly left to join an oil and gas firm working in the Gulf of Mexico.

---

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/coal-trump-monuments-review_us_5a3dbe56e4b06d1621b46552

WASHINGTON — This month, on the recommendation of his Interior secretary, President Donald Trump gutted a pair of protected national monuments in Utah, including coal-rich Grand Staircase-Escalante. The decision followed the controversial review of more than two dozen national monuments ― a process that public records reveal to have been overseen by the daughter ofFrederick Palmer, the former executive of coal giant Peabody Energy and a current senior fellow at the conservative Heartland Institute.

Downey Magallanes, Palmer’s daughter, is a 2012 graduate of theGeorgetown University Law Center who worked for seven years as a staffer for Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and now serves as Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s deputy chief of staff for policy. Magallanes was at Zinke’s side throughout his months-long monuments review.And her personal calendar shows she had several one-on-one meetings with Zinke to discuss the review in the days before Aug. 24, when Zinke submitted his draft report to the White House.

A version of that report was leaked to the media in September, and the Interior Department released the final version earlier this month. It calls on Trump to shrink or otherwise weaken protections for 10 monuments. On Dec. 4, Trump signed a pair of proclamations to reduce the size of the two Utah sites by a combined 2 million acres. The 1.87 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, the largest land monument in the country, was cut roughly in half. The boundary of Bears Ears National Monument, a 1.35 million-acre landscape named after a pair of buttes and home to thousands of Native American archeological and cultural sites, was shrunk by about 85 percent. ...

---

https://www.courthousenews.com/big-oil-must-face-california-city-and-county-lawsuits-over-climate-change/

cn seems legit

sAN FRANCISCO (CN) — The Ninth Circuit affirmed Tuesday that lawsuits seeking to hold the world’s largest energy companies financially liable for climate change and the rising sea levels that threaten California’s coastal communities should stay in state court, setting the stage for a legal offensive comparable to one that won multibillion-dollar awards against Big Tobacco.

The rulingcomes after a three-judge panel took a second look at a jurisdictional dispute between the energy companies and four municipalities after being ordered to do so by the U.S. Supreme Court.

San Mateo County, Marin County and the cities of Santa Cruz and Imperial Beach in San Diego County sued Chevron, BP and three dozen other oil, gas and coal companies in separate state courts in July 2017, claiming the fuel companies created a public nuisance by hiding for nearly 50 years that fossil fuel consumption was heating and damaging the earth.

After the cases were removed to federal court, the local governments fought to remand them to state court, arguing state law claims of public nuisance should be decided by California’s judicial system.

The energy giants objected, insisting the claims are governed by federal law because they implicate “uniquely federal interests,” including matters of interstate and international commerce and environmental policy.

In March 2018, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria remanded the cases to their respective state courts.

A unanimous three-judge Ninth Circuit panel upheld Chhabria’s ruling two years later, finding the federal court lacks jurisdiction to consider state law claims. Writing for the majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, a George W. Bush appointee, rejected the oil companies’ argument that because they provided fuel to the U.S. government through service contracts, they were “acting under” a federal officer’s directions.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted the energy companies’ petition for certiorari and sent the cases back to the Ninth Circuit to reconsider its ruling in light of the high court’s 2021 decision in BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, where it held that a federal appeals court can review a federal judge’s entire remand order. In that case, the city of Baltimore sued 26 oil companies for creating the greenhouse gases responsible for rising sea levels.

But Ikuta and her fellow panelists, U.S. Circuit Judges Morgan Christen and Kenneth Lee, declined to change their minds, sticking to the long-standing principle that federal courts should narrowly limit their reach to protect the jurisdiction of state courts.

“Our adherence to this doctrine does not change merely because plaintiffs raise novel and sweeping causes of action,” she wrote. “We therefore reject the broad interpretations of removal jurisdiction urged on us by the energy companies and affirm the district court’s remand order.”

The panel also rejected the argument that the energy companies’ conduct occurred on federal land and must be governed by federal law. The judges found that while some of the companies operated on federal land, such as the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve run by Chevron predecessor Standard Oil, the companies fail to account for how much of their conduct took place on federal enclaves. “The connection between conduct on federal enclaves and the counties’ alleged injuries is too attenuated and remote to establish that the counties’ cause of action is governed by the federal law applicable to any federal enclave,” Ikuta wrote.

The companies had also argued that the cases should stay in federal court because a portion of their fossil-fuel extraction took place on the Outer Continental Shelf, which falls under federal jurisdiction. “We reject this argument, because the connection between such conduct and the injuries alleged by the plaintiffs here is too attenuated to give rise to jurisdiction,” Ikuta wrote, reasoning that the counties’ lawsuit claim only local injuries, and focus on the companies’ “concerted campaign” to hide the harmful effects of fossil fuels from the public. “These allegations do not refer to actions taken on the Outer Continental Shelf,” she wrote.

The cities and counties praised the opinion as “clear and reasoned” in a statement.

“We appreciate the panel’s thorough review of this matter and are eager to return to the state courts where we filed our cases more than four years ago,” the plaintiffs said an email sent through the law firm Sher Edling LLP. “It is time to go to trial to hold these defendants accountable for deceiving consumers about the dangers associated with the use of their products, and to protect our taxpayers from having to bear the enormous costs resulting from that deception.”

The same Ninth Circuit panel found U.S. District Judge William Alsup lacked jurisdiction when he dismissed similar lawsuits brought by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland. The judges remanded the cases to Alsup so he can reconsider if alternative grounds justify keeping the two lawsuits in federal court, though their ruling Tuesday means those cases will likely end up in state court as well.

In an email, BP head of corporate communications Megan Baldino said the company could not speak about pending litigation. Chevron spokesman Braden Reddallsaid in an email that the company “respectfully disagrees” with the panel’s decision.

“Plaintiffs’ claims are based on allegations about worldwide carbon emissions and address global climate change — national and international issues that can be governed only by federal, not state, law. The court acknowledges that cases such as this one “raise novel and sweeping causes of action,'” Reddall said, noting that like Alsup, the Second Circuit had dismissed nearly identical claims as “sprawling” and overly ambitious. “Although the court has decided that plaintiffs’ claims for now can proceed past this preliminary stage, Chevron looks forward to additional challenges that should put an early end to this meritless lawsuit.”

---

bp DEFECTS FROM WSPA Feb. 26, 2020

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/bp-pulls-out-of-regional-oil-trade-organization-over-differences-on-carbon-pricing-fuel-standard/

NO LNX

Evan Bush and Hal Bernton

Seattle Times staff reporters

Fossil fuel giant BP announced it was leaving the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), a powerful oil and gas lobbying group in statehouses, over the association’s position on carbon pricing and its opposition to a low-carbon fuel standard being considered now in Olympia.

The oil company said in a news release that its policies no longer aligned with WSPA and that the differences could not be reconciled.

Environmentalists hope BP’s departure will weaken the influence of WSPA in Washington state, where it has opposed the clean fuel standard and other climate policies. In 2018, BP spent nearly $13 million and was the top contributor to WSPA’s “No On 1631,” a campaign in opposition to a statewide carbon-pricing initiative. After record spending, the measure failed at the ballot box.

BP’s decision to leave the organization also pushes it further down a path toward advocating more aggressive climate change policies, rather than serving as a legislative roadblock as it has in the past.

“It certainly welcomes them at the table, and the devil, though, is in the details,” said Clifford Traisman, a lobbyist in Olympia for Washington Conservation Voters and the Washington Environmental Council, two major environmental lobbying groups. “We have to see their position on the various bills as they move through. But, it’s welcome news.“

WSPA President Catherine Reheis-Boyd said the organizations’ members will continue to work with BP and other stakeholders “in a civil public discourse around creating a sustainable energy future.” WSPA represents the oil and gas industry in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

Added Reheis-Boyd: “Our members know the way the world produces, distributes and consumes energy is evolving, and our industry will remain leaders in investing in and developing the diverse energy sources and technologies we need for the future. Working together as an industry, we will rise to the challenge of a changing climate.”

BP reviewed its association with 30 trade groups, publishing its assessment in detailed report. The company plans to leave two other groups, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and the Western Energy Alliance.

BP’s decision to leave WSPA stems from two policy disagreements in Washington state, according to the report.

:{:{}:

WSPA has not supported Senate Bill 5981, which would place an overall cap on state carbon emissions that lowers over time. Pollution allowances in the bill would raise funds to invest in energy efficiency, low-income assistance and other projects.

:{:{}:

BP last month launched a two-week print, radio and social media campaign in support of the bill, which remains unlikely to pass this Legislative session.

In its report, BP said it also disagreed with WSPA’s focus on preventing a statewide low carbon fuel standard, a legislative measure that is a top priority of Gov. Jay Inslee. BP has taken a neutral stance on the bill, which would require suppliers to reduce the carbon intensity of their fuels over time.

The low carbon fuel standard bill, House Bill 1110, passed in the House last month and now resides in the Senate Transportation Committee, where its fate could be decided.

The chair of that committee, Sen. Steve Hobbs, a Lake Stevens Democrat, has been critical of the policy in the past, saying he’s concerned it could stress the state’s transportation budget and that he views carbon pricing as a more effective policy to reduce greenhouse gases.

BP on Tuesday gave its support to another Inslee legislative priority. Chairman and President of BP America Susan Dio, sent a letter to the governor in support of a bill that would expand the state ecology department’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases.

The bill would refashion Inslee’s 2016 Clean Air Rule, which was partially invalidated by the Washington Supreme Court. The bill would require the state Ecology Department to adopt a rule to reduce greenhouse gases, including those from indirect emitters, beginning no earlier than summer 2021.

“We hope BP’s support of this legislation is helpful, and we commit to working with all parties in Olympia to bring a well-designed carbon pricing policy over the finish line,” Dio wrote.

To Traisman, the environmental lobbyist, BP’s recent actions represented a recognizable shift.

“The fact that they not only pulled out of WSPA, but endorsed one of the governor’s highest priority bills is certainly significant,” Traisman said.

Correction: An earlier version of this story mischaracterized WSPA’s position on Senate Bill 5981.

Evan Bush: 206-464-2253 or ebush@seattletimes.com; on Twitter: @EvanBush.

Hal Bernton: 206-464-2581 or hbernton@seattletimes.com; on Twitter: @hbernton.

---

SOME LNX

The oil company said in a news release that its policies no longer aligned with WSPA and that the differences could not be reconciled.

The low carbon fuel standard bill, House Bill 1110, passed in the House last month and now resides in the Senate Transportation Committee, where its fate could be decided.

...

Added Reheis-Boyd: “Our members know the way the world produces, distributes and consumes energy is evolving, and our industry will remain leaders in investing in and developing the diverse energy sources and technologies we need for the future. Working together as an industry, we will rise to the challenge of a changing climate.”

BP’s decision to leave WSPA stems from two policy disagreements in Washington state, according to the report.

BP last month launched a two-week print, radio and social media campaign in support of the bill, which remains unlikely to pass this Legislative session.

,,,

---

REF

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/new-bp-ad-campaign-calls-on-washington-legislature-to-put-a-price-on-carbon-pollution-from-fossil-fuels/

Newsletters Log In Subscribe

Local Politics

CORONAVIRUS LOCAL BIZ SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT LIFE HOMES OPINION | JOBS SHOP EXPLORE

Jim Brunner Olympia Seattle Election 2021 Danny Westneat

All Sections

Skip Ad

BusinessEnvironmentLocal NewsLocal PoliticsNorthwest

Energy politics: Why oil giant BP wants Washington lawmakers to put a price on carbon pollution

Jan. 19, 2020 at 6:00 am Updated Jan. 21, 2020 at 8:53 am

Energy giant BP backs a state Senate measure to place an overall cap on carbon emissions. BP facilities include the state’s largest oil refinery at Cherry Point in Blaine. (Thomas James Hurst / The Seattle Times)

Energy giant BP backs a state Senate measure to place an overall cap on carbon emissions. BP facilities include the state’s largest oil refinery... (Thomas James Hurst / The Seattle Times)More

Skip Ad

By Hal Bernton and Evan Bush

Seattle Times staff reporters

Declaring that the “findings of climate scientists are real, and the world is on an unsustainable path,” energy giant BP is launching a public relations campaign this weekend to promote putting a price on carbon pollution in Washington state.

This latest chapter in BP’s political activism comes less than two years after the company spent nearly $13 million to defeat Washington Initiative 1631, a carbon-pricing ballot measure the company criticized because it included oil refiners, but exempted many other polluters.

BP sent a statement Tuesday to legislators calling for passage of Senate Bill 5981, which would place an overall cap on state carbon emissions. This would be lowered over time and — through the sale of pollution allowances — raise funds to invest in energy efficiency, low-income assistance and other projects.

BP’s two-week advertising campaign, which kicks off Sunday, includes buys in print, radio and social media. The company would not disclose how much money was being spent.

“Together we can help Washington meet its carbon reduction goals,” declares an initial print advertisement touting the merits of SB 5981.

BP’s decision to publicly campaign this year for carbon pricing represents a significant change in the corporation’s strategy in Washington, which has emerged — through legislative efforts and two ballot initiatives — as a kind of political testing ground for U.S. climate policy.

Even with BP’s support, the carbon pricing bill, introduced by state Sen. Reuven Carlyle, D-Seattle, chair of the Senate Environment, Energy and Technology Committee, appears a long shot for passage in the 60-day session.

Gov. Jay Inslee and many of his Democratic allies were enthusiastic supporters of the 2018 ballot initiative that BP opposed. But, chastened by voters’ rejection of that measure, they have put a pause on trying to move carbon pricing through the Legislature.

Instead, last year and again this year, they have focused on other approaches to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, including a bill to create a low-carbon fuel standard that would clamp down — over time — on the greenhouse-gas emissions emitted from transportation in Washington.

“In order to make progress, we needed to find alternative pathways,” said Chris Davis, a climate-policy adviser for Inslee, who said the governor still considers carbon pricing a “critical tool in responding to climate change.”

In a 5-4 ruling, the Washington State Supreme Court last week invalidated a key portion of a state Department of Ecology 2016 rule that capped greenhouse-gas emissions by fuel distributors, natural-gas companies and other industries. The ruling affirmed that the state has a limited authority — even without new legislation — to use regulatory powers to cap and reduce a portion of the state’s greenhouse-gas pollution.

Still, it is uncertain whether Inslee will try to refashion the rule.

ADVERTISING

Skip Ad

Environmentalists want to keep the focus on the low-carbon fuel bill pushed by Inslee. They worry that Carlyle’s carbon-pricing bill will divert attention.

But Carlyle says the two bills are complementary, and hopes both can make it through the Legislature. In the meantime, he says he is “deeply aligned” with the governor’s agenda to put a priority on the low-carbon fuel.

But another key player, state Sen. Steve Hobbs, D-Lake Stevens, who chairs the state Transportation Committee, favors the carbon-pricing bill over the low-carbon fuel bill, which he fears will reduce fuel-tax revenues. Last year, he opposed the low-carbon fuel bill, and in a Thursday hearing, criticized it again.

Broader national model

BP officials say their engagement in state-level climate policy reflects both their investment here, which includes the state’s largest oil refinery at Cherry Point, and the potential for laws passed here to serve as a broader national model.

“We’ve looked at Washington state, and we think it’s a unique opportunity to pass legislation that could significantly reduce carbon emissions, which is why we’re going down this path,” said Phil Cochrane, BP’s senior director for state and local affairs.

BP, in the statement sent to legislators, also announced support for a House bill that would create much more ambitious targets for cutting Washington greenhouse-gas pollution. By 2050, the bill would require any state carbon emissions from fossil fuels to be balanced by offsets that remove carbon. If the House bill passes, this target would be used to determine the scale of emission reductions required in Carlyle’s Senate bill backed by BP.

ADVERTISING

Skip Ad

BP has made another legislative move, changing its corporate stance on the low-carbon fuel legislation sought by Inslee and his environmental allies.

For years, low-carbon fuel standards have been bitterly opposed by oil companies, including the Western States Petroleum Association, an industry trade association.

This session, BP broke ranks, shifting its stance from actively fighting the bill to a neutral position.

Trump Administration Offers 77 Million Acres in Gulf of Mexico to Oil Industry...[also trying 220?]

https://www.desmog.co.uk/2020/02/14/new-bp-ceo-ends-greenwashing-ad-campaign

BP’s new CEO Bernard Looney made a big announcement this week, saying he wants to “reinvent” the company and ensure it has “net-zero” carbon emissions by 2050.

But alongside such headline-grabbing statements about the company’s future was a little-noticed change with more immediate impact – that the company will cease its “Possibilities Everywhere” advertising campaign.

And not only that, it will also revise its relationship with lobbying groups that it believes are not taking the climate crisis sufficiently seriously.

Advertising campaign

The “Possibilities Everywhere” campaign was the company’s biggest global campaign in a decade, and was the source of many complaints and accusations of greenwashing.

The adverts included videos and billboards, and rolled out online, in newspapers and on social media. Focused on the company’s renewable and low-carbon energy, the adverts highlighted its solar and wind energy projects, despite 96 percent of BP’s annual spending going on fossil fuels[vid]

environment lawyers ClientEarth took action against the oil company over the campaign in December 2019, reporting the company under OECD guidelines governing corporate conduct, as well as demanding BP pull its adverts. Client Earth alleged that the company “was giving the public a misleading impression that it was focused on clean energy investments”.

The lawyers also set up a petition calling for fossil fuel company adverts to display climate change warnings, in the same way tobacco products are required to carry health warnings. A statement on Client Earth’s website argues that “fossil fuel companies should not be able to buy a good reputation for their climate-damaging products through advertising.”

Looney's announcement that BP would cease the “Possibilities Everywhere” campaign and not replace it was welcomed by ClientEarth.

Climate Accountability Lead for Client Earth Sophie Marjanac said: “With today’s announcement, BP appears to have accepted that its approach to advertising was not in line with its stated ambition of helping the world get to net zero and that it was primarily aimed at improving the company’s reputation.”

The announcement to stop the campaign was generally seen by campaigners as a positive move from BP, which has spent millions improving its image, from huge global campaigns to sponsoring local science workshops in schools in order to secure a social licence to operate in small towns.

However, Marjanac said that more needs to be done, and other big oil and gas companies such as Shell, Chevron, Total and Exxon must now follow suit.

Lobbying

Looney also took the opportunity in his speech to announce that he will “lay down the law” on what is and isn't acceptable in BP’s lobbying.

He said the issue of lobbying is something he is “very, very focused on”, and that BP must not be seen to be saying one thing and doing another.

BP is a member of many lobby groups, most notably the American Petroleum Institute, which according to thinktank InfluenceMap, the company has a strong relationship with. BP is also a member of American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufactures, a lobby group that Shell announced it would be leaving this year due to disagreement over climate policies.

BP’s announcement has raised a few eyebrows among those familiar with the companies’ tactics.

Belén Balanyá, a climate and energy researcher at campaign group Corporate Europe Observatory told DeSmog that she is sceptical about BP’s announcement, as this is not the first time the company has rebranded. Originally called British Petroleum, it took the name BP in 2000 and introduced the tagline “Beyond Petroleum” in an attempt to emphasise an apparent transition away from oil and gas.

Balanyá tells DeSmog that “until now what their track record shows is that they have kept lobbying to preserve their core business, fossil fuels. They are actually following suit in what other oil and gas companies are doing.” She points to Madrid-based oil and gas company Repsol, which recently announced it would be a net zero emissions company by 2050.

For fossil fuel companies such as BP, “net-zero” is just a buzzword that they are exploiting, she says: “For oil and gas companies, net-zero means keeping burning fossil fuels while increasing a wide range of 'false solutions' which are at best dangerous distractions and very often plain harmful for the climate: offsets, carbon markets, carbon capture and storage, gas, forest plantations etc.”

“This is also the tune that major lobby groups are singing now, which will allow BP and others to keep membership of many lobby groups which are actively lobbying to delay, weaken or block effective climate and energy policies while saying they are aiming for climate neutrality, low carbon economy or net-zero emissions.”

220

https://www.desmog.co.uk/2020/02/09/activists-occupy-british-museum-calling-end-fossil-fuel-BP-sponsorship

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/05122019/lawyers-challenge-bp-over-greenwashing-advertising-campaign

Environmental lawyers have made their boldest move to date against "greenwashing" in advertising campaigns by oil and gas companies.

ClientEarth, a non-profit legal group, submitted an official complaint under international guidelines on Tuesday arguing that the oil giant BP is misleading consumers about its low-carbon credentials in recent advertisements—the company's first global campaign in 10 years.

The ads, which emphasize BP's role in the transition to cleaner energy, create a "potentially misleading impression" that distracts the public from their core business of hydrocarbons, ClientEarth said.

"BP is spending millions on an advertising campaign to give the impression that it's racing to renewables, that its gas is cleaner and that it is part of the climate solution," said Sophie Marjanac, a lawyer at ClientEarth. "This is a smokescreen."

The complaint, submitted to the British authority that handles alleged breaches of rules on corporate conduct set by the OECD, the organization of leading world economies, focuses on the oil major's "Keep Advancing" and "Possibilities Everywhere" advertising campaigns shown digitally and across billboards, newspapers and television in the UK, the United States and Europe.

If successful, the OECD could call upon BP to take down its ads or to issue a corrective statement.

Duncan Blake, director of brand at BP, told the Financial Times this year that the company sought to focus not just on the "new, interesting shiny stuff but the core business that keeps the world moving day to day."

BP's Message: More Energy, Lower Emissions

Critics have said the majority of the ads give the impression that BP is seeking to burnish its green credentials without any meaningful change to how it conducts its operations.

The energy major has invested in solar power, wind farms and biofuels and used its venture capital arm to plough cash into low-carbon technologies. But its traditional businesses still generate the biggest returns and attract the most spending.

"While BP's advertising focuses on clean energy, in reality more than96 percent of the company's annual capital expenditure is on oil and gas," Marjanac said.

BP in recent years has focused its messaging on the "dual challenge" of providing the world with more energy while reducing emissions.

The company said that it "strongly rejects" the suggestion that its advertising is misleading and that "one of the purposes of this advertising campaign is to let people know about some of the possibilities" to advance a low-carbon future.

Other Oil Majors' Claims Also Challenged

It will be up to Bernard Looney, who is set to take over from Bob Dudley as chief executive of BP in early 2020, to spell out what this means for corporate strategy.

Other oil majors have also been challenged over misleading advertising. In September, the UK Advertising Standards Authority told Equinor, the Norwegian energy company, not to imply that gas is a "low-carbon energy" source.

To address "greenwashing" more broadly, ClientEarth said it was launching a campaign calling on the next UK government to require tobacco-style labels warning that fossil fuels contribute to climate change on all advertising by oil companies.

---

https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/12/04/bp-legal-challenge-client-earth-health-warning

---

tobacco playbook

1219 desmog

member of campaign group Art Not Oil

It’s crunch time for the climate. But as delegates gather in Madrid for the latest round of UN Climate Talks, there’s still a major obstacle that needs to be tackled: the greenwash and spin of the fossil fuel industry.

Oil and gas giants such as BP, Shell and Exxon have known about the role fossil fuels play in driving global temperature rise for decades. But, instead of taking the action we urgently need and shifting their business away from fossil fuels, they have spent millions mounting misleading PR campaigns to just give the impression that they are. And even now, many of these fossil fuel firms plan to ramp up production. BP alone plans to boost its production of fossil fuels by 20 percent over the next 10 years.

---

https://weather.com/en-CA/canada/science/news/2017-12-20-epa-scott-pruitt-lean-superfund-sites

Superfund Cleanup Process Raises Questions

By Marcus Stern

December 20, 2017

TWC Canada

The Environmental Protection Agency is hoping a business management system can help accelerate cleanup at toxic waste sites across America, but some agency insiders are worried it might also help polluting companies avoid a full cleanup.

Last summer, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt hired government efficiency expert Henry Darwin to instill across the agency a management philosophy called “lean,” pioneered by Toyota to minimize waste on the factory floor.

Arizona Republican Gov. Doug Ducey credits Darwin’s “lean” with transforming his state government by getting it to think of itself as a company focused on its customer.

A training video for Arizona government workers makes clear just who that customer is, and it could raise some eyebrows.

“Let’s say, for example, your job is to write environmental permits,” explains the video’s narrator. “So your widget is a written permit. Who’s your customer? If you think it’s the general public because they benefit from clean air or water you’d be wrong. Who actually needs and uses the permit? It’s the industrial facility that can’t legally operate its business until the permit has been approved.”

Taxpayers might expect agencies such as the EPA to unreservedly safeguard the environment and public health. Nicole Darnall, a professor at Arizona State University’s School of Public Affairs, believes the general public is shortchanged when state or federal agencies view themselves as businesses and the industries they regulate as their customers.

“Government’s mission is bigger than delivering a product at the lowest possible price,” she said. “Investors benefit when more products are sold. However, taxpayers do not always benefit when more environmental permits are issued. Some may, but others may not, especially those with autoimmune or respiratory sensitivities.”

The shift in emphasis toward industry concerns has already surfaced at an open-pit sulphur mine in California called Leviathan. The EPA’s remediation project manager there left the agency last summer after she was told that “lean” principles were going to be instilled at the site, requiring her to curb her demands for more access to data about the extent of the pollution, she said.

“I just felt sick to my stomach,” said the former remediation scientist, Lynda Deschambault, who eventually became one of hundreds of EPA employees accepting early retirement packages this year.

BP, the parent of the company responsible for the cleanup, acknowledged that it had proposed “leaning” Leviathan to the EPA in hopes of accelerating progress there.

It is unclear how extensively or quickly “lean” will be implemented at some 1,300 sites that are part of a cleanup program known informally as Superfund. They were placed in the program because they pose a threat to public health and nature. An EPA official in Region 8, which includes the Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, said, “We anticipate that this will be rolled down to us next year with some expectations to use 'lean' within the EPA Region 8 Superfund program.” Officials at other regions did not respond to questions about whether there are plans to use “lean” at any of their sites.

The EPA public affairs office repeatedly declined to answer questions for this story. Nor would it provide information or allow interviews of agency employees. Agency officials were approached privately; some agreed to talk on the condition their identities not be disclosed because they do not have permission to speak publicly.

“The No. 1 thing we’re all watching out for is ‘lean’ just a means for them to short circuit health protection,” one employee said.

Darwin didn’t respond to numerous attempts to reach him by email and phone. Under Darwin’s approach, however, the public is viewed as an investor who expects a return on investment in the form of positive outcomes.

Jumpstarting Superfund Cleanups

During the campaign, President Trump vowed to “get rid of” the EPA in almost every form. By selecting Pruitt as its administrator, Trump put the EPA into the hands of a bitter critic who has sued the agency more than a dozen times. Pruitt’s sympathies for the industries the EPA regulates has highlighted a tension inherent in many government activities: how to keep the public safe without unduly disrupting industry.

Pruitt prefers a softer approach to enforcement than former President Obama. Pruitt prefers to guide violators back into compliance rather than hammering them with investigations and fines. He also is considering shifting some of the agency’s enforcement responsibilities to the states, where thin regulator ranks are already overburdened.

Pruitt has also vowed to jumpstart cleanup at many of the more than 1,300 Superfund sites, which include some of the nation’s most toxic landfills, mines and chemical plants posing an immediate threat to public health and the environment. Cleanup at many has been delayed for decades by sharp disagreements over how clean is clean, litigious arguments that pit the bottom line of corporations against the health and well-being of communities.

The promise of an end to decades-long delays might cause many to cheer, environmentalists included. However, Pruitt’s approach – “lean” management practices designed to streamline the drag on businesses and playing a more direct role himself in settling long-running disputes – may give them pause.

A shift in emphasis toward industry concerns has already surfaced at Leviathan Mine, a Superfund sulphur mine nestled in the bucolic eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada mountain range about 20 miles south of Lake Tahoe.

(Wikimedia Commons)

At a Glance

EPA insiders are concerned that the streamlining process called "lean" is a cover for polluting companies.
The customer in this process isn’t who you might think.

For one thing, money won’t be a factor in how Pruitt reinvigorates Superfund. The Trump administration wants to cut the program’s budget by almost a quarter next year from $1 billion to $762 million.

All of this is occurring against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s call for the EPA’s overall budget to be slashed by 30 percent. The EPA recently announced it would not require mining companies to demonstrate they can pay for the cleanup before digging. And in October, Pruitt vowed to repeal a rule limiting greenhouse-gas emissions from existing power plants, assuring Kentucky coal miners, “The war against coal is over.”

These actions have stoked mistrust among stalwarts of environmental protection who believe the EPA is abandoning science in its rush to downsize and deregulate the agency.

“You don’t have EPA anymore,” said Rena Steinzor, a University of Maryland law professor who helped reauthorize Superfund as an aide to a New Jersey congressman in 1986. “You have an occupied country, like Poland and France in World War II.”

But the EPA’s new focus on efficiency and streamlining – everything from permits to Superfund sites – has given hope to the industries the EPA regulates.

Jeffrey A. Bolin has been with Michigan-based Dragun Corporation for 28 of its 29 years. The company was founded in 1988 by the-late James Dragun (rhymes with ray gun) after he left his job as a soil chemist with the EPA “because he thought it was shifting from science to being more of a political arm,” according to Bolin.

“Dr. Dragun pushed us that the data and the science drive the decisions and outcomes,” Bolin said. “We’ve been a company that gets in and gets out and lets companies get on with their business. Our clients are the regulated community.”

The EPA’s primary customer is the public, he said, but that industry also is a customer and its needs should be considered, too. “Thus, approval by the EPA is protective of ‘the public’ and serves the ‘other customer’ as well,” he wrote in a follow-up email.

A 2012 report by the consulting firm McKinsey & Company said “lean” techniques can help government agencies eliminate “unnecessary touch points and wait times,” improve coordination and standardize work “to reduce variations in processes and performance.”

Bolin is heartened by Pruitt’s vow to break the impasse at Superfund sites.

“My understanding is that Scott Pruitt will have direct involvement with those sites,” said Bolin.

Under the current system, he added, actual cleanup is delayed until there is a final plan in place, which in many cases takes decades because of litigation, the lengthy regulatory process and the EPA’s tendency to get bogged down in minutiae. The EPA is very “process-obsessed,” he added.

Pruitt’s “direct engagement” can resolve these conflicts, Bolin believes.

“That should be a good thing in the big picture of cleaning up the environment and taking care of the most important exposure to human health and the environment,” he said.

It could also mean picking winners and losers in fierce battles over how far contamination extends from a toxic-waste site; frequency, type and duration of monitoring; and how clean a site ultimately must be before it’s deemed to be clean enough.

“If you get a senior person involved from the agency, you get a compromise and more common-sense thinking to get resolutions,” said Matthew Schroeder, a senior environmental engineer at Dragun. “Having Pruitt involved in the decision-making would bring that to some of these sites on the priority list.”

Earlier this month, Pruitt released a list of 21 toxic waste sites in need of “immediate and intense action.” (The Leviathan Mine in California was not among them.) In announcing the list, the EPA said, “The administrator decided his engagement on these specific sites can facilitate substantial progress in the near-term and move the site closer to completion of cleanup.”

Earlier this year, he created a Superfund task force to streamline the cleanup process.

"I have charged the Superfund Task Force staff to immediately and intently develop plans for each of these sites to ensure they are thoughtfully addressed with urgency," Pruitt said in a statement.

After releasing a34-page report with recommendations in July, the task force was turned over to Henry Darwin’s wife, Veronica Garcia, whom Pruitt also hired. Since then, she has been schooling the task force in principles of “lean” management, according to sources within the agency.

'Lean' at Leviathan

One of those Superfund sites is the Leviathan Mine, a 250-acre, open-pit sulfur mine nestled in the bucolic eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada mountain range about 20 miles south of Lake Tahoe. Mining activities there date to 1863 but ceased in the early 1960s after sulfuric acid oozing from the pit caused substantial ecological damage downstream to tribal and federal lands in Nevada, including recurring fish kills.

In 1977, Atlantic Richfield Company bought the mine. It’s since been turned over to the state of California. But because of ARCO’s prior ownership, it is liable for the cleanup costs of Leviathan. In 2000,BPbought ARCO, acquiring the responsibility for Leviathan as part of the deal. That same year, the EPA made Leviathan a Superfund site, partly at the behest of the Washoe tribe, whose lands in Nevada were contaminated by acid runoff from the mine.

For the past 17 years, Atlantic Richfield – under BP’s management– has been underwriting much of the cleanup effort at Leviathan. Water treatment systems have been installed, reducing much of the acid runoff. But the systems can’t operate during winter because Leviathan is at an elevation of 7,200 feet and subject to the cold and snow. Heavy rain events and snow melts can overwhelm the systems, resulting in sulfuric acid runoff.

Meanwhile, EPA, the tribe and Atlantic Richfield have been haggling over a long-term plan to manage the pollution generated by the site. After 17 years, they are still two years away from coming up with a permanent plan.

A key issue in the final cleanup plan is how far the contamination extends downstream from the mine. The farther it extends, the costlier the ultimate cleanup will be for Atlantic Richfield.

In 2014, the EPA assigned Lynda Deschambault, a chemist with a strong commitment to environmental protection, to be the remediation site manager at Leviathan. Science and a love of nature have guided her work, she said, citing the Great Law of the Iroquois Confederacy, “In our every deliberation we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generation.”

When she took over the site, she was a 17-year veteran of the EPA. Before that, she had spent 17 years as a chemist and lab director in the environmental laboratory industry.

As part of her duties, she organized meetings with stakeholders, such as the Washoe tribe, and pressed ARCO to share environmental data it was gathering to ensure testing was being done in places of concern to the tribe and other local stakeholders.

This past June, Deschambault went on vacation. When she returned she found her professional world turned upside down, she said, explaining that her supervisor at EPA’s southwestern regional offices told her ARCO had asked the EPA to “lean” cleanup activities at Leviathan.

As part of the “lean” process, her supervisor wanted her to curtail her efforts to get Atlantic Richfield to do additional testing, she said. The supervisor urged her to stop scheduling meetings and requesting information from ARCO workers, she added, and quizzed about her willingness to be more conciliatory toward Atlantic Richfield with an eye toward reaching a quicker final remediation plan.

Fueled by her commitment to science and the land, Deschambault pushed back.

“After a little research, I said, ‘Whoa, this is not appropriate for the scientific risk part that we’re in the middle of. How about if we do that during the remedial design?’ And they were, like, ‘No, we have to do this now.’”

Deschambault argued that Atlantic Richfield needed to collect more data and provide quicker access to the data. To her, that’s the part of the process that needed to be “leaned” – getting the data necessary for a decision and making it available for scrutiny as quickly as possible.

She believed Atlantic Richfield wasn’t testing some areas to keep costs down. She also felt Atlantic Richfield was slow-walking requests to share data.

Now, she felt like her bosses were telling her to roll over for Atlantic Richfield in the name of “lean” management principles.

“I told them I don’t think it’s appropriate to try to cut corners on the scientific assessment part,” she recalled. “And they said, ‘It’s already been decided. And we’re going to bring in another (remediation site manager) with some “lean” experience and have a meeting with you and she’s going to take over.’”

Details of these conversations could not be corroborated. Public affairs officers at the agency’s regional headquarters in San Francisco declined to discuss the matter and officials involved in the conversations did not respond to attempts to reach them.

Instead of rolling over, Deschambault said, she became one of some 400 EPA employees who accepted an early retirement package offered to more than 1,228 senior career agency employees in an effort to slash the agency's workforce. She was replaced, she said, by someone who had worked for 19 years at an environmental engineering consulting firm whose clients included mining companies. That official didn’t respond to inquiries.

BP, in an email reply, said, “We are confident that applying LEAN strategies at Leviathan would accelerate progress on the site and would provide important learnings that could be applied to other sites around the country. Atlantic Richfield is eager to work with the EPA to demonstrate the benefits of a LEAN approach to reach a final remedy that is protective of human health and the environment.”

In early November, Dana Barton, EPA’s regional supervisor for the Leviathan site, traveled from her offices in San Francisco to Gardnerville, Nevada, to meet with representatives of the tribe in its council chambers to explain the “lean” process.

According to several people who participated in the meeting, Barton portrayed the “lean” initiative at Leviathan as arising from an earlier meeting in Washington between Pruitt and representatives of BP. The company wanted to “lean” the site in an effort to facilitate final remedies and Pruitt had agreed, Barton was quoted as saying. Barton didn’t respond to inquiries.

“They weren’t ramming it down our throats,” said one of the local stakeholders. “I was getting ready for that to happen but it didn’t sound like that.” He questioned whether the southwestern regional officials themselves really believed in the approach, saying it sounded like they were being forced to adopt it by officials in Washington.

Nonetheless, he added, he told them “lean” is “a waste of time when we don’t have time to waste.”

In an emailed statement, BP wrote of its subsidiary, “Atlantic Richfield did not discuss the LEAN concept with Administrator Pruitt,” adding instead that “it was initially proposed for Leviathan during a discussion with Region 9” EPA officials, a reference to the southwestern region. BP stressed that ARCO isn’t trying to “avoid or minimize any of the substantive requirements” of the Superfund law.

“The LEAN approach does not result in an outcome that is less protective,” BP said in the statement. “LEAN is about improving process, not changing outcomes. The purpose of LEAN is to streamline activities that are unnecessarily complex or cumbersome in order to reach a beneficial outcome more effectively and efficiently.”

Apparently, that’s not a problem at BP. The company doesn’t use “lean” in its own operations, the company acknowledged in its statement.

Marcus Stern is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who has reported for Copley News Service, ProPublica and The Weather Channel, among other news organizations. He can be reached at marcus.stern@comcast.net.

---

hmmn, handoff to bad co?

great

BP’s exit from Alaska is apparently just the first step in a remarkable corporate strategy shift.

CEO Bob Dudley announced this week that the oil major “plans to sell some oil projects and curb the development of others,” reports Bloomberg,“to align its business with the Paris accord.”

It’s “the latest sign climate concerns are starting to impact the investment decisions of the world’s largest fossil fuel producers.”

no grafs

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/10092019/big-oil-money-blocked-jay-inslee-climate-change-policy-carbon-fee-bp-washington

story was co-published with The Weather Channel as part of [Collateral, a series on climate, data and science.

It was Valentine's Day 2018, and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee was about to be jilted.

Few outside Inslee's circle of advisers knew that one of the nation's most ardent advocates of climate action had been working for weeks to forge an alliance with one of the state's leading greenhouse gas polluters—the oil giant BP.

Now, on the day before a key hearing for Inslee's proposal to enact the nation's first carbon tax, the kind of comprehensive climate plan he had been talking about since taking office, BP was evasive.

"Will you be testifying tomorrow on behalf of BP?" Chris Davis, Inslee's senior climate advisor, wrotein an email to the company's Washington state lobbyist Denny Eliason. "Very needed right now."

Eliason put him off, indicating he'd know more after an upcoming call. But the next morning, Inslee's office still had no idea if his proposal would go before the state Senate's chief tax-writing committee that day with the influential backing of BP. The oil company was the best hope Inslee's team had for the endorsement of a big business directly affected by the policy—support that could win over conservative Democrats or even Republicans, whose votes Inslee needed for the measure to pass. "Any news?" Davis prodded in another email.

BP's lobbyist delivered the final brush-off two hours before that afternoon's hearing. Despite BP's public support for carbon pricing and the concessions Inslee and Democratic lawmakers had made to win the oil company's support for their carbon tax proposal, BP wasn't going along. Eliason said BP would take no position on the bill—a silence that might as well have been a death knell.

The bill failed. And later in the year, BP also played a decisive role in defeating a ballot initiative to adopt a carbon fee in Washington state.

Inslee did score a climate policy victory in April 2019—just as he was beginning his short-lived presidential campaign centered around action on global warming. Inslee signed what his office called "an unprecedented suite of clean energy legislation," including Washington's commitment to 100 percent carbon-free electricity. But a crucial piece was missing: the state's climate program does nothing to curb the fuel burned in cars, trucks, and other transport—BP's main products, and the state's largest source of greenhouse gas.

The emails between Davis and Eliason were part of hundreds of emails related to Washington state climate policy obtained by InsideClimate News through a public records request. The correspondence provides a revealing window into how oil companies wield their clout in the fight over climate change, even as they increasingly publicly support efforts to reduce carbon emissions. While BP, Exxon, ConocoPhillips and others saythey favor a price on carbon, their tough stand on the policy details is one reason solutions remain so far out of reach.

Inslee's fight for climate action in Washington state is a case study of the monumental political challenge that the drive for climate policies faces, even with Democrats in control of both houses of the legislature, a chief executive who has made climate a priority, and a major player in the fossil fuel industry pledging to be a part of the solution.

It is also a cautionary tale and preview of the battle ahead for climate action on a national level, where BP and other big oil companies are staking out a position similar to the one they adopted in Washington state—portraying themselves as partners, not adversaries, in addressing global warming. Based on the record so far, some who have watched the process closely question whether the oil industry can be a trusted ally in enacting a policy that is ambitious enough to effect the rapid, deep economy-wide cuts in carbon emissions that the science demands.

"The oil industry has done this double-speak dance," said Kristin Eberhard, director of climate and democracy for the Seattle-based nonprofit Sightline Institute, an environmental think tank focused on the Pacific Northwest. "They realize that most Americans know that climate change is happening, and they would look self-serving and out of touch if they tried to deny climate change. So they've just turned around and said, 'We know climate change is happening, we want to take action on it. Oh, but not this action,' any time action comes up."

"The problem in Washington," Eberhard said, "seems to be that BP wasn't coming to the table to work it out. They were coming to block it."

BP spokesman Jason Ryan told InsideClimate News in an email that the company was working in earnest to forge an agreement for carbon pricing in Washington, but that it couldn't be accomplished in the state's brief 2018 legislative session.

"We are committed to playing our part in advancing the energy transition to a low-carbon future no matter how challenging it is," Ryan said, pointing to a recent op-ed by Helge Lund, who took over as BP's chairman last year. "Success will require new levels of collaboration across industry, consumers and governments, aided by technology improvements and well-designed government policies."

BP points out it was among the oil companies that worked with former California Gov. Jerry Brown on the deal that expanded that state's cap-and-trade carbon pricing system in 2017—a program that is ahead of its 2020 goals.

"Our position has been clear," Ryan said. "A well-designed price on carbon—either a tax or a cap-and-trade system—is the most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

'One of the Most Progressive Companies'

Eliason signaled that BP wanted to work with Inslee on a carbon tax in an email to the governor's chief of staff, David Postman, and his policy director, Keith Phillips, in December 2017. BP "has been one of the more progressive companies when it comes to public policy around carbon reduction," Eliason wrote.

It was a pivotal moment for Inslee's long-standing climate agenda.

Democrats had regained control of the state Senate for the first time in five years, although they enjoyed only a single-vote advantage. Inslee agreed with the argument of economists who say an escalating tax on carbon-based fuels like gasoline and coal would help address climate change more effectively and efficiently than government mandates alone.

BP owns the largest of the five oil refineries around Puget Sound—a hub that imports crude from Alaska and Canada, making Washington the nation's fifth largest oil refining state. On the issue of a carbon tax, its clout could be crucial.

"To be frank, we were looking to get any major business voice who was going to be covered by the program to speak on behalf of the proposal," Inslee's climate staffer, Davis, said in an interview. "BP, as a firm at the international level, has claimed it is supportive of carbon pricing and that it wants to go in this direction. It was an obvious target for us to reach out to" for support.

Democratic state Sen. Reuven Carlyle of Seattle, chair of the Washington Senate's environment committee who would sponsor the carbon tax legislation, also was urging Davis to meet with BP.

"BP is deeply involved in the policy and political exercise of trying to build a framework of carbon pricing that works for them," Carlyle said in an interview with InsideClimate News. "I think that policy position is sincere. That doesn't make it easy."

"I believe they are going through the long process of conversion from a pure fossil fuel company to an energy company," Carlyle said.

Inslee Compromised, but BP Wasn't Satisfied

When Davis reached out to the oil company in late 2017, Phil Cochrane, senior director of state and local affairs for BP's North American fuels division, responded enthusiastically. "As you may know, BP was one of the first oil and gas companies to recognize the urgency of the climate challenge and we intend to be part of the solution," Cochrane wrote in an email to Davis."We support a well designed price on carbon."

But BP's ideas of what made for a well-designed price included provisions to lessen the impact on BP.

In the final days of 2017, the oil company sent Inslee's office a 14-pointproposalfor ensuring the pain of a tax was spread throughout the economy and that costs were kept down. Importantly, it called for a rollback of other carbon regulations and a prohibition on any other new ones—especially by local governments, which were then eager to enact their own programs to reduce carbon emissions in several corners of Washington state.

The bargain BP was seeking was a miniature version of a proposal that BP and four other oil companies—ConocoPhillips, Exxon, Shell and Total—have endorsed for national action on climate by Congress. Several environmental groups have joined with the oil companies and other businesses in a coalition called the Climate Leadership Council,which is advocating for the approach on Capitol Hill.

Long-time advocates of carbon pricing have been cautiously hopeful about that development, glad for the oil industry's engagement but wary of the risk of giving too much away in return for its support.

"Anybody who wants to endorse a robustly rising carbon tax that sends a very powerful price signal ... would deserve support and praise for doing so," said Charles Komanoff, an economist who is director of the Carbon Tax Center in New York. But he argues that the carbon tax envisioned in the oil industry-endorsed Climate Leadership Council—starting at $40 per ton and increasing 2 to 5 percent a year—is too modest. "That trajectory is not going to be nearly enough to cut actual demand for petroleum products, or upend the culture of carbon," Komanoff said.

By February 2018, the governor's proposal was headed to the state Senate Ways and Means Committee with the vast majority of items on BP's wish list addressed—but not in ways entirely to BP's liking.In Washington state, Inslee and other advocates of carbon pricing came face-to-face with the question of how much to compromise when dealing with BP.

Lawmakers cut the proposed carbon tax nearly in half from Inslee's original proposal and set a cap to make sure the price would go no higher than $30 per ton—equivalent to 27 cents per gallon.

The bill contained at least some of the regulatory rollback BP sought, suspending enforcement of Washington's Clean Air Rule, an escalating cap on greenhouse gas emissions from the state's largest polluters which Inslee's administration had put into place in 2016, after his legislative efforts had failed. At that point, Inslee's Clean Air Rule was in litigation, and its future was uncertain. (A state judge has since put it on hold.)

Inslee's legislation also had several provisions to hold down costs to industry. It exempted fossil fuels used on-site for manufacturing processes by industries like aluminum and steel, which use large amounts of energy and are especially vulnerable to competition from across state borders. The tax would be levied at the "rack," or the wholesale terminals that receive gasoline and other fuels from refineries and dispense them to trucks for sale to gas stations and other retailers. That benefited refiners because any fossil fuels they used in their operations would not be taxed.

But BP wanted more. It wanted refineries to be able to reduce their taxes by investing in carbon reduction projects—an approach known as "offsets." For example, the company was getting credits in California's cap-and-trade program for investments it was making in forest preservation on Native American land in Washington state. "If we are engaging in projects that result in real carbon reduction. ... why should we not get credit against the tax on our products?" Eliason asked in an email.

Davis explained in an email: "Given the significant benefits the refineries gain from both the [energy-intensive, trade-exposed] status and the point of regulation at the rack, the offsets come at far too high a cost from our perspective."

The final sticking point for BP was over local governments. Seattle, Tacoma, Bellingham, Redmond and other Washington cities have been in the forefront of a national drive for local action on climate. Inslee's legislation would have preempted cities, counties or any local subdivision from enacting their own carbon taxes. But in BP's eyes, this was not enough.

Eliason explained the company wanted to see a ban on local governments enacting other climate policies, such as low-carbon fuel standards or renewable portfolio standards. "We see this as a potential threat in Whatcom County," Eliason wrote, referring to the home of BP's refinery on the state's northwestern coast, where the county council had set a 100 percent renewable energy goal several weeks earlier. "We think a carbon tax should be the controlling policy in this space," he said.

Neither BP nor the industry group of which it was a member, the Western States Petroleum Association, would take a position on Inslee's carbon tax bill before the Ways and Means Committee, Eliason said. That was meant to be a slight concession to Inslee, better than outright opposition. Eliason said BP would continue to be engaged and said it would send a letter to the members of the committee on "the importance of a legislative solution, the good progress that has occurred to date, and the ways the bill could be further improved."

"It's very difficult," Davis said in a recent interview "There is a 'go find me another rock' phenomenon with the major industries, who want to say publicly from their PR perspective that they also believe climate action is crucial, but not at this time, or not this particular proposal."

Many other Washington businesses, including in agriculture and the pulp and paper industry, actively opposed the legislation. The most important opponent among the legislators was the Democratic chair of the powerful Senate Transportation Committee, Sen. Steve Hobbs, who objected that none of the revenue from the carbon tax was being dedicated to fund transportation projects.

This was more than a mere turf battle. The largest source of money for highway projects in Washington is the state gasoline tax. If the carbon tax worked as expected, it would further put the brakes on already weak gasoline demand, gutting the state transportation budget at a time when Washington faces billions of dollars of projects—some of them court-ordered for protection of the state's prized salmon. It is just one of the ways dependence on oil is woven tightly into the economy—even in a state like Washington where leaders have tried to prioritize environmental protection.

Hobbs' defection was all it took to kill the legislation's chances, with the Democrats' thin 25-24 majority and no Republicans willing to break ranks with their party. As the legislative session came to a close at the start of March, Carlyle declared that the measure fell "a vote or two short" and it was never brought to the floor.

In 2018 Election, BP Flexed Its Muscle

The next chapter in Washington's climate policy saga, and BP's role, played out in the spotlight of the 2018 election. Environmentalists, weary of the legislative stalemate, petitioned successfully for a carbon fee voter initiative on the November ballot. It was a bold gambit, given that taxes are notoriously difficult to pass by voter initiative, and Washington voters already had turned down such a ballot measure only two years earlier.

But environmentalists thought they had a better chance since they were more united than in 2016, when many opposed the measure because it put all the revenue into tax breaks to cushion the blow of higher fuel prices. In 2018, environmentalists were united in a coalition with social justice activists and tribes in a carbon fee plan that would direct revenue into clean energy projects, environmental justice and community assistance—similar, though not identical, to the failed Inslee legislative plan.

That's when BP demonstrated what its full-force opposition could do.

The oil industry poured $31.2 million into a TV ad-heavy campaign to defeat the measure, more than had ever been spent to defeat a ballot initiative in state history. Theads said the proposal would force Washington consumers to pay billions more for energy, with no guarantee of reductions in greenhouse gases. BP's $13 million contribution to that effort was more than double the previous record for a single company's spending on a Washington state ballot initiative.

The carbon fee initiative failed, with57 percent of votersopposed."We made a difficult decision to oppose [the ballot initiative] because we believed that it would not achieve the economy-wide reductions necessary in Washington state and would set a bad precedent for other states considering such policies," said Ryan of BP. A key reason for BP's opposition was that the plan would have exempted several large industrial carbon emitters in the state.

The experience—not just the initiative, but the previous failed efforts at carbon pricing—were deeply sobering to many long-time Washington state environmental activists.

"There was a time when I thought the oil industry could be a partner and could navigate the transition to a clean energy future," said KC Golden, a former director of Washington state's Energy Policy Office who now serves as senior advisor to the Seattle-based advocacy group Climate Solutions. "But I think that time has passed. The logical fallacy is this: Any climate policy that effectively prevents catastrophic climate chaos would render a huge fraction of their assets—their booked reserves—worthless, and at this point that would have to happen quite quickly. So they may eventually feel compelled to get on board with 'a' climate policy, but not one that really does the job. It's us or them now."

But for Inslee and his allies in Washington's legislature, cutting BP out of the process was not an option. "We don't have the luxury of that kind of position," said Davis. "We've got to talk to everybody. We have to count votes, and we have to think of the perspectives of the people who are going to be hearing from these guys. That doesn't mean it's going to be so watered down to get BP's support it's not going to be effective. At the end of the day, there are certain things we will insist the policy does. If it doesn't meet the goals we're trying to meet, we will move on and wait for another session."

A Victory, and a Loss

The 2019 legislative session geared up as Inslee was exploring the possibility of a presidential run. Davis said the governor's team remained eager to enact climate policy, but made a "deliberate pivot" away from carbon pricing.

Davis circulated to his colleagues an article by a University of California, Berkeley environmental law professor, Eric Biber, which captured the rationale. Biber argued that while a price on carbon is needed to tackle climate change, it was a political non-starter. He said it was better to start with regulatory policies—clean energy mandates and the like—even though they were a more costly way of cutting carbon emissions. The hope is that the success of such policies will improve the political prospects for carbon pricing in the future.

Inslee's team prepared a push for a 100 percent clean electricity mandate, building efficiency standards, new controls on the use of the potent greenhouse gases used in refrigeration, and a low-carbon fuel standard to address the pollution from cars and trucks. This last item was particularly important because in Washington, transportation accounts for more than 40 percent of the state's carbon emissions.

But while Inslee's team was switching gears, one key Washington interest was still talking about carbon pricing: BP.

Just five days after the company helped bankroll the campaign to defeat carbon pricing at the ballot, BP lobbyist Eliason forwarded to Carlyle the company's own draft legislative proposal for carbon pricing in Washington state—this time, through a cap-and-trade program.

BP said it did so because the feedback it was getting from Washington lawmakers was that cap-and-trade might be a more acceptable path than a tax to achieve a price on carbon. At the time the company made a decision to oppose the ballot initiative, Ryan said, it pledged that it would work with the governor and Legislature to pass carbon pricing.

Inslee had tried a cap-and-trade proposal in 2015, and it had beenvigorously opposed by the Western States Petroleum Association, of which BP is a member.

Carlyle would introduce cap-and-trade legislation that adopted some—though not all—of BP's ideas; it sparked discussion, but not enough support to advance in the Washington legislature in 2019. By circulating the cap-and-trade proposal so soon after the defeat of the initiative, though, BP ensured itself a seat at the table as policymakers regrouped.

Carlyle sent an email in late November 2018 to a small circle of legislators and legislative staff, including Inslee's team, on the need for "a serious, thoughtful dialogue on 'what's possible' on a number of key climate policies." Just one lobbyist was invited to the meeting: Eliason of BP.

By April, six weeks after Inslee launched his presidential run, hesigned a law making Washington the fourth state—behind Hawaii, California, and New Mexico—to set a 100 percent carbon-free electricity goal. The legislature also passed the measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from buildings and refrigeration, as well as incentives for electric vehicles, and steps to make it easier for utilities to expand EV infrastructure.

But one piece of Inslee's package stalled in the legislature: the Low Carbon Fuel Standard to curb pollution from the state's biggest greenhouse gas polluter—transportation—a sector almost entirely dependent on oil. BP was among the businesses opposing the standard.

Without a policy to curb gasoline and diesel emissions, Washington state is a long way from having the kind of comprehensive climate solution Inslee has been talking about since taking office six years ago.

Inslee did get his chance to draw up a blueprint for such a solution—the six-part climate plan he released over the course of his five-month presidential run. It includes a timeline for 100 percent clean electricity, like the program that has been adopted in Washington. But it also includes measures he has not yet been able to enact, like carbon pricing. Some of the remaining candidates, including Elizabeth Warren and Julian Castro, are openly adopting parts of his platform as a template for their own climate plans.

Having dropped out of the presidential race, Inslee is turning his attention back to Washington state, where he is running for a third term as governor. He acknowledges that he has more work to do there on climate policy.

"The science is clear—we have to transition away from fossil fuels and we have to do it soon," Inslee said in an email. "Every sector of our economy and every level of government plays a role in that transition. Our state is striding forward, and we will not be daunted or deterred from pursuing the policies necessary to protect Washingtonians and our planet from the ravages of climate change."

InsideClimate News reporter Phil McKenna contributed to this report.

---

see energy corps 2 for grafs and lnx

BP biggest deniAL $?

https://www.desmog.co.uk/2019/03/22/paris-oil-exxon-chevron-bp-total-shell-billion-climate-lobbying-advertising-influencemap

all rhet

A new report by a British think tank estimates that since the 2015 Paris Agreement, the world’s five largest listed oil and gas companies spent more than $1 billion lobbying to prevent climate change regulations while also running public relations campaigns aimed at maintaining public support for climate action.

Combined, the companies spend roughly $200 million a year pushing to delay or alter climate and energy rules, particularly in the U.S. — while spending $195 million a year “on branding campaigns that suggest they support an ambitious climate agenda,” according to InfluenceMap, a UK-based non-profit that researches how corporations influence climate policy.

InfluenceMap cites as an example ExxonMobil’s heavily-touted algae-biofuels research, which the oil giant says “offers some of the greatest promise for next-generation biofuels” with significant climate benefits and has made it the focus of its “The Tiny Organism” ad campaign.

InfluenceMap notes that “detailed disclosures from the company show its goal of 10,000 barrels of bio-fuel a day would equate to only 0.2 percent of its current refinery capacity.

[algae tiny vid]

Oil majors are projecting themselves as key players in the energy transition while lobbying to delay, weaken, or oppose meaningful climate policy,” Edward Collins, author of the new report, said in a statement. “They advocate gradual implementation of market-based and technological climate solutions, but the latest [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report makes clear that urgent policy action and limitations on fossil fuel use are needed to avoid dangerous climate change.”

Today’s report updates the group’s 2016 report that estimated these companies spent $115 million a year lobbying against climate regulations — even policies companies said they supported.

“Say one thing,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, as he described InfluenceMap’s 2016 research on the floor of the U.S.Senate, “do another.”

The new estimates suggest that spending to influence climate policy by the five oil giants has increased sharply over the last two years.

It also comes as global banks are investing more in fossil fuel projects since the Paris Agreement. In addition, the five oil companies are spending heavily on finding and producing more fossil fuels — and putting only a tiny fraction of their budgets into efforts to transition away from climate-altering fuels.

“This spending accompanies the expansion of the companies’ operations with combined annual sales of over $1 [trillion] and profits of $55 [billion in] 2018, the vast majority of which is oil and gas related,” InfluenceMap wrote. “Combined capital investment will increase to $115 [billion] in 2019 but only about 3 percent of this will go to low carbon investments, according to company disclosures.”

Lobbying One Message While Advertising Another

The report focuses on the world’s five largest listed oil and gas companies, ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Total, and Chevron, leaving out state-controlled oil giants like Saudi Aramco and China’s Sinopec.

InfluenceMap examined the extent to which each company’s branding efforts and advertising campaigns focused on climate change.

Shell's branded content about its emissions scenario in The New York Times

Shell's branded content about its “Sky” emissions scenario in The New York Times.

“The research suggests that Total maintains the highest proportion of its branding activities on climate (29 percent),” the new report finds. “Following this, ExxonMobil, which has faced significant negative media attention in 2018, allocates 19 percent. Shell and BP followed with 16 percent and 14 percent respectively. Chevron appears far less concerned, using approximately 2 percent of its branding budget on climate issues in 2018.”

The think tank's research also looked at what the companies were saying to government regulators, either directly or through industry groups funded by the oil majors.

“Since Paris, Chevron,BP and ExxonMobil have led in opposition to a range of climate-motivated policy stands,” InfluenceMap wrote. “For example, in 2018 both BP and Chevron have directly lobbied U.S. policymakers for a rollback on U.S. methane requirements.” (Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and the major constituent in natural gas.)

The report credits Shell and Total for becoming “more positive on a number of climate policy issues” since 2015, but adds that they “continue to support policies that will extend the role for fossil fuels in the energy mix and remain part of highly climate-oppositional trade associations.”

Mixed Messages and Industry Trade Groups

At times, the public stances of a corporation’s leadership stand starkly at odds with the messages from industry groups funded by that same corporation.

For example, on electric vehicles, Shell’s CEO Ben Van Beurden had a very direct and simple message in July 2018. “We need battery electric vehicles,” he said. And a year earlier, at the oil industry conference, CERAWeek, in 2017, he expressed support for “regulations that speed up investment in low carbon technologies and ? at the same time ? move consumer demand.”

Oil and gas lobbying on climate policies through trade associations. Credit: InfluenceMap, 2019

In May 2018, the American Petroleum Institute, the largest U.S. trade group for oil and gas, pushed the U.S. Congress to move in the opposite direction by rolling back incentives for electric vehicles.

“American Petroleum Institute (API) opposes mandates and subsidies,” API testified before the U.S. House of Representatives, according to InfluenceMap’s new report. The fossil fuel trade group voiced its opposition for subsidies for electric vehicles, adding that “the level of market penetration achieved by electric vehicles should not rely on government interference.”

The report also notes the difficulty in tracking corporate lobbying in the U.S. given the rise of so-called “dark money” groups and the lack of transparency surrounding political contributions in the U.S. “Political contributions that were made without full disclosure of their ultimate source totaled $539 [million] in the 2018 election cycle according to OpenSecrets.org,” the report says.

Social Influencers

InfluenceMap also dives deep into how companies used social media to influence Americans during the mid-term elections last year.

“During this time ExxonMobil was by far the most prolific spender, racking up over $400K in four weeks on over 360 individual political ads,” InfluenceMap wrote. “The ads urge rejecting specific ballot initiatives whilst promoting the benefits of increased fossil fuel production. Facebook’s data indicates that ExxonMobil’s ads made over 10 million ‘impressions’ in this time with users in Colorado, Texas, and Louisiana.”

graf:

Oil industry spending on Facebook and Instagram ads leading up to the 2018 U.S. midterm elections. Credit: InfluenceMap, 2019

All of this spending has implications for shareholders, InfluenceMap observed — and some shareholder groups appear to be listening.

“InfluenceMap’s research confirms a widely held suspicion that Big Oil’s glossy sustainability reports and shiny climate statements are all rhetoric and no action,” Catherine Howarth, Chief Executive of ShareAction, a UK charity focused on responsible investment, said in a statement accompanying the report. “These companies have mastered the art of corporate doublespeak — by boasting about their climate credentials while quietly using their lobbying firepower to sabotage the implementation of sensible climate policy and pouring millions into groups that engage in dirty lobbying on their behalf.”

DeSmog has reached out to ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Total, and Chevron for comment.

“We firmly reject the premise of this report. We are very clear about our support for the Paris agreement, and the steps that we are taking to help meet society’s needs for more and cleaner energy,” Shell said in a statement provided to The Guardian. “We make no apology for talking to policymakers and regulators around the world to make our voice heard on crucial topics such as climate change and how to address it.”

:{:{}:

“We have not been afforded the opportunity to review the data but we disagree with the assertion that Chevron has engaged in ‘climate-related branding and lobbying’ that is ‘overwhelmingly in conflict’ with the Paris Agreement,” Chevron said in a statement provided to DeSmog, adding that the company was taking “prudent, cost-effective actions” and seeking “balanced and transparent” policies to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. “We believe climate change is real and human activity contributes to it. We accept the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

Updated: This article has been updated on March 22, 2019 to reflect a statement from Chevron.

---

rev dr

Downey Magallanes, the former deputy chief of staff to former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, left the department in August 2018 to work for the oil giantBP. Vincent DeVito, an energy advisor to Zinke, similarly left to join an oil and gas firm working in the Gulf of Mexico.

---

https://www.ecowatch.com/argentina-fracking-indigenous-lawsuit-2623742584.html

A major indigenous group in the Argentine Patagonia is suing some of world's biggest oil and gas companies over illegal fracking waste dumps that put the "sensitive Patagonian environment," local wildlife and communities at risk, according to Greenpeace.

The Mapuche Confederation of Neuquén filed a lawsuit against Exxon, French company Total and the Argentina-based Pan American Energy (which is partially owned by BP), AFP reported. Provincial authorities and a local fracking waste treatment company called Treater Neuquén S.A. were also named in the suit.

The Mapuche accused the companies of contaminating the environment with "dangerous waste" due to "deficient treatment" close to the town of Añelo, according to AFP.

The waste comes from operations in the Vaca Muerta field, one of the largest deposits of shale oil and gas in the world that lies in the Neuquén province.

...

https://www.ecowatch.com/washington-carbon-tax-big-oil-2616808725.html

Oil Pours Record $30M to Sway Voters Against Nation's First Carbon Tax

If voters approve Initiative 1631 on Nov. 6, Washington state will take a significant step in climate action by becoming the first state in the nation to enact a fee on carbon emissions. That is, unless Big Oil can stop it.

The U.S. oil industry has pumped a record $30 million to stop the carbon tax, which environmentalists have tried to enact for years, Reuters reported, citing state data. Meanwhile, proponents—including green groups and climate activist billionaires Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer and Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Apple founder Steve Jobs—have spent $15.2 million.

"With Big Oil spending $30 million, that makes it a real fight," Bill Holland, state policy director for the League of Conservation Voters, told Reuters. "It has been a frightening amount of money."

Washington ranks fifth in the nation in crude oil refining capacity for making gasoline and other petroleum products, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Initiative 1631 imposes a starting fee of $15 per metric ton on carbon emissions, beginning in 2020. This fee rises $2 every year until the state hits its 2035 emissions reductions goals and is on track to meet its 2050 goals. If passed, the tax is expected to generate $2.3 billion in revenue for green infrastructure, clean transportation and help communities most impacted by pollution.

A recent statewide Crosscut/Elway Poll among registered voters shows 50 percent approval of the measure, 36 percent opposed and 14 percent undecided, The opposition is led by the Western States Petroleum Association, a trade organization that has raised $31.2 million from energy companies and business groups for the "No on 1631" campaign—the most money ever spent in Washington state history to defeat a ballot initiative.

BP America contributed the most with $11.5 million, followed by $7.2 million from Phillips 66 and Andeavor with $4.4 million, Reuters said. The three energy companies have refineries in the state. American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and Valero Energy Corporation also donated funds.

The money has been spent on digital ads, flyers, mailers and television ads aired during this month's Major League Baseball World Series. Opponents say the tax will "be paid by Washington families and small businesses."

Interior Adviser to Join BP After Pushing to Open National Monuments to Fossil Fuel Development

:{:{:{}:

A Department of the Interior (DOI) official who played an important role in opening public lands to fossil fuelinterests has left the federal government to accept a job at BP, The Washington Post reported Monday.

Former DOI Deputy Chief of Staff Downey Magallanes led the review that resulted in Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke's plan to shrink the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments in Utah by 85 and 46 percent respectively, Think Progress pointed out.

"Her prior work on behalf of oil, gas and coal, her family's ties to the coal industry, and the fact that she is headed to BP all point in one direction: that she came to Interior with an agenda to promote fossil fuel development over the interest of the American public," Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance legal director Stephen Bloch told The Washington Post in an email.

Documents made public in March and June confirmed that allowing access to coal, oil and gas reserves was a large part of the decision to reduce the monuments' size, as was enabling mining, Think Progress reported.

Magallanes also worked on regulatory reform and offshore oil drilling, according to The Washington Post.Her father worked as a lobbyist for Peabody Energy Corp. for 14 years, according to The Hill.

The Trump administration's ethics pledge bans former employees from lobbying either their former agencies or anyone in the executive branch for five years after departure, but anonymous sources told The Washington Post that Magallanes will work with Congress. BP has confirmed she will be part of its government affairs team.

Magallanes met three times with BP officials between Jan. 30 and Aug. 31, 2017 while working for DOI, according to an official calendar obtained using the Freedom of Information Act.

On March 16, 2017 she met with BP government and regulatory affairs division officials and on April 25 she met with both BP Exploration (Alaska) and members of the Western Energy Alliance including Colorado-based BP government affairs official Sam Knaizer.

Magallanes' departure was announced by E&E news Aug. 24, according to Think Progress.

"Downey was an incredible asset and I trusted her to carry out some of the Administration's highest priority projects," Zinke said in a statement reported by The Washington Post. "She will be missed in our office and I wish her all the best."

Magallanes also spoke with excitement about her work at BP, which will begin after Labor Day.

"I am grateful to Secretary Zinke and President Trump for giving me the chance to serve in the Department of the Interior," she said in an email to The Washington Post. "I look forward to this incredible new opportunity with BP."

Meanwhile, Native American and environmental groups are fighting in court to reverse the shrinking of the Utah monuments.

"We'll be working to undo that mischief long after she's gone," Bloch told The Washington Post.

[twit]