BP quits three US lobbying groups over climate policy disagreements

But BP decided to remain a member of the larger, more powerful trade groups American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and National Association of Manufacturers, despite the fact those groups are similarly skeptical of most government policies to combat climate change.

“Anyone rooting for climate policy should see this as a small step in the right direction,” said Noah Kaufman, an energy economist at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. “But they haven’t left the most powerful trade groups that are major barriers to climate legislation.”

BP’s review of its lobbying group memberships comes after the company released a plan this month to reach net-zero emissions across its operations and within its oil and gas production by 2050. It also pledged to halve the carbon intensity of the products it sells, along with measuring methane at all of its oil and gas processing sites by 2023.

In announcing the new target, BP’s new CEO Bernard Looney said his company intends to “lay down the law” on its lobbying to ensure all are speaking with the same voice.

While most big oil and gas companies, such as BP, are moving to cleaner energy and rhetorically support some form of carbon pricing, they have been reluctant to challenge more conservative industry lobbying groups that oppose taxes and regulations.

Oil and gas giants Shell and Total, also European companies, have previously left the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers.

BP cited opposition to carbon pricing as the reason for leaving AFPM and the Western States Petroleum Association.

Chet Thompson, president and CEO of AFPM, said he was “disappointed” with BP’s decision and claimed the group is “committed to supporting policies that address climate change.”

“Because of that, it leads us to assume that this decision was made based on factors other than our actual positions on the issues,” Thompson said in a statement.

BP is leaving the Western Energy Alliance because of the group’s opposition to the federal regulation of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that is the main component of natural gas.

Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance, accused BP of not contacting the group before deciding to leave. She suspects the “real reason” BP rejected her group is that the company is no longer active in the Rocky Mountain West, the area of focus for the Western Energy Alliance.

“BP didn’t need to participate in a region it no longer operates in,” Sgamma said.

But BP decided to remain in the larger trade groups, including the industry’s most powerful, American Petroleum Institute, despite the fact that the group also does not support carbon pricing and has not endorsed keeping federal regulations of methane in place.

BP, along with other oil and gas majors such as Exxon Mobil, Shell, and ConocoPhillips, has endorsed a carbon tax and dividend plan proposed by the Climate Leadership Council, a group led by two former Republican secretaries of state, James Baker III and George Shultz. BP has also called on the Environmental Protection Agency to keep Obama-era regulations targeting methane leaks from oil and gas drillers and fracking operations, instead of weakening them as the Trump administration has moved to do.

BP did acknowledge that it is only “partly aligned” on climate policy with API, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Association of Manufacturers, but the company did not provide a detailed explanation of its disagreements.

Oil and gas industry critics say BP and other companies should more aggressively challenge the larger trade groups to change their policy positions.

“Coyly dumping fringe groups doesn’t help,” Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse told the Washington Examiner. “If BP wants meaningful climate legislation, it will tell the U.S. Chamber and API: Support real climate action pronto or we quit. They’re the 800-pound gorillas obstructing things BP claims to support, like carbon pricing and methane regulations.”