BHP’s funding of lobbyists speaks louder than its CEO’s words
In a speech in London this week, BHP CEO Andrew Mackenzie declared that global dependence on fossil fuels poses an “existential” risk to humanity. Climate change, he said, required a “coordinated global response”, and yet the response so far has failed to “match the severity of the threat”. Mackenzie noted that while the planet will survive, “many species may not”. Here was the CEO of the world’s largest mining company, using the language of the school climate strikers.
While BHP would have us believe that it is now a climate champion, it has funded and continues to be the largest funder of many of the most powerful and effective fossil fuel lobby groups in Australia. In a sense, BHP is the carbon lobby.
Many of these groups have intervened in policy debates over climate and energy for decades. The Business Council of Australia and the Minerals Council of Australia campaigned to kill off the carbon price in 2013–14. Before that, they encouraged the Howard government to oppose signing the Kyoto protocol, despite ensuring Australia’s Kyoto targets allowed for an increase in emissions.
This week was no exception. Within hours of Mackenzie’s speech, one of BHP’s own industry associations hosed down his commitment to set targets on BHP’s scope 3 emissions — meaning those from the coal, oil and gas that it extracts and sells to customers. Andrew McConville, the CEO of the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) declared:
“If an individual company determines to go to that point, that’s great and that’s a significant contribution… But we don’t see that there is a need in any way, shape or form for governments to be regulating that”.
While APPEA and Angus Taylor peddle the myth that Australian gas exports are reducing emissions in Asia, Australia’s gas industry steadfastly refuses to take responsibility for any of the emissions from the gas it exports. It’s akin to only counting the discounts after a shopping spree — a completely absurd proposition.
So for this week’s post, we’re going to look at the advocacy of BHP’s industry associations on climate and energy policy in Australia. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but we think you’ll get the idea.
The Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) has long been the loudest advocate for the coal industry. Just this year, the MCA has:
- Called for the use of Kyoto carryover credits (which would weaken Australia’s 2030 target from 26–28% to roughly 16%);
- Repeatedly said that we need a “measured response” to address climate change;
- Claimed that ambitious emissions reduction targets would destroy jobs, investment and economic growth;
- Called for investment in new HELE coal-fired power stations;
- Run 40+ pro-coal advertisements on Facebook;
- Funded a 10-page advertorial on coal in The Australian on 22 March (which is still online);
- Campaigned for the approval of Adani’s Carmichael coal mine.
In an interview with the ABC in October last year, MCA CEO Tania Constable said “we don’t see a transition out of coal in the short, medium or even the longer term at this stage” [@1:50]
The MCA also shares key staff with Coal21, ostensibly created by the coal industry to invest in carbon capture and storage. In July last year, Coal21 funded six MPs to visit coal-fired power stations in Japan immediately before then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was deposed.
Peak business group the Business Council of Australia claims to support the Paris Agreement, but has recently:
- supported the use of Kyoto carryover credits;
- claimed that a 45% emissions reduction target would be “economy wrecking”;
- claimed that more ambitious emissions reduction targets would lead to “deindustrialisation”;
- called for further investment in existing coal-fired power stations;
- argued for state-based moratoria on onshore gas development to be lifted.
APPEA, the peak lobby group for Australia’s oil and gas industry has:
- supported the use of Kyoto carryover credits;
- called for the removal of moratoriums on onshore gas development;
- proposed that Australia’s Clean Energy Finance Corporation support gas projects;
- opposed state-based renewable energy targets;
- called for LNG plants to be exempt from public disclosure of their emissions;
- argued against WA Environment Protection Authority (EPA) guidelines that would require new emissions intensive projects to offset carbon emissions;
We have previously covered the role of the Queensland Resources Council (QRC) in the 2019 federal election, but it’s worth mentioning again:
- Campaigned for the approval of the approval of Adani’s Carmichael coal mine;
- Called for tougher penalties for anti-coal protestors;
- Claimed electric vehicles were dependent on coal;
- Demanded that candidates running in the May 2019 Federal election make an equivocal commitment to the future of the coal industry.
Just last week, QRC CEO Ian Macfarlane described the Adani project as a “punching bag” that would pave the way for five additional mines in the Galilee Basin.
We’ve also previously covered the role of the NSW Minerals Council’s role in the March election in NSW, but here is a reminder of what it got up to:
- Criticised the NSW government’s target of net zero emissions by 2050;
- Published an Election Policies Priorities Manifesto which sought indefinite support for the coal industry in NSW;
- Claimed that the closure of the Liddell coal-fired power station would cause widespread blackouts;
- Organised radio station 2GB to broadcast from a working coal mine for two days;
- Distributed political advertising critical of action on climate change.
In perhaps the most brazen example of populist coal worship, through its BMA joint venture, BHP is a member of the Resource Industry Network, which organised “Start Adani” protests throughout the May 2019 Federal election.
BHP is also a member of other groups that have sought to block or delay effective climate policy in Australia, including:
Australian Industry Greenhouse Network
Australian Institute of Petroleum (BHP is an associate member)
Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia
South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy
If Andrew Mackenzie is serious about BHP being part of the solution rather than the problem, then BHP’s industry associations must do the same. If not, BHP should exit or suspend its membership of industry associations that have blocked climate action for more than two decades. Mackenzie must now match his words with actions.
