American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
What do our scores mean?
The organizational score represents the degree to which the organization influencing climate policy and legislation. Corporations also have relationship scores reflecting their links with influencers like trade associations. Both are combined to place the corporation in a performance band. Full details can be found here.
Engagement Intensity
The engagement intensity (EI) is a metric of the extent to which the company is engaging on climate change policy matters, whether positively or negatively. It is a number from 0 (no engagement at all) to 100 (full engagement on all queries/data points). Clearly energy companies are more affected by climate regulations and will have a higher EI than, for example retailers. So an organization’s score should be looked at in conjunction with this metric to gauge the amount of evidence we are using in each case as a basis for scoring. On our scale, an EI of more than 35 indicates a relatively large amount of climate policy engagement.
Relationship Score, December 2020
A new batch of industry associations has been uploaded onto the InfluenceMap system and the relationship scores recalculated accordingly.
Updated terminology, February 2021
We adjusted the terminology used to describe the queries running down the left-hand side of our scoring matrix and added additional explanatory text to the info-boxes. This has no impact on the scores and methodology. It has been done following user feedback to improve clarity.
- Details of Organization Score
-
What do the 0,1,2 and NSs, NAs mean?
Each cell in the organization's matrix presents a chance for us to assess each data source against our column of climate change policy queries. We score from -2 to 2, with negative scores representing evidence of obstructive influence. "NA" means "not applicable" and "NS" means "not scored" - that is we did not find any evidence either way. In both cases, the cell's weighting is re-distributed over others. Red and blue cells represent highly interesting negative or positive influence respectively. Full details can be found here.
|
QUERIES
|
DATA SOURCES | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents. |
Social Media
We search other media and sites funded or controlled by the organization, such as social media (Twitter, Facebook) and direct advertising campaigns of the organization. |
CDP Responses
We assess and score responses to two questions from CDP's climate change information request (12.3 a & 12.3c) related to political influence questions (currently these are not numerically scored by the CDP process). |
Legislative Consultations
Comments from the entity being scored on governmental regulatory consultation processes, including those obtained by InfluenceMap through Freedom of Information requests. |
Media Reports
Here we search in a consistent manner (the organization name and relevant query search terms) a set of web sites of representing reputable news or data aggregations. Supported by targeted searches of proprietary databases. |
CEO Messaging
Here we search in a consistent manner (the CEO/Chairman, organization name and relevant query search terms) a set of web sites of representing reputable news or data aggregations. Supported by targeted searches of proprietary databases. |
Financial Disclosures
We search 10-K and 20-F SEC filings where available, and non US equivalents where not. . |
|
|
Communication of Climate Science
Is the organization transparent and clear about its position on climate change science? |
1
|
-2
|
NA | NS |
0
|
-2
|
NA |
|
Alignment with IPCC on Climate Action
Is the organization supporting the science-based response to climate change as set out by the IPCC? (the IPCC) |
-1
|
-2
|
NA | NS | NS | NS | NA |
|
Supporting the Need for Regulations
To what extent does the organization express the need for regulatory intervention to resolve the climate crisis? |
-1
|
-1
|
NA |
-1
|
-2
|
-2
|
NA |
|
Support of UN Climate Process
Is the organization supporting the UN FCCC process on climate change? |
NS |
-2
|
NA | NS |
0
|
NS | NA |
|
Transparency on Legislation
Is the organisation transparent about its positions on climate change legislation/policy and its activities to influence it? |
2
|
NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
|
Carbon Tax
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: carbon tax. |
NS |
-1
|
NA | NS |
-2
|
-2
|
NA |
|
Emissions Trading
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: emissions trading. |
NS | NS | NA | NS | NS | NS | NA |
|
Energy and Resource Efficiency
Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: energy efficiency policy, standards, and targets |
-1
|
1
|
NA |
-1
|
-2
|
-2
|
NA |
|
Renewable Energy
Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Renewable energy legislation, targets, subsidies, and other policy |
-2
|
-2
|
NA |
-1
|
-2
|
-2
|
NA |
|
Energy Transition & Zero Carbon Technologies
Is the organization supporting an IPCC-aligned transition of the economy away from carbon-emitting technologies, including supporting relevant policy and legislative measures to enable this transition? |
-2
|
-1
|
NA |
-2
|
-2
|
-2
|
NA |
|
GHG Emission Regulation
Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: GHG emission standards and targets. Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Standards, targets, and other regulatory measures directly targeting Greenhouse Gas emissions |
0
|
-1
|
NA |
-1
|
-2
|
NS | NA |
|
Disclosure on Relationships
Is the organization transparent about its involvement with industry associations that are influencing climate policy, including the extent to which it is aligned with these groups on climate? |
2
|
NS | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
Climate Lobbying Overview: The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) is negatively lobbying on a wide range of US climate policies. In particular, the AFPM appears to oppose policies intended to aid the electrification of transport and the uptake of biofuels, such as the Renewable Fuel Standard, which it appears to have repeatedly criticized.
Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) does not appear to be supportive of climate policy in its top-line messaging. Although it has stated support for policies to tackle climate change, as of March 2021, this support appears to be significantly qualified, emphasizing the need to protect US competitiveness and for any policy to be “flexible”, and “achievable”. After criticism from members for its failure to support the Paris Agreement in April 2019, AFPM claimed not to have a position on the Agreement in July 2019. Despite recognising the need to respond to climate change, AFPM does not appear to support a specific emissions reduction target or temperature limit. Furthermore, AFPM has been reported to fund groups actively involved in climate change denial, i.e., the Competitive Enterprise Institute in July 2019.
Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) appears to have repeatedly opposed specific climate-related regulations. In March 2019, CEO Chet Thompson stated: “We currently do not support, as a trade association, a carbon tax.” In 2018, the group strongly supported the Scalise-McKinley anti-carbon tax resolution introduced in Congress and has funded campaigns to oppose carbon tax policies in Washington State in 2018. AFPM also appears to have run an extensive public campaign in 2018 to support the rollback of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, and CEO Chet Thompson previously applauded the US federal government’s October 2018 decision to freeze the standards at 2020 levels until 2026. On its website, as of March 2021, AFPM seems to maintain opposition to “unrealistic” standards that “effectively function as bans on internal combustion engines” and states that fuel efficiency standards should be “market-driven”.
The AFPM appears to broadly oppose ambitious GHG standards; on its website, as of March 2021, it has stated it “opposes any national, regional or state low carbon fuel standards”, as well as appearing to oppose changes that would increase the ambition of the New Source Performance Standards for stationary methane emission sources, such as refineries. Furthermore, in May 2020, the AFPM (with others) attempted legal action against California's CARB regulations that aimed to cut GHG emissions from vehicles by 20% by 2030. Similarly in March 2019, AFPM opposed Colorado’s Low-Emission & Zero-Emission vehicle standards as part of the Freedom to Drive Coalition.
Positioning on Energy Transition: The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) does not appear to support the transition of the energy mix. In particular, the AFPM do not appear to support the electrification of transport and policies that mandate a higher proportion of biofuels in the fuel mix. AFPM has repeatedly criticized the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), stating in August 2020 that the policy is “broken” and in October 2020, that “ethanol mandates are both too expensive and too unrealistic to maintain a healthy refining sector”. In January 2021, the AFPM opposed a decision by the 10th Circuit court that would reduce the number of parties able to apply small refinery exemptions (SREs), and in February 2021, supported an effort by certain State Governors for refineries to receive general waivers from the RFS from the EPA. As of March 2021, AFPM appears to oppose mandates and subsidies for electric vehicles (EVs) on its website. In spring 2020, AFPM joined the Transportation Fairness Alliance, which seems to oppose measures intended to promote EVs. In October 2020, AFPM strongly criticised a proposed ban by 2035 on ICE vehicles in California.
Beyond transport, AFPM do not appear to support the transition of the broader energy mix. For example, in October 2020, in the run up to the 2020 US Presidential Election, CEO Chet Thompson strongly criticized Democrat candidate Joe Biden's ambition to transition the US away from oil and gas, claiming such a move would "devastate communities across the country, eliminate millions of high-paying jobs, raise energy prices, and undermine our economy". The AFPM appears to strongly support the development of fossil fuel infrastructure. For example, in February 2021, Thompson criticised the Biden administration decision to revoke the permit for Keystone XL pipeline, stating this “jeopardizes the significant economic, environmental and energy-security gains the pipeline stands to deliver”.