American Petroleum Institute (API)
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.
Time weighting of evidence, June 2018
Evidence pieces in the past will be de-emphasized in our system by application of weightings that favour the most recent evidence pieces. This ensures we capture current rather than past behaviour and will allow the measurement of progress over time of companies and trade groups.
- 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.
| QUESTIONS | SOURCES |
Main Web Site
We search the main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents (e.g. the CSR report). |
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
Legislative Consultation documents from official government sources. As of July 2015, we consider relevant information originating directly from the US Government and the European Commission other key regions e.g. Australia and Japan. |
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. . |
EU Register
Information provided by to the voluntary EU Transparency Register. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Climate Science Transparency
Is the organisation being transparent about climate change science? |
-2 | NS | NA | -2 | -2 | NS | NA | NA | |
|
Climate Science Stance
Is the organization supporting the science of climate change and the response demanded (as per the IPCC) |
NS | -1 | NA | -2 | NS | -1 | NA | NA | |
|
Need for Climate Regulation
To what extent does the organization express the need for climate policy and regulations in general. |
-1 | NS | NA | -1 | -1 | -1 | NA | NA | |
|
UN Treaty Support
Is the organization supporting a global treaty on climate change and the UN FCCC process? |
NS | 0 | NA | NS | 0 | 0 | NA | NA | |
|
Transparency on Legislation
Is the organisation being transparent about their positions on climate change legislation and policy, including CEO statements. |
-1 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
|
Carbon Tax
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: carbon tax. |
NS | NS | NA | NS | 0 | 0 | NA | NA | |
|
Emissions Trading
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: emissions trading. |
NS | -1 | NA | NS | NS | -1 | NA | NA | |
|
Energy Efficiency Standards
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Energy efficiency standards and targets |
NS | NS | NA | -2 | -2 | NS | NA | NA | |
|
Renewable Energy Legislation
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Renewable energy targets, subsidies and legislation. |
-2 | -1 | NA | -1 | -1 | NS | NA | NA | |
|
Energy Policy and Mix
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: energy policy and the energy mix. We refer to IPCC thinking on renewables, coal, oil and gas. |
-1 | -1 | NA | -1 | -1 | -1 | NA | NA | |
|
GHG Emission Standards
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: GHG emission standards and targets. |
-2 | -1 | NA | -1 | -1 | -1 | NA | NA | |
|
Disclosure on Relationships
The Caring for Climate “inventory” of climate change policy influences: Are companies being transparent about their business associations which may impact climate debate and policy |
0 | NS | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
|
Climate Lobbying Governance
Does the company have strong policy to manage its political activities related to climate change? |
NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
The API has consistently advocated against the role of the US government in tackling climate change. In 2015 API President Jack Gerald argued that President Obama’s support of the Paris climate change summit was driven by "narrow political ideology" and, since the 2016 US election, the group has heavily promoted a deregulatory agenda in the country, suggesting it is more important than further action on climate change. In 2018, the API continued to lobby the US EPA for a broad a reconsideration of its approach to increasing emission limits and regulation and in 2019 maintains its position of opposition to the role of government policy in defining the US energy mix. In 2019, the API has refrained from taking a position on a US carbon tax despite it being backed by some of API’s largest members, and instead, President Mike Sommers has emphasised the importance of voluntary emission reductions in press briefings. In 2017, former API President Jack Gerard stated that the API doesn’t have a position on a US carbon tax because he didn’t believe it would be given “serious consideration” in the House or Senate. The organisation has, however, opposed carbon pricing regulation in the past; in 2016, an API spokesperson claimed that the organisation “had a long history opposing carbon taxes.” The API appears to oppose direct regulation of methane. Since 2016, the organisation has relentlessly pursued the removal or weakening of Bureau of Land Management's regulation of methane as well as the EPA’s New Source Performance Standards for oil and gas sector emissions. In 2017, API lobbied in favour of reconsidering previously agreed US vehicle emission standards for 2021-2025, which the Trump administration has since moved to roll back. The API has also funded research that calls into question the link between air pollution and health impacts that was subsequently used in 2018 by the automotive sector to support the case for weaker vehicle emission rules. In 2018, the API remained actively opposed to tax credits, mandates or subsidies to help incentivize electric vehicles. This includes directly lobbying the US House, the US Senate and a number of US State Governors calling on them to reject such policies. The API has also continually lobbied for the repeal or reform of US renewable fuel standards and has lobbied heavily in favour of measures that will help maintain a high GHG energy mix, for example, the removal of restrictions on unconventional oil and gas production, including in the Arctic.