Queensland Resources Council (QRC)
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. . |
EU Register
Information provided by to the voluntary EU Transparency Register. |
|
|
Communication of Climate Science
Is the organization transparent and clear about its position on climate change science? |
1
|
-2
|
NA | NS |
-1
|
NS | NA | 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
|
-1
|
NA |
-1
|
NS |
-1
|
NA | NA |
|
Supporting the Need for Regulations
To what extent does the organization express the need for regulatory intervention to resolve the climate crisis? |
-1
|
NS | NA |
-1
|
NS | NS | NA | NA |
|
Support of UN Climate Process
Is the organization supporting the UN FCCC process on climate change? |
NS |
-1
|
NA |
0
|
NS | NS | NA | NA |
|
Transparency on Legislation
Is the organisation transparent about its positions on climate change legislation/policy and its activities to influence it? |
0
|
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 | NS |
-2
|
NA | NA |
|
Emissions Trading
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: emissions trading. |
NS | NS | NA | NS | NS | NS | NA | NA |
|
Energy and Resource Efficiency
Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: energy efficiency policy, standards, and targets |
NS | NS | NA | NS | NS | NS | NA | NA |
|
Renewable Energy
Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Renewable energy legislation, targets, subsidies, and other policy |
0
|
-1
|
NA |
-2
|
NS | NS | NA | 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? |
-1
|
-1
|
NA |
-1
|
-1
|
-1
|
NA | 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 |
NS | NS | NA |
-2
|
NS | NS | NA | 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? |
1
|
NS | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
Climate Lobbying Overview: Queensland Resources Council (QRC) appears to have a highly negative position on climate change and transitioning the energy mix. It appears to be actively lobbying against climate and energy policies, although engagement appears to be mostly limited to policies regarding the transition of the energy mix.
Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: QRC does not appear to fully support ambitious action on climate change in its top-line communications. In QRC's 2020 Position on Energy and Climate Change, it qualified its support for the need for a national policy response to reduce GHG emissions by emphasizing the need to protect the competitiveness of Queensland's economy. In response to the 2020 Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, QRC opposed the consideration of climate change and emissions reductions under Australia's landmark environmental legislation. QRC also does not appear to have explicitly supported the Paris Agreement.
Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: QRC has had some engagement on policies regarding renewable energy and emissions reductions. QRC appears strongly opposed to renewable energy legislation, advocating for an Australian Clean Energy Target that includes coal and would allow for new coal plants to be built. In 2016 consultation responses QRC also advocated for a weaker “floating” Queensland renewable energy target that could include other ‘low emissions’ sources, and argued against subsidies for solar, stating that “subsiding small-scale solar PV generation is likely to be unfair and inefficient”. Evidence further suggests Queensland Resources Council is unsupportive of a Queensland zero-emissions 2050 target, stating in 2017 that it would be “challenging” to meet such a target. In April 2020, QRC opposed the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
Positioning on Energy Transition: Queensland Resources Council is a vocal advocate for a long-term role for coal in the global and Australian energy mix, with it’s CEO, Ian Macfarlane stating in 2017 that “the development of a coal-fired power station or three in eastern Australia is virtually inevitable”. QRC has actively advocated for increased Australian coal exports and the Adani Carmichael coal mine developing, arguing in 2017 that “it is a deceptive argument that stopping a single coal mine in central Queensland will influence the level of global emissions”. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, QRC has lobbied for economic incentives for the fossil fuel sector to support Australia's economic recovery, including to fast-track brownfield coal projects in Queensland. In August 2020, QRC released a TV advertising campaign in the run-up to the Queensland State elections promoting the benefits of the mining and gas industry. In April 2020, QRC supported the development of the Surat coal seam gas project.