US Chamber of Commerce
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? |
0 | -1 | NA | 0 | -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) |
0 | -1 | NA | -2 | -1 | NS | NA | NA |
Supporting the Need for Regulations
To what extent does the organization express the need for regulatory intervention to resolve the climate crisis? |
0 | 0 | NA | -1 | 0 | -1 | NA | NA |
Support of UN Climate Process
Is the organization supporting the UN FCCC process on climate change? |
0 | -1 | NA | -1 | -2 | -2 | NA | NA |
Transparency on Legislation
Is the organisation transparent about its positions on climate change legislation/policy and its activities to influence it? |
1 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NS |
Carbon Tax
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: carbon tax. |
-1 | NS | NA | -2 | -2 | NS | NA | NA |
Emissions Trading
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: emissions trading. |
-2 | 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 |
0 | -1 | NA | 0 | -2 | 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 | 0 | 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? |
0 | -1 | NA | 0 | 0 | -2 | 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 |
-1 | -1 | NA | -2 | -1 | -2 | 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? |
0 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NS |
Climate Lobbying Overview: The US Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber) appears actively opposed to climate policy in the US. While the Chamber updated its climate position statement to a nominally more positive stance in 2021, it advocated in opposition to early policy measures advanced by the Biden administration shortly thereafter. The Chamber’s positive communications in 2021 follow years of strategic opposition to most strands of climate policy and, from 2016-2020, active support for the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda.
Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: Since 2019, the Chamber has stated support for “durable” climate policy that recognizes both the “costs of action and inaction.” Its 2021 position statement further endorses a market-based approach to emissions reductions but stops short of supporting global emissions reductions in line with IPCC advice. Rather, a statement on its website expresses concern with certain proposed timelines that are “not viewed as feasible.”
The Chamber’s 2019 reversal on the Paris Agreement, in particular, followed years of detailed opposition. In 2017, it sponsored and publicized research criticizing the US’s GHG emission reduction pledge under the Agreement, which was subsequently used by the Trump Administration in 2017 to justify pulling the US out of the deal. In March 2019, the Chamber’s Global Energy Institute submitted detailed criticism of the US’s obligation under the Paris Agreement to US House Representatives, arguing that the GHG emissions target commitments were “completely unrealistic.” A month later, just before the Trump administration’s efforts to finalize this move, the Chamber altered its position, stating instead that it supported US participation in the deal. It is unclear if the Chamber’s position on the US’s pledge to reduce 26-29% of emissions by 2030 (against a 2005 baseline) also changed. With the US having formally rejoined the Paris Agreement, it is unclear how the Chamber will posture toward the new US emissions reduction target required by US participation in the deal.
Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: The Chamber has consistently opposed legislative and regulatory intervention on climate. While it backed several energy efficiency bills in 2019, such as the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, the Chamber lobbied heavily to weaken and roll back national fuel economy standards for vehicles from 2017 to 2020. In September 2020, it submitted an amicus brief supporting the revocation of California’s right to enact its own, stronger fuel economy standards. In 2021, the Chamber updated its website to offer conditional support for methane standards under the Clean Air Act. This followed active lobbying to repeal methane standards in 2017.
While the Chamber’s engagement with carbon tax and emissions trading proposals in the US appears less frequent in recent years, it opposed the European carbon border tax in 2019 as well as the EU Emissions Trading Scheme in 2018, cautioning against similar cap and trade proposals in the US. In February 2021, the Chamber wrote a memo to President Biden with other trade groups requesting participation in the administration’s process to determine the social cost of carbon, a figure used to justify climate regulations. The Chamber’s current stance is unclear, though previously, in 2017, it advocated for the repeal of the use of a ‘social-cost of carbon’ in policy making altogether, calling it "bad regulatory policy.” The Chamber also fought for the repeal of the Clean Power Plan (CPP), leading legal action against it from 2015 to 2019. In 2018, the Chamber supported the CPP’s replacement with the far weaker Affordable Clean Energy rule.
Positioning on Energy Transition: The Chamber shows some support for measures to advance low-emissions technologies, but appears largely opposed to an urgent transition of the energy mix. The Chamber has, in particular, opposed regulation that would limit unabated coal in the energy mix. The organization has opposed fossil fuel phase-out, including publishing a report on the economic cost of the ‘Keep it in the Ground’ movement in December 2018, claiming that it cost the US “$91.9 billion in domestic economic activity and eliminated nearly 730,000 job opportunities.” In 2019, the Chamber wrote a letter to US Senators opposing the proposed Green New Deal.
Rather than restrictions on GHG emitting fuels and practices, the Chamber’s 2019 policy proposals focus on raising government funding to develop technologies that may reduce GHG emissions in the future. The Chamber supported the USE-IT Act in 2020 aimed at developing carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, yet in February 2019, supported the repeal of a rule under the EPA’s New Source Performance Standards that would have tied the construction of new coal plants to the use of CCS. At the same time, it has continued to push for policy measures that will increase US fossil fuel production, including measures to aid increased offshore, Arctic, and non-conventional oil and gas production. For example, in February 2019, the organization took legal action to support the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. In January 2021, it strongly opposed Biden’s executive orders to revoke the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline and pause oil and gas leases on federal lands.