Part of this lobby spend goes toward sophisticated efforts to capture the public and political narrative on climate change and the energy transition and is designed to deter policies which will impact fossil fuel usage. For example, BP has recently coordinated messages across its social media and advertising to reframe the climate crisis as a “dual” energy challenge, emphasizing the task of meeting rising energy demand as well as addressing climate change. At the same time, BP senior management has promoted “gradual” climate policy pathways with increased consumption of natural gas and “advantaged” oil. Powerful oil major CEOs play a key role in delivering pro-fossil fuel narratives. For example, Total CEO Patrick Pouyanné has argued against “the unrealistic idea of an abrupt transition”, stating that fossil fuels are “essential” due to their contribution to growth. This top line narrative capture of the energy transition supports direct lobbying on specific climate and energy regulations. Since Paris, Chevron, BP and ExxonMobil have led in opposition to a range of climate-motivated policy stands. For example, in 2018 both BP and Chevron have directly lobbied US policymakers for a rollback on US methane requirements. One recent trend is that Royal Dutch Shell and to some extent Total have made steps since 2015 to be more positive on a number of climate policy issues. However, both companies continue to support policy that will extend the role for fossil fuels in the energy mix and remain part of highly climate-oppositional trade associations. A key part of the oil majors’ lobbying strategy is apparent support for concepts like carbon pricing, while attaching numerous conditions to this support. For example, ExxonMobil made a highly publicized $1M donation to a campaign for a US federal carbon tax that also proposes the repeal of greenhouse gas emission standards under the US Clean Power Plan and the removal of company legal liability for climate change. Similar tactics are illustrated in the examples below. ◼ Claiming to share government concern for tackling climate yet opposing binding regulations. Chevron’s 2019 Climate Resilience Report Update sets out its opposition to regulation directly associated with the use of its products based on emissions. BP CEO Bob Dudley thanked the Trump administration in 2018 for rolling back the “avalanche of regulation” on the sector, and ExxonMobil’s apparent support for a federal carbon tax is conditioned on the removal of “literally thousands of regulations, laws and mandates” on greenhouse gas emissions. ◼ Claiming support for a carbon price but opposing specific policies to implement this price. In 2018, BP donated $13M to a campaign that successfully blocked a carbon tax policy in Washington State, also supported by Chevron. In other cases, companies are supporting cap and trade policies while attempting to control the policy details in order to weaken their impact by securing special exemptions in the form of free emission permits for their businesses. 11 InfluenceMap March 2019