Many trade organizations we participate in have climate change positions aligned to ours. Where they do not, we have continued to offer our viewpoint and attempt to work with them to better align their position with ours. For example, we’ve worked to influence the American Petroleum Institute (API), the Business Roundtable (BRT) and other organizations to support the direct federal regulation of methane. In addition to actively participating in trade organization position updates, we have also voted against or abstained from supporting specific actions requested by a trade organization if their positions were not aligned with ours. We have also decided not to renew some memberships because of misalignment on a number of policy topics, one of which is climate change. For more information about our governance and major trade associations please see Political Support Policies and Procedures.

With our history of constructive engagement related to the issue of end-use emissions, we continue to devote significant time and effort engaging and advocating for a well-designed federal price on carbon, including within our trade associations. We believe a price on carbon is the most effective, equitable method to reduce GHG emissions, including methane, across the economy. To advance this position, ConocoPhillips joined the Climate Leadership Council (CLC) in 2019 as a Founding Member along with the CLC’s advocacy organization, Americans for Carbon Dividends (AFCD), which is focused on progressing the Baker-Shultz Carbon Dividends plan; since then, our Executive Leadership Team and Government Affairs staff have participated in well over 100 bipartisan meetings with members of Congress and the Administration. Our consistent, strong engagement with our major trade associations, including the API, BRT and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has influenced their climate policy positions to include support for a market-based approach to GHG emissions. In 2021, ConocoPhillips was accepted as a Private Sector Partner within the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition (CPLC), a global voluntary partnership run by the World Bank to share and expand the evidence base for effective carbon pricing policies. Participation in the CPLC further demonstrates our commitment to carbon pricing and is complementary to our engagement with the Climate Leadership Council. 

As part of our routine review of trade association membership, the company evaluates how trade organization policy positions align with those expressed by ConocoPhillips, including:   

Paris Agreement: ConocoPhillips’ greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets and actions are consistent with the Paris Agreement’s aim to limit the rise of global temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius. In measuring alignment, we considered policies which support the goals of the Paris Agreement as aligned with our own. 

Carbon Pricing: A well-designed pricing regime on carbon emissions is the most effective tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the global economy. Carbon pricing policy should support the implementation of currently economic emissions reduction projects and provide support for innovation to encourage the development of currently uneconomic projects. A revenue-neutral carbon tax that is transparent, predictable and cost-effective to administer would be an effective policy option. It should result in some relief via the elimination of other laws and regulations aimed at reducing or controlling carbon and other GHG emissions. In measuring alignment, we considered policies which support a market-based mechanism to reduce GHG emissions across the economy as aligned with our own. 

Addressing Methane Emissions: The most effective tool for emissions reductions across the economy would be a well-designed federal pricing regime on carbon emissions. In the absence of a carbon pricing policy, we support enactment of cost-effective federal methane regulations on new and existing sources that would preserve a state’s ability to adapt implementation to local conditions. In measuring alignment, we considered policies which support direct regulation of methane as aligned with our own.