Lately I’ve been speaking with a lot of big companies and universities as part of Greenpeace’s gas campaign.
We’re urging brands like Telstra, Bupa, Woolworths, UTS, NAB and more to cancel their membership of the Business Council of Australia (BCA) – a powerful lobby group that’s been advocating for more dirty gas projects on their behalf.
Greenpeace is focused on these brands because they all claim to care about climate action and have made strong individual commitments to decarbonise their businesses. As a company committed to reducing emissions, you’d think that fossil fuel lobbying is counterproductive to those efforts – right?
These companies don’t think so. What I hear in meeting after meeting is a version of “that’s not my problem.”
But fossil fuel lobbying is their problem – and not just because it destroys their credibility on climate. Direct or indirect lobbying can bring legal, investor, reputational, and governance risk that companies need to be taking seriously.
Why indirect lobbying matters: the political influence of Industry Associations

Direct lobbying is when a corporation goes directly to the government, or whoever they are trying to influence and pushes their views. Indirect lobbying is when a corporation pays to be part of an Industry Association (also known as a peak body) which will do that lobbying on its behalf.
For a company, indirect lobbying via an Industry Association is often more influential than their own direct lobbying. Industry Associations like the BCA and Australian Energy Producers (AEP) have a big impact on shaping policy, through directly lobbying the government, being active in the media and advertising, and making political donations. Indeed this influence is the key reason why companies choose to become members in the first place – because they recognise that by presenting as a united voice, they can get more done than lobbying as one company.
When the BCA or AEP speak – the government listens. Prime Minister Albanese gave the keynote address at the BCA’s annual gala dinner earlier this year. And these groups are amongst the first to be consulted and receive briefings when the government is designing policy.
Examples of times industry association lobbying shaped government policy:
- Both the AEP and BCA made submissions to the government consultation on the Future Gas Strategy – with their key demands and narratives showing up many times in the government’s final strategy. This is the document setting the direction for the role of gas in Australia’s energy mix out to 2050 and beyond, but it reads more like Woodside’s Strategic Plan.
- The BCA and AEP were vocal advocates for the approval of Woodside’s North West Shelf Extension – arguing, in spite of their commitments to the Paris Agreement, that we need more gas. Not long after, the government approved the project.
- The BCA lobbied the government around the setting of its emissions reductions targets, arguing that a more ambitious target would cost too much. The government soon announced a weak target – far below what the science says is required to meet our international climate targets.
The BCA and AEP gain power from the fact that they claim to represent over a hundred large businesses, acting as spokespeople for their collective interests. The BCA and AEP rely on the brand recognition and reputation of their member companies, and in turn those companies benefit by having their views represented in parliament and the media.
Companies like Telstra, Commonwealth Bank and others may choose to look the other way – but refusing to acknowledge a problem doesn’t make it go away.

Legal risk of indirect lobbying that is misaligned with a company’s own climate commitments
When companies tell their customers and investors they have certain policies on climate change, it is their responsibility to ensure that their actions match the commitments they have made on paper.
So when a company says it is committed to the Paris Agreement, but then is part of an industry association which is lobbying for policies that are incompatible with the goals of the Paris Agreement, that could amount to what is known in legal terms as “misleading and deceptive conduct”. There is also a legal risk for board directors, who often don’t have oversight over what indirect fossil fuel lobbying a company is engaged in.
A specific example of this is the BCA and AEP’s lobbying for further gas expansion, when there is scientific consensus that expanding fossil fuels is incompatible with the goal of limiting warming to below 1.5C. As stated in this Climate Integrity report:
The “net zero by 2050” target is based upon the need to limit warming below 1.5°C to prevent further tipping points from being reached and then maintaining that temperature. Any net zero pledge that undermines this 1.5°C limit is self-contradictory and could in certain circumstances be viewed as misleading
In the eyes of the law, this applies not just to a company’s individual climate commitments – but also its indirect lobbying activities.
Investor risk of misaligned corporate lobbying

The Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR) has outlined in depth the risks posed to a company’s investors from advocating on climate policy that is out of alignment with a company’s own policies and commercial interests.
Companies pay steep membership fees to be part of groups like the BCA and AEP. AGL for example paid $104,500 for its BCA membership in 2024. It could be considered a misuse of shareholder funds for a company to be a paying member of an industry association which does not represent its stated interests. In recent years investors have been doing more to hold companies to account for the activities of their industry associations.
In a report from over 5 years ago, ACCR explicitly identifies the core of the issue that still persists today:
There is often a significant difference between the formal policies of an industry association and the public advocacy that it undertakes. The most common example of this is companies that endorse the Paris Agreement while advocating for policies that are simply irreconcilable with its central objective: limiting global warming to 2ºC above pre-industrial temperatures. It is this fundamental disparity between policy and advocacy that poses the single largest risk to investors.
Companies that are part of these groups must take responsibility for their industry association lobbying that is out of alignment with the Paris Agreement and take note of the risks posed to investors.
What can you do to hold these brands accountable for their fossil fuel lobbying?
If you’re a member of the public:
- Greenpeace has created a Climate Credibility Scorecard, where we’ve ranked some of the most influential BCA members with strong climate commitments on what steps they’ve taken to distance themselves from the BCA’s lobbying for more dirty gas. This is a live resource that we’ll keep updating and adding more companies to, so keep checking back!
- You can email the CEOs of these companies using our easy tool and increase the pressure on them to act.
- Leave a message for Telstra’s leadership team here and urge them to quit the BCA. And help amplify our message on social media.
If you’re an employee of a company who is indirectly lobbying for fossil fuels:
- Check out this briefing for Telstra employees here (but the same tips apply to any company or university that is in the BCA or AEP!)
If you’re a member of an organisation or company considering partnering with one of these companies:
- Don’t take sponsorships from or offer speaking slots to companies in the BCA and AEP who aren’t walking the talk on climate. Prove that their reputation on climate is on the line.
The science is crystal clear: we can’t approve any new coal or gas projects if we want to avoid catastrophic climate impacts and limit global warming to 1.5C. We’re already feeling the impacts of climate change here in Australia and around the world – and the recent Climate Risk Assessment demonstrates just how bad things could get if we don’t urgently slash pollution from coal and gas now.
Until companies start actually taking responsibility for their fossil fuel lobbying – individual decarbonisation goals just aren’t going to cut it.
Will you join us and help hold these big brands to account?
Why indirect fossil fuel lobbying is everybody’s problem and big brands must be held accountable
Climate Change
Introducing Project Cosmos: Carbon Brief’s ‘universe’ of climate science
Carbon Brief’s Project Cosmos is a major collaborative effort to build the world’s largest and most complete database of climate change research.
The Cosmos database – which features more than 1.8m individual publications linked by 40m citation relationships – captures the vast body of human knowledge about climate change that has accumulated over more than a century of academic study.
Cosmos is a major new resource, which has taken more than 18 months to research and build, with help and guidance from a specialist team of academics.
Carbon Brief embarked on Project Cosmos to map and analyse the scientific community’s foundational knowledge about climate change.
This includes, at first, ranking the most highly cited academic publications, authors and institutions.
Together, this series of rankings is known as the Cosmos 500.
But, over time, the database will reveal, for example, how interest in different areas of climate science has changed over time, plus identify potential knowledge gaps and, thus, opportunities for future research.
The post Introducing Project Cosmos: Carbon Brief’s ‘universe’ of climate science appeared first on Carbon Brief.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/introducing-project-cosmos-carbon-briefs-universe-of-climate-science/
Climate Change
Two to tango: How governments can unlock private investment for national climate goals
Even the most ambitious national climate plans aimed at cutting emissions to meet the 1.5C global warming goal in the Paris Agreement often lack a vital ingredient for success: private investment.
With governments facing fiscal and political pressures, attracting private capital will be crucial for accelerating climate action in the coming years.
Yet many Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) still do not have the sector-specific plans, economic incentives, policy certainty, infrastructure investment and ongoing dialogue needed to break silos between the public and private sectors and bring more businesses on board.
“If you just have the high-level (NDC) target from the government in a vacuum, it’s not going to spur much business action,” said Greg Briner, senior manager for policy at the We Mean Business Coalition, which works with companies pushing for stronger climate action.
“But that target combined with … more specific policies and measures that get put in place as a result of that target-implementing process, or as a result of the NDCs, is where the magic starts happening,” he explained.
NDCs: late and inadequate
NDCs are voluntary climate action plans created by countries under the Paris Agreement. They include commitments such as expanding renewable energy, reducing fossil fuels, halting deforestation and other measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming.
First submitted in 2015 for the Paris Agreement, NDCs should be updated with more ambitious targets every five years, although some governments have not stuck to this timetable.
Last year, most countries missed an initial February deadline to finalise the latest round of plans, known as “NDCs 3.0” – and at least 50 countries, mainly developing nations, have still not done so.
Paris Agreement committee snubbed over missing NDC climate plans
Although these national plans have helped drive emissions reductions in some sectors – including falling deforestation rates and greater investments in renewables – climate experts say progress remains far too slow to meet the Paris goals and urgent action is now needed.
Last November, the UN climate body projected that global emissions would fall by around 12% from 2019 levels by 2035, based on a preliminary assessment of new NDCs announced by countries that produce nearly 70% of the world’s greenhouse gases.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said countries should cut emissions far more rapidly, with a 60% drop by 2035 needed to limit global warming to 1.5C.
But for developing economies especially, the multi-billion-dollar costs associated with transitioning to greener energy systems and curbing their emissions are still a major barrier. Climate experts say governments and businesses need to move in step if NDC targets are to be achieved.
“There are positive actions going on but we need a significant ramping up. It’s not happening quickly enough,” said Briner. “It’s (about) building on these foundations that are being put in place.”
Nurturing the conditions for private investment
Last September, consumer goods giant Unilever published a report, entitled Bold Plans, Real Impact, examining how corporate climate transition plans and NDCs can support each other.
Among its recommendations, the report called for governments to provide clearer roadmaps for private-sector engagement. It also highlighted the need for stronger regulatory frameworks, market incentives, sector-specific transition pathways and integrated, economy-wide planning.
For businesses, the report recommended aligning their transition plans with national climate priorities, collaborating more closely with industry peers, strengthening monitoring and verification systems, and unlocking finance through public-private partnerships.
Comment: The missing piece in COP climate talks – market signals for adaptation
A year earlier, the We Mean Business Coalition published a similar report, Time to Deliver: Business Call to Action for Ambitious and Investible NDCs.
This report urged governments – particularly in the G20 economies – to unlock private investment through sectoral targets, clean energy expansion, energy efficiency measures, fossil fuel phase-outs and commitments to halt deforestation.
It also stressed the importance of translating climate targets into concrete policies, backed by national implementation strategies and coordination across ministries.
Another key recommendation was the need for more transparent and inclusive dialogue with businesses throughout the NDC process. Early consultation with companies, the report said, should be embedded into the development and implementation of NDCs to ensure that climate plans reflect commercial realities.
Briner of We Mean Business said the economics of decarbonisation have changed dramatically over the past two decades.
“Ten to 20 years ago, decarbonising and investing in clean energy and electrification was seen as nice-to-have and a more expensive option, but these days, it simply makes business sense,” he said, referring to recent geopolitical events in the Middle East that have roiled oil and gas markets, pushing up fossil fuel prices.
However, upfront costs for clean energy infrastructure remain a major hurdle. Governments therefore need to complement climate policies with investments, concessional loans, grants, subsidies and tax incentives to help reduce risks, Briner added.
“Globally, there are still significant subsidies going to fossil fuels in different forms,” he said. “If we could redirect some of those current incentives away from fossil fuels and into clean electrification and clean energy, then that would certainly help.”
Brazil’s sector-specific climate planning
Brazil’s NDC targets include expanding renewable energy – which already accounts for nearly 45% of its energy mix – ending illegal deforestation and reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.
According to Briner, Brazil’s climate strategy – known as Plano Clima – offers an example of how governments can provide businesses with clearer implementation guidance.
Years in development, the initiative sets out how Brazil intends to meet its climate goals through a series of sectoral plans covering areas such as energy, transport and land use.
“They’ve put together some pretty detailed, impressive plans,” Briner said. “Those are the types of things that will influence business models and business decisions. It’s this more detailed second layer of setting out national plans which is of interest to business.”


Last year, a transport coalition of more than 50 associations, companies and academia put forward a plan to help reduce the sector’s emissions and attract more than $600 billion in green investments in Brazil.
The previous year, 55 companies operating in Brazil, including Natura, Nestle, Itau and Unilever, called for more ambitious NDCs and clearer implementation policies, as well as encouraging climate-friendly investment and private-sector involvement.
Unilever, for example, has a global goal to create a deforestation-free supply chain and is partnering with a leading supplier in Brazil to ensure that soybean oil used at its factory there is not linked to forest loss.
Cheaper capital, high-quality projects
Although Brazil has relatively sophisticated capital markets, high interest rates still make long-term, low-carbon investments difficult, said Natalie Unterstell, president of the Talanoa Institute, a Brazilian environmental think-tank.
To address this challenge, Brazil is scaling up Fundo Clima – its National Climate Change Fund – as a central part of its implementation strategy by offering cheaper financing at scale.
But Unterstell said the private sector also needs to demonstrate that it can develop and deliver high-quality, low-carbon projects.
“Making Brazil’s policies investable is about making sure cheaper capital meets a pipeline of real, high-quality projects,” she said by email.
Brazilian firm behind SAF plan found growing oil palm on deforested Amazon land
While many companies have announced climate commitments, investment decisions have not always followed, she added.
“What companies can do better is move from targets to investment: adopt robust transition plans, and integrate carbon risk into core financial decisions,” Unterstell said.
On the government side, the priority is to “fix the signals”, she added. That means ensuring Brazil’s regulated carbon market – which is due to start in 2027 for sectors including iron and steel, cement, and oil and gas – operates with clear rules, credible enforcement and no delays, while aligning public finance with climate goals and providing long-term policy certainty.
“At the moment, both sides are waiting for stronger signals from the other, hence breaking that co-ordination problem is key,” she said.
Indonesia’s challenge: bridging the finance gap
Like Brazil, Indonesia is home to large areas of rainforest, but its energy mix relies far more heavily on fossil fuels, with coal providing about a third of supply. In its NDCs, Indonesia has pledged to reduce emissions by 31.9% by 2030 compared with business-as-usual levels, or by 43.2% with international support, on the way to reaching net zero by 2060.
Yet despite being promised more than $20 billion in international financial support from donor governments and investors under its Just Energy Transition Partnership, Jakarta has decided to row back on a plan to close a key coal power station early, saying it will focus on shuttering older and dirtier plants first.
To attract private investment to help achieve its emissions goals, Indonesia must provide policy clarity and long-term certainty, said Fabby Tumiwa, executive director of the Institute for Essential Services Reform, an Indonesian think-tank.
Comment: Indonesia’s failing Just Energy Transition Partnership is a cautionary tale
“Any investor wants to understand the long-term risks of the country so that they can assess the risks properly and come up with a risk mitigation strategy. Uncertain policies basically make investors unable to mitigate the risks,” Tumiwa told Climate Home News.
“To make Indonesia’s climate policies investable for the private sector, the core task is to convert climate ambition into bankable, enforceable, risk-adjusted projects,” he said. “Investors do not only need targets; they need predictable revenue, credible off-takers, permits, grid access, currency-risk management and policy durability.”
Indonesia has estimated the investment needed to meet its NDC goals at more than $400 billion but has yet to clearly outline how businesses can directly contribute, said Egi Suarga, senior manager for climate at World Resources Institute Indonesia, a research organisation.
He said climate action should be framed as an investment opportunity rather than an economic burden.
Evolving policies and regulations
Over 100 Indonesian companies have adopted net-zero and are ready to ramp up decarbonisation given clear national guidance, according to the We Mean Business Coalition.
Indonesia’s Indika Energy is making heavy investments in renewable energy such as solar, while cement company Solusi Bangun Indonesia is also investing in cleaner energy, fuel efficiency and pushing better biodiversity management.
Meanwhile, Unilever’s climate transition plan states that the company is working with local government and environmental NGOs in Indonesia to protect and restore forests in Aceh and North Sumatra. It is also switching from natural gas to biomethane at its Indonesian sites.


One positive development, Suarga noted, is the creation of carbon pricing regulations aimed at attracting private finance, with an initial focus on the forestry sector.
“It can create a good climate for investors,” he said. “It doesn’t directly mention that this is for achieving the NDCs but there is no trade-off between development financing with environmental protections – so that’s a good start.”
Indonesia also needs stronger incentives and regulations for renewable energy, he added.
“We also have to think about other sectors now – like the energy sector and renewables,” Suarga said. “How can the government provide more incentives or facilitating regulations that can be more profitable to create a level playing field for renewables and fossil fuels?”
Ambition loop to drive action
Like Tumiwa, Suarga stressed the need for greater dialogue between the government and businesses so companies can understand better how they can contribute to Indonesia’s emissions targets.
“They know about sustainability because of the market and demands of the market… [but] I’m not sure whether [they] really understand about Indonesia’s target to achieve a certain amount of emissions reductions in the NDCs,” he said.
Currently, the government and private sector are largely working separately, Suarga added. The challenge lies in bringing them together to set targets, plan implementation and monitor emissions reductions. “It will need two to tango. The government should engage more with the private sector,” he emphasised.
Big banks’ lending to coal backers undermines Indonesia’s green plans
For the We Mean Business Coalition’s Briner, what is ultimately needed is an “ambition loop” in which businesses lead on emissions reductions while governments create policies that accelerate private-sector action.
“It really helps governments when they have a strong voice from business calling for policy action. It helps move things forward,” he said.
Without stronger policies and incentives, achieving NDC goals will become increasingly difficult to achieve and costly, experts say.
“It’s really a case of all hands-on deck right now,” Briner said. “We need all sides of this equation working together and trying to get this done because there isn’t an alternative.”
The post Two to tango: How governments can unlock private investment for national climate goals appeared first on Climate Home News.
Two to tango: How governments can unlock private investment for national climate goals
Climate Change
How a Tiny Texas River Agency Plans to Build the Largest Desalination Plant in the Country
Officials from the Nueces River Authority collected millions of dollars from cities and utility districts near San Antonio and Austin before they partnered with an Israeli desalination giant.
This story was produced in partnership with the Texas Newsroom, the state’s network of public radio stations.
How a Tiny Texas River Agency Plans to Build the Largest Desalination Plant in the Country
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy8 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

