BP’s U-Turn: Betting Big on Oil and Gas
Sunday, 09 March 2025
Oil giant BP has abandoned its net-zero plans and will invest more in fossil fuel expansion. Five years ago, the company promised to cut oil and gas production to 1.5 million barrels a day by 2030. But oil’s falling share price and the Trump administration's pro-fossil fuel policies have prompted a rethink, and the company now plans to increase production to 2.4 million barrels a day while cutting US$5 billion from its renewable energy investments.
With deregulation making oil and gas more attractive to investors, BP has chosen to prioritise short-term profits over long-term sustainability—a move that could embolden other energy giants to follow suit, undermining efforts to curb climate change. It’s a bet against the urgency of the crisis—a gamble with far-reaching consequences for the planet’s habitability.
Trump's "drill, baby, drill" mantra and regulatory rollbacks—such as expanded drilling leases and eased restrictions on LNG exports—have made oil and gas a safer bet for investors. The question isn’t why BP made this decision—it’s what happens next and how the rest of us—the public—respond.
What Can We Do?
It’s easy to feel powerless in the face of corporate decisions, but history shows that consumer, political, and financial pressure can drive change. Here’s how we can push back:
Economic Pressure
Divest from BP and other fossil fuel companies.
Support clean energy alternatives and companies with strong environmental commitments.
Reduce personal fossil fuel consumption (including plastics) to decrease demand for fossil-fuels’ products
Public Awareness & Collective Action
Join environmental groups campaigning against fossil fuel expansion.
Participate in climate protests and demonstrations.
Use social media to expose BP’s environmental impact and policy shifts.
Political Engagement
Contact elected officials to demand stronger environmental regulations.
Vote for leaders who prioritize climate action and corporate accountability.
BP’s U-turn isn’t an anomaly—it’s a pattern. Corporations act in their own financial interests unless compelled otherwise. The real question isn’t what every BP is doing, but how we respond. If history has taught us anything, it’s that corporate pledges mean little without public pressure, policy intervention, and persistent advocacy.
"Corporations act in their own financial interests unless compelled otherwise."
I'd like to suggest a more productive way of thinking about corporate behavior. Your statement is absolutely true, but it suggests an unnecessarily antagonistic way of thinking about how to deal with corporate anti-social behavior. Corporations are not the enemy; they're a necessary component of our economies. I think it better to think of them as sharks, which are necessary components of the marine ecosystem. Sharks aren't evil; they just do what they are meant to do. Yes, sharks kill people horrifically, but we don't consider them to be an enemy of humankind. Instead, we take preventative measures to the extent that is possible to minimize the harm done by sharks.
I think that we should think the same way about corporations. We don't want to harm corporations unnecessarily, but we have a higher priority of protecting society. So we enact a variety of laws to constrain corporations. For the most part, this strategy is effective, but American constraints on corporations tend to fall short of the ideal.
In particular, the American legal theory that a corporation is a person in the eyes of the law allows corporate participation in political discourse. This is a blunder that opens the door to many social evils, yet too few Americans understand the principles at work, so there is no political pressure to correct the problem.