BHP Backtracks on Climate Promises Despite Massive Resources

The Climate Reversal of a Mining Giant

The revelation that BHP cancelled and delayed commitments to act on the climate crisis should be a wake-up call. It matters in its own right: millions of tonnes of additional heat-trapping pollution will go into the atmosphere, adding to climate harm and making Australia's climate targets that much harder to reach.

It also matters for the influence the world's biggest miner could have in accelerating use of technology needed to cut pollution from major industrial operations.

Delayed Renewable Projects and Diesel Dependence

BHP shelved the first big investment planned under its decarbonisation plan – a huge solar farm – after it was approved and funded by its board. A much larger solar, wind and battery development that would have run most of its inland operations in northern Western Australia has been delayed for at least five years.

BHP has also doubled down on using diesel-powered trucks, despite a promise to switch to a fleet of electric vehicles running on renewable energy. Internal documents acknowledge this is inconsistent with its climate pledges.

The Scale of BHP's Environmental Impact

BHP is famously known as the Big Australian – a reflection of its success and scale since its origins mining silver and lead in Broken Hill 140 years ago. It remains at or near the top of lists of the country's most profitable companies.

But it is also a historic, global-scale polluter, mostly thanks to its mining of coal. Its extraction of that dirty fuel means it has been in the upper echelon of corporate emitters since industrialisation.

The thinktank InfluenceMap lists it as the 31st biggest cumulative contributor to the climate crisis, and the 10th biggest among companies owned by private investors.

Over the past 140 years, it has been responsible for more than 11bn tonnes of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere, counting the pollution released when its customers use its products. That's equivalent to about 25 years of Australia's current annual emissions.

Emissions Discrepancies and Financial Capacity

The company says it is acting – that its emissions are down 36% since 2020, putting it ahead of its target of a 30% reduction by 2030. But the detail here matters. The claimed cut is due to power purchase agreements signed for some grid-connected renewable energy projects, particularly in Chile, and the suspension of its struggling Western Australian nickel operations.

Its direct onsite emissions, mostly from burning diesel, continue. And its annual report shows its scope-three emissions – those that result from the use of its products – have increased by 7% since the turn of the decade. The scale of that increase – more than 25m tonnes a year – dwarfs the reduction the company claims it has made.

The company's own estimates suggest that its full decarbonisation could cost US$7.5bn over the next 25 years. It brings in the equivalent revenue in less than six months from its WA operations alone.

Government Policy and Corporate Responsibility

One reason BHP hasn't invested more heavily in emissions reduction might be that the Australian Labor government is sending mixed messages to big miners even as it pledges the country will reach net zero emissions by 2050.

Mining companies receive more than $4bn a year in rebates on the cost of diesel that are not offered to households and small businesses. BHP is the biggest beneficiary. According to the thinktank Clean Energy Finance, the fuel tax credit scheme lowered its fuel bill by about $620m last year.

Making fossil fuels cheaper is a strange way to encourage the uptake of electric trucks running on renewable energy. It also works against the goals of a government policy that requires big industrial sites, including those operated by BHP, to cut emissions year-on-year.