In particular, oil giants ConocoPhillips, British Petroleum and Shell claim memberships to both of the groups in conflict.
The Guardian sought to get the three groups' responses:
Five members of Uscap are also in API, including BP which said its employees were aware of the rallies. Conoco Phillips, which was also a member of the climate action partnership, has also turned against climate change, warning on its website that the legislation will put jobs at risk, and compromise America's energy security. The company is also advertising the energy rallies on its website, urging readers: "Make your voice heard."
However, Shell, also a member of both groups, said it did not support the rallies. Bill Tenner, a spokesman, said: "We are not participating."
So there you have it: Conoco Phillips, having reaped the initial good publicity from joining USCAP, conveniently decided to go back to being a major impediment to creating an clean energy economy, improving our national security, and stopping the catastrophic effects of climate change, presumably because their bean counters determined it would hurt their bottom line. Of course, they had no such issue entering USCAP, who's express purpose is to "to call on the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions."
BP's non-response and Shell's position of non-support, although appearing marginally better, don't really excuse the fact that their membership in both organizations is a major conflict of interest that allows them to appear as responsible corporate citizens while continuing to fund a campaign of misinformation that threatens to block meaningful energy and climate legislation.