Oil giant BP has announced plans for a major strategic overhaul following a sharp decline in profits, a move expected to include scaling back its renewable energy ambitions and increasing oil and gas production.

The company reported a net income of $8.9 billion (£7.2 billion) for 2024, a significant drop from $13.8 billion in the previous year. BP attributed the decline to lower oil and gas prices as well as reduced profits from its refining operations.

Shift Away from Renewables

BP had previously committed to generating 50GW of renewable energy capacity by 2030, but that target is expected to be abandoned when the company unveils its revised strategy on February 26.

The company has already been retreating from its renewable energy commitments. In December, it transferred the bulk of its offshore wind assets into a joint venture with Japanese company Jera, effectively separating them from its core fossil fuel business. BP also froze new wind projects in June 2023 and is now expected to cut its $10 billion renewables investment plan by up to half.

Investor Pressure and Growing Criticism

BP’s shift towards fossil fuels comes as activist hedge fund Elliott Management has acquired a stake in the company, pushing for greater investment in oil and gas. Analysts suggest Elliott’s influence may lead to board changes.

Russ Mould, an analyst at AJ Bell, noted that BP’s profit slump had strengthened Elliott’s case. “A clear and credible plan is desperately needed if BP is going to remain the master of its own destiny,” he said.

However, the decision to pivot back to oil and gas has drawn criticism from environmental groups, who argue that BP and other fossil fuel companies are worsening the climate crisis.

Global Witness, a human rights campaign group, pointed out that BP invested nearly £9 billion in oil and gas last year, compared with only £1.3 billion on renewables and low-carbon energy.

“As the world battles extreme weather disasters supercharged by fossil fuels, it is wrong that polluters such as BP can double down on the oil and gas that is driving climate breakdown,” said Lela Stanley, the group’s head of fossil fuels investigations.

Industry-Wide Trend Towards Fossil Fuels

BP’s move reflects a broader trend in the oil and gas industry, with several major energy firms scaling back their renewable energy investments due to concerns over profitability.

Last week, Norwegian energy giant Equinor announced plans to halve its investment in renewable energy over the next two years, citing rising costs and a slower-than-expected transition to low-carbon energy. Shell has also stepped back from new offshore wind investments, following similar concerns.

Former BP strategy head Nick Butler defended the shift, stating that big oil firms would invest in renewables “when they can see a clear profit.”

Political Uncertainty and Climate Implications

The debate over fossil fuel investment is also playing out on the political stage. Former U.S. President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly expressed support for fossil fuels, recently renewed his pledge to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement if re-elected. He has also vowed to ramp up oil and gas exploration, telling supporters the U.S. will “drill, baby, drill.”

In response, environmental activists are pushing for stronger regulations on fossil fuel companies. Elena Polisano of Greenpeace said growing pressure on governments could lead to higher taxation on oil and gas profits, with funds directed towards climate disaster recovery efforts, as seen in Vermont and New York.

“Oil majors like BP are fuelling the climate crisis,” she said. “So it’s only fair to make polluters pay.”

As BP prepares to unveil its new strategy, the company faces increasing scrutiny over whether its pursuit of profit-driven fossil fuel expansion aligns with global efforts to combat climate change.

President Donald Trump has ordered an end to the production of the one-cent coin, commonly known as the penny, calling it a wasteful government expense. In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump announced his directive to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, stating, “Let’s rip the waste out of our great nation’s budget, even if it’s a penny at a time.”

The decision follows renewed scrutiny over the cost of minting pennies, sparked by a post last month from Elon Musk’s unofficial Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) on X (formerly Twitter). The debate over whether the penny should be discontinued has been ongoing for years, but previous efforts in Congress to eliminate it have failed.

The Cost of a Penny

According to the US Mint’s 2024 annual report, producing and distributing a single penny costs 3.69 cents—far more than its face value. Critics argue that this inefficiency wastes government funds and valuable resources, as pennies are made primarily from zinc and copper.

Supporters of the penny, however, argue that keeping it in circulation helps prevent price inflation by maintaining small denominations for cash transactions. Some also highlight its role in charitable fundraising, as many donation programs rely on spare change collections.

A Global Trend?

The US is not the first country to reconsider the use of low-value coins. Canada phased out its one-cent coin in 2012, citing high production costs and declining purchasing power. The UK, while not officially scrapping its 1p and 2p coins, has not minted new coins in 2024 due to a decline in cash usage.

Despite this shift toward cashless transactions, Trump’s decision marks a significant policy move, one that could reignite debates over the future of physical currency in the US. While it remains to be seen how businesses and consumers will respond, one thing is certain—the penny’s days are now numbered.

Drax Power Station, a key player in the UK’s renewable energy sector, has once again come under scrutiny for failing to report its use of wood from primary forests, BBC News has found. The revelations come after the company was fined £25 million last year for misreporting sustainability data, following an investigation by energy regulator Ofgem.

The North Yorkshire-based power station, which produces around 6% of the UK’s electricity, has received billions of pounds in government subsidies, as wood-burning is classified as a renewable energy source. However, newly uncovered evidence suggests that Drax misreported its data for an additional year, a period that has yet to be reviewed by regulators.

Undeclared Use of Primary Forest Wood

As part of its subsidy agreements, Drax is required to declare whether it sources wood from natural, previously untouched forests. These primary forests are crucial for storing carbon and providing vital wildlife habitats.

Despite publicly committing to avoiding damage to high-carbon forests, Drax has continued to source whole trees from primary forests in British Columbia, Canada—a practice that contradicts its own sustainability criteria. Logging records reveal that while Drax no longer holds logging licenses in British Columbia, it still purchases wood from other companies that clear-cut these forests.

Data obtained by the BBC through environmental information requests shows that in the 2020-21 reporting year, Drax failed to declare that a significant portion of the 1.2 million tonnes of Canadian wood pellets it burned came from primary forests.

When asked why it had misreported its sustainability data, Drax did not provide a response. Instead, the company stated that it is “focused on implementing lessons learned” and emphasized that its sourcing meets UK, US, Canadian, and EU sustainability standards.

Regulatory Response and Government Subsidies

Ofgem previously stressed that accurate sustainability reporting is essential for monitoring the impact of biomass energy on carbon emissions and biodiversity. The regulator has now ordered Drax to conduct an independent audit of its global supply chain.

“If any additional evidence comes to light following the audit, we will investigate again,” an Ofgem spokesperson said.

Despite the findings, Ofgem has not yet committed to further action against Drax for the newly uncovered misreporting. Meanwhile, the UK government is expected to extend Drax’s renewable energy subsidies, which are currently set to expire in 2027.

A Growing Debate Over Biomass Sustainability

The government has indicated that it is considering amendments to the current biomass sustainability criteria, which do not currently prohibit the use of whole trees from primary forests for wood pellets. However, officials have not confirmed whether new regulations will restrict sourcing from these critical ecosystems.

A spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero acknowledged concerns over biomass sustainability and said Ofgem is working closely with Drax to prevent further misreporting.

“The situation we inherited for large-scale biomass generators was unacceptable,” the department stated.

As scrutiny over Drax’s environmental impact intensifies, the debate continues over whether wood-burning should remain a cornerstone of the UK’s renewable energy strategy—especially when primary forests are at stake.