Earlier this month, the UN announced it will require fossil fuel lobbyists to identify themselves as such when registering for the Cop28 climate summit. The move was applauded by campaigners and politicians alike, but it’s a shockingly small first step towards matching the boldness demanded by UN secretary general, António Guterres, when it comes to rooting out fossil fuel influence. In a speech earlier this month, Guterres called for the phase out of fossil fuels themselves, and said oil majors must “cease and desist influence peddling and legal threats designed to knee-cap progress.”
The UN’s move to transparently label lobbyists at Cop28 looks a lot like damage control after recent embarrassing revelations, such as there having been more oil lobbyists than any one nation’s delegation at Cop26 in Glasgow. But to actually rid Cop of fossil fuel influence, the UN has to go far beyond finally unmasking industry lobbyists; it needs to hold up a mirror to its own enabling behaviour over the years, then reverse all of it.
Exposing just a single node – in this case, the lobbyists – in the complex ecosystem of climate misinformation is not enough to defuse its impact, and in fact might only add to the fairytale that industry representatives are attending the summit in good faith.
First, the UN should acknowledge that fossil fuel executives and lobbyists have been deeply embedded in its climate diplomacy since the 1992 Rio Earth summit, which birthed the UN framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC). Attending that summit alongside global leaders and youth climate activists were multiple members of the Global Climate Coalition – a group created by PR mastermind E Bruce Harrison and made up of corporate members from any polluting industry that felt threatened by the idea of a binding emissions reduction target.
In the lead-up to the summit, and at various events during it, Harrison and his clients pushed the idea that industry was already tackling the problem of “the greenhouse effect” via voluntary measures, so there was simply no need for onerous regulatory mechanisms. That idea was baked into the UNFCCC and has remained there, rarely challenged, for decades.
Since then, fossil fuel involvement in the annual Conference of the Parties, or Cop, has only grown, and the world has moved further and further away from an agreement that would actually halt warming at safe levels. The Cop28 president, Sultan Al Jaber, was the founding president of the renewable energy company Masdar and is still that company’s chair, while also being managing director of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (Adnoc). And once again, the PR industry is hard at work branding fossil fuel-connected interests as linchpins to climate progress.
Much of the news out of Abu Dhabi these days is centred on Masdar: solar projects, sustainable aviation, big plans for renewables, and a doubling of its commitment to install 100GW of renewable energy by 2030. But far more quietly, Adnoc has announced its goal of doubling oil and gas production to hit 5m barrels a day by 2027; as of 2020, the United Arab Emirates was already responsible for 14% of global oil and gas production, and now it has a plan to double its production.
Two highlights of Abu Dhabi’s climate week in May, put on by Masdar and promoted by the PR firm Edelman, were appearances by Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg, the UN’s special envoy on climate ambition and solutions, who heralded Al Jaber as the right man for this moment, a leader for the future. In a subsequent op-ed and social media posts, Bloomberg has doubled down on his support of Al Jaber, castigating those who dare to suggest that perhaps the right number of fossil fuel execs at a Cop is zero as naive and counterproductive.
But it is actually the idea that fossil fuel executives are capable of leading a global transition away from their core product that is naive, and remarkably ahistorical. Fossil fuel companies have not only had a seat at the table for Cop’s entire history, they’ve run the table. Are we the better for it? Have they galvanised progress? Given that the big question in the lead-up to Cop28 is whether Al Jaber will allow a global treaty that specifically calls for the end of fossil fuel development and extraction, the answer is a painfully obvious no.
To really root out fossil fuel influence, the myriad PR execs in and around the process should also have to label their affiliations, for a start. Fossil fuel companies should have to disclose what they are spending on PR and marketing around Cop as well, and what sort of messaging that money is funding. Are they telling the world they’re already transitioning? Are they telling the world that oil and gas are actually a critical part of the solution to climate crisis? Are they pushing false solutions like carbon capture or blue hydrogen or “sustainable” aviation fuels? Are they trying to undermine the credibility of negotiators whose goals don’t align with expanding fossil fuels?
“Cop28 is already so shot through with corporate influence, this thing where fossil fuel lobbyists have to identify themselves seems like just throwing climate campaigners a bone,” Melissa Aronczyk, who wrote the book on why polluting industries engage in PR, told me. “It also weirdly gives them added legitimacy, and it won’t have any impact at all on the actual proceedings or outcome.”
Cop28’s organisers have been actively courting increased participation from the fossil fuel industry and positioning that approach as critical to the success of climate negotiations. Yet while some have made a “free speech” argument about the importance of fossil fuel companies having a voice at Cop, there’s nothing in any country’s constitution that guarantees citizens access to global conferences. And sociology research has documented time and again the ability of corporate budgets to shout down citizens and the politicians who represent them; they have no shortage of ways to make their opinions known.
To give the world’s leaders a chance at a global treaty that actually meets the moment, the UN cannot continue to allow Cop to be dominated by those who fight against the very change the summit is supposed to catalyse.
Amy Westervelt is a climate journalist and the founder and executive producer of the Critical Frequency podcast network
