Cop 29 climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, has highlighted the significant challenges of fossil fuel lobbying in the global fight against climate change. With over 1,773 fossil fuel lobbyists attending, their presence has raised alarms about the fossil fuel industry’s influence on climate negotiations, overshadowing the voices of vulnerable nations and undermining efforts to achieve net-zero emissions as outlined in Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 7 and 13.
Cop 29-Fossil Fuel Lobbying
The 29th Conference of the Parties (COP29) in Baku has once again exposed the persistent imbalance in global climate negotiations—where corporate influence often outweighs the representation of those most affected by the climate crisis. According to an analysis by the Kick Big Polluters Out (KBPO) coalition, 1,773 fossil fuel lobbyists were granted access to COP29, surpassing the combined delegations of the ten most climate-vulnerable nations (1,033) and exceeding those from several major economies, including Brazil (1,914) and Türkiye (1,862).
1. Scale and Nature of Corporate Presence
The overwhelming participation of fossil fuel representatives underscores a systemic issue in UN climate governance. Most lobbyists gained entry via trade associations, primarily from the Global North.
-
The International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) alone brought 43 delegates, including representatives from TotalEnergies and Glencore.
-
National delegations included corporate actors: Sumitomo (Japan), Suncor and Tourmaline (Canada), Eni and Enel (Italy), and 20 lobbyists under the UK delegation.
Major oil companies—Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, and Eni—collectively sent 39 lobbyists, despite ongoing accusations of fuelling Israel’s war in Palestine by supplying fossil fuels to its military.
2. Contradictions and Ethical Dilemmas
The presence of these actors runs counter to COP29’s stated goals: phasing out fossil fuels and accelerating climate finance. Activists argue that such participation represents a conflict of interest, akin to allowing tobacco companies to shape health policies.
Nnimmo Bassey of the Health of Mother Earth Foundation compared the influence of these lobbyists to “a venomous snake coiling around the very future of our planet.” This metaphor captures the perceived infiltration of profit-driven motives into climate decision-making.
3. Patterns and Historical Continuity
This is not an isolated phenomenon.
-
COP28 in Dubai hosted 2,450 fossil fuel lobbyists, a sharp rise from 636 at COP27 (Egypt).
-
Although overall participation at COP29 (52,305 attendees) is lower than last year’s 97,372, industry representation remains disproportionately high.
The fossil fuel industry’s involvement in COP negotiations has been continuous since their inception—an institutional flaw long criticized but rarely addressed through enforceable accountability mechanisms.
4. Voices of Resistance and Reform
Members of the KBPO coalition and Global South representatives have voiced strong opposition to this imbalance:
-
Rachitaa Gupta of the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice condemned decades of corporate manipulation, urging: “No more compromises. These polluters need to be kicked out… Global South communities must lead real, just climate solutions over profit.”
-
Sarah McArthur of the UK Youth Climate Coalition stressed that industry interests are “fundamentally opposed to what is needed to stop the climate crisis.”
-
Dawda Cham from HELP-Gambia emphasized the need to “sever ties and make polluters pay.”
The coalition calls for a UN Accountability Framework—modeled on the WHO’s tobacco treaty—to eliminate conflicts of interest and expel polluters from negotiations.
5. Broader Implications
This issue extends beyond fossil fuels. Other sectors—finance, agribusiness, and transport—also influence COP processes, though not yet fully quantified. The pattern reveals a deeper structural inequality in global environmental governance: those causing the crisis dominate the space meant to solve it, while the most vulnerable remain marginalized.
Analytical Summary
| Dimension | Observation | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Representation | 1,773 fossil fuel lobbyists vs. 1,033 delegates from 10 most vulnerable nations | Corporate overrepresentation dilutes equity and justice principles in COP processes |
| Accountability | No binding conflict-of-interest framework | Allows policy capture by private interests |
| Ethical Dimension | Active participation of war-linked fossil firms | Undermines moral legitimacy of global climate governance |
| Equity & Justice | Marginalization of Global South voices | Reproduces neo-colonial power asymmetries |
| Solution Pathway | Adoption of UN Accountability Framework akin to WHO tobacco treaty | Structural reform to safeguard scientific integrity and public trust |
When smoke fills the summit halls, truth struggles to breathe. 🌍🔥
Fossil Fuel Lobbying at COP29: A Barrier to Net Zero and Climate Justice
The overwhelming presence of 1,773 fossil fuel lobbyists at COP29—outnumbering delegates from the ten most climate-vulnerable nations (1,033)—has raised serious concerns about corporate capture of global climate negotiations. Their participation not only undermines the legitimacy of the COP process but also impedes progress toward achieving Net Zero emissions and fulfilling SDGs 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and 13 (Climate Action).
1. Distortion of Negotiation Outcomes
Fossil fuel lobbyists influenced key discussions by diluting commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promoting voluntary rather than enforceable policies, and advocating for misleading technologies such as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). These tactics effectively delayed decisive climate action and sustained reliance on fossil fuels under the guise of innovation.
2. Conflict of Interest and Greenwashing
The inclusion of fossil fuel representatives in climate talks represents a profound conflict of interest. Their corporate narratives—framed as “energy transition partnerships”—function largely as greenwashing strategies designed to maintain production and profits. This contradiction erodes public trust and diverts attention from the urgent need for renewable energy deployment.
3. Disproportionate Representation
The imbalance in representation—where polluters outnumber the most affected nations—distorts policy outcomes. The dominance of industry voices marginalizes vulnerable communities and Indigenous groups, undermining the principles of equity, justice, and shared responsibility that form the moral core of global climate governance.
4. Strategic Reforms for Accountability
Experts and civil society coalitions have called for structural reforms to protect the integrity of climate negotiations:
-
Restrict lobbyist access to negotiation tables through clear conflict-of-interest policies.
-
Establish an Accountability Framework similar to the WHO’s tobacco treaty to eliminate corporate interference.
-
Empower vulnerable nations by providing financial and technical support for equitable participation.
-
Encourage smaller, solution-driven meetings that focus on actionable outcomes rather than prolonged negotiations favoring vested interests.
-
Mobilize public advocacy to expose fossil fuel influence and demand transparency in policymaking.
5. Contradictions with Net Zero Goals
Fossil fuel lobbying directly contradicts global Net Zero objectives. Their efforts to promote continued fossil fuel use, weaken regulations, and resist accountability measures collectively hinder progress. Many companies publicly commit to Net Zero while privately lobbying against emission caps—a hypocrisy that sabotages collective climate ambition.
6. The Path Forward
Achieving Net Zero demands political will, public accountability, and a reformed COP framework that prioritizes sustainability over profit. Civil society must remain vigilant, ensuring that climate summits serve humanity’s collective future—not corporate balance sheets.
Conclusion
The fossil fuel lobby’s dominance at COP29 symbolizes the enduring tension between profit and planetary survival. Without structural reform, climate summits risk becoming theatres of contradiction—where those who set the world on fire negotiate the terms of its rescue.
