Fossil fuel lobby groups should have no say in UN climate negotiations
At the United Nations climate talks, those invested in prolonging the fossil fuel era still help design its end. CoP-28 in Dubai had more than 2,400 accredited delegates linked to oil, gas and coal interests, a number that exceeded the size of almost every national delegation. Their presence raised a question central to the credibility of global climate governance: Can the architects of the carbon economy also draft the blueprint for its phase-out?
Today, six of nine planetary boundaries have been transgressed. The climate system faces a breakdown. Yet, at CoP-29 in Baku in 2024, 1,773 fossil fuel lobbyists gained access to negotiations, outnumbering delegations from the world’s 10 most climate-vulnerable nations combined. Nearly 70% attended as part of state delegations. Some were registered as state negotiators, shaping policy.
Global governance has faced this dilemma before. When tobacco threatened public health, governments drew a red line. Article 5.3 of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in 2005 established that the industry had a “fundamental and irreconcilable conflict” with health policy. It required governments to protect policy from industry interference, removing tobacco lobbyists from negotiation spaces. That firewall restored credibility to public health governance.
The same logic later guided environmental treaties. In global debates under the Rotterdam Convention, chrysotile asbestos was restricted after decades of obstruction by industry interests. When chemical manufacturers jeopardized the ozone layer, the earth’s protective shield, the Montreal Protocol ensured that industry lobbies couldn’t write the rules in their own interest. Integrity, once compromised, can be restored only by limiting conflicts of interest.
The parallels with fossil fuels are direct. Scientific evidence shows tobacco harms health and fossil fuels destabilize the planet’s climate. Yet, companies central to this climate disruption remain embedded within the process meant to end it. They participate as observers, sponsors and panellists. Their preferred language of ‘abated’ fossil fuels, and ‘low-carbon’ gas has become part of official texts, delaying the phase-down of fossil use, even as the International Energy Agency finds fresh investments in fossil fuel production rising.
The case for exclusion rests on evidence, not ideology. In 2015, leaked documents revealed that major fossil fuel companies had accurate scientific knowledge of climate risks since the 1970s. An Exxon scientist informed the firm’s leadership in 1984 that civilization could either adapt or “sharply curtail the use of fossil fuels.” The company scaled back climate research and invested in denial campaigns instead. The American Petroleum Institute’s 1998 plan aimed to convince citizens of “uncertainties” in climate science, mirroring the tobacco industry’s tactics to manufacture doubt.
The International Monetary Fund has calculated that global fossil fuel subsidies reached $7 trillion in 2022, an astonishing 7.1% of global GDP, and will touch $8.2 trillion by 2030. Removing them would reduce projected emissions by 43% below baseline levels, broadly aligned with the 2015 Paris Agreement. Every year of delay makes the transition more disruptive.
Critics argue that excluding major economic actors would be undemocratic. That concern is valid but misplaced. Exclusion means a conflict-of-interest safeguard, not censorship. Entities with a financial stake in fossil fuels could be barred from holding decision-making roles while retaining observer status for transparency and technical inputs. Integrity requires distance, not disengagement.
The argument for inclusion conflates stakeholder consultation with decision-making authority. No diplomat would allow arms dealers to write peace treaties. Climate negotiations address an existential threat, yet routinely grant such access to industries whose products cause the harm.
India is positioned to lead at CoP-30 to be held in November. The country has applied conflict-of-interest norms across domains. The health ministry’s code of conduct prohibits collaboration with tobacco companies. The newly notified Environment Audit Rules, 2025, mandate independent auditors unconnected to the industries they evaluate.
These principles translate directly to climate negotiations, such as ensuring transparency through mandatory disclosures and employing mechanisms to prevent capture. By championing a conflict-of-interest clause, India could help rebuild trust in the UN process without fracturing consensus.
The question is not whether fossil fuel lobbyists should lose their seat, but whether humanity can afford the delay that results from their presence. The tobacco industry’s exclusion improved health policy effectiveness. Montreal Protocol constraints on the chemical industry protected the ozone layer. Global governance requires the same rigour applied to negotiations on the existential risk from climate change.
The credibility of international climate action no longer depends only on ambition or finance, but on who is allowed to shape the agenda. When the world’s health was at stake, tobacco lost its seat at the table. As planetary stability now hangs in the balance, the same clarity of purpose is required.
Restoring trust in the UN climate process can begin with a simple act of governance. Draw a clear line between those fighting the crisis and those profiting from it.
The author is an independent expert based in New Delhi, Kolkata and Odisha. Twitter: @scurve Instagram: @soumya.scurve.
Post Comment