Maira Martini is CEO of Transparency International and Dr. Jeni Miller is Executive Director of the Global Climate and Health Alliance.
Imagine trying to quit smoking by taking advice from a tobacco lobbyist, or relying on a fast-food executive to design a healthy diet for future generations – surely a recipe for disaster. Yet we take this risk when allowing fossil fuel interests to influence global climate negotiations, which remain alarmingly exposed, unlike most international health and anti-corruption bodies which have safeguards in place to limit industry interference.
In 2024, the hottest year in history, the planet crossed the 1.5°C global warming threshold for the first time over a whole calendar year. New research from Transparency International shows that in that same year, a total of 339 fossil fuel lobbyists were accredited as official national negotiators at COP29, while another 867 accessed closed-door talks using government issued badges – many without disclosing their affiliations.
In addition, at COP28 in Dubai the year before, the UAE Presidency itself had deep ties to fossil fuel industries. Although governments at that summit did agree to cooperate on a transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems, some big oil producers lauded the outcome as optional and continued their fossil fuel expansion regardless.
How ‘sophisticated’ climate misinformation gets to the heart of power
The presence of fossil fuel proponents inside the UN climate talks exposes major gaps in transparency and conflict-of-interest safeguards and threatens the integrity of the COP negotiation process. It also goes against the grain of a growing global trend to protect public policy and public health from vested interests.
Unlike other UN bodies, the UNFCCC – responsible for negotiating agreements to limit dangerous climate change – lacks adequate safeguards to manage conflicts of interest and industry influence. The UNFCCC must adopt stronger measures now – and there is clear urgency to do so.
Fossil fuel harm to health
Brazil’s COP30 Presidency has voiced concerns over fossil fuel interference, plans to lead a “Global Ethical Stocktake” of COP processes, and has launched four “Support Circles”, including one focused on climate governance. Ahead of this November’s climate summit, this opportunity to reform decision-making on global climate action should not be squandered.
Thanks to well-documented health harms from tobacco, alcohol and junk food, decision-making bodies have adopted safeguards against industries whose profits depend on these harmful products. By aligning climate governance with global efforts to limit undue industry influence, COP30 can protect climate negotiations from fossil fuel interference, and set a precedent for stronger, healthier policies worldwide.
Fossil fuel-dependent industries – from aviation to plastics to shipping, along with industrial agriculture and fast fashion – cause as much damage to our health as tobacco, alcohol, and junk food – if not more.
Comment: COP30 must heed the elephant in the room: fossil fuels
Fossil fuels are the leading driver of climate change and its health impacts – from heat deaths, to malnutrition, to the spread of malaria and cholera. Burning fossil fuels causes air pollution, leading to millions of deaths each year from cancer, heart disease, asthma, and other illnesses – the ultimate consequence of second-hand smoke.
These health impacts come with major economic costs – in 2023, heatwaves alone reduced global worker productivity by $835 billion. Industrial agriculture drives emissions even higher, while posing health risks from agrochemicals and increasing the threat of zoonotic disease through human expansion into natural habitats.
Tobacco control protected from industry
To end the fossil fuel industry’s power over climate action, the UNFCCC would do well to follow the decisions made in other UN fora. The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control was conceptualised in the early 1990s by academics who encouraged WHO to wield its treaty-making power to address the global smoking epidemic.
Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, then Director General of WHO, championed the process of negotiating and adopting the convention. In response to a tobacco industry proposal for self-regulation, Brundtland commissioned an investigation into its interference in UN policymaking.
The findings led to an agreement between governments to “maintain a strict firewall between the tobacco industry and the negotiations”. Among the obligations of all 183 governments that support Tobacco Control, one article could inspire progressive UNFCCC policy:
“In setting and implementing their public health policies with respect to tobacco control, Parties shall act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry in accordance with national law.”
Similarly, WHO’s Global alcohol action plan makes clear that alcohol policy “should be protected from commercial and other vested interests that can interfere with and undermine public health objectives”. Although imperfect, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization also has principles for private sector engagement designed to guard against undue influence.
What could a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty look like?
More transparency for COPs
By adopting similar rules, the UNFCCC could restore public trust in the COP process and drive meaningful global climate action. To address the influence of major polluters at COPs, the UNFCCC Secretariat and member governments must implement a conflict-of-interest policy that excludes or strictly limits participation by representatives of high-polluting industries.
UNFCCC’s transparency standards must also be strengthened – current rules requiring participants to declare affiliations are far from sufficient, allowing non-disclosure of interests and undermining accountability through vague categories.
The UNFCCC should create a centralised, publicly accessible database that clearly and consistently displays participants’ affiliations during COPs. It must also reform the COP host country selection process, rewarding applicants for strong progress on Paris Agreement goals and their commitment to human rights.
Campaigners issue mass call for reforms to rescue UN climate process
Finally, COP Presidencies should implement conflict-of-interest policies – free from high polluting industry lobbyists, while adhering to high standards of transparency and accountability. This must include the full disclosure of partnerships, consultancies, and detailed meeting records.
These reforms are achievable – COP Presidencies can adopt them voluntarily – and Brazil should lead the way. With time running out, Brazil can demonstrate prioritisation of people and planet over the profits of state-owned Petrobras, and usher in a new era of fossil fuel-free climate summits.
The post How UN climate negotiations can end fossil fuel-industry influence appeared first on Climate Home News.
How UN climate negotiations can end fossil fuel-industry influence
Climate Change
DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
Blazing heat hits Europe
FANNING THE FLAMES: Wildfires “fanned by a heatwave and strong winds” caused havoc across southern Europe, Reuters reported. It added: “Fire has affected nearly 440,000 hectares (1,700 square miles) in the eurozone so far in 2025, double the average for the same period of the year since 2006.” Extreme heat is “breaking temperature records across Europe”, the Guardian said, with several countries reporting readings of around 40C.
HUMAN TOLL: At least three people have died in the wildfires erupting across Spain, Turkey and Albania, France24 said, adding that the fires have “displaced thousands in Greece and Albania”. Le Monde reported that a child in Italy “died of heatstroke”, while thousands were evacuated from Spain and firefighters “battled three large wildfires” in Portugal.
UK WILDFIRE RISK: The UK saw temperatures as high as 33.4C this week as England “entered its fourth heatwave”, BBC News said. The high heat is causing “nationally significant” water shortfalls, it added, “hitting farms, damaging wildlife and increasing wildfires”. The Daily Mirror noted that these conditions “could last until mid-autumn”. Scientists warn the UK faces possible “firewaves” due to climate change, BBC News also reported.
Around the world
- GRID PRESSURES: Iraq suffered a “near nationwide blackout” as elevated power demand – due to extreme temperatures of around 50C – triggered a transmission line failure, Bloomberg reported.
- ‘DIRE’ DOWN UNDER: The Australian government is keeping a climate risk assessment that contains “dire” implications for the continent “under wraps”, the Australian Financial Review said.
- EXTREME RAINFALL: Mexico City is “seeing one of its heaviest rainy seasons in years”, the Washington Post said. Downpours in the Japanese island of Kyushu “caused flooding and mudslides”, according to Politico. In Kashmir, flash floods killed 56 and left “scores missing”, the Associated Press said.
- SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION: China and Brazil agreed to “ensure the success” of COP30 in a recent phone call, Chinese state news agency Xinhua reported.
- PLASTIC ‘DEADLOCK’: Talks on a plastic pollution treaty have failed again at a summit in Geneva, according to the Guardian, with countries “deadlocked” on whether it should include “curbs on production and toxic chemicals”.
15
The number of times by which the most ethnically-diverse areas in England are more likely to experience extreme heat than its “least diverse” areas, according to new analysis by Carbon Brief.
Latest climate research
- As many as 13 minerals critical for low-carbon energy may face shortages under 2C pathways | Nature Climate Change
- A “scoping review” examined the impact of climate change on poor sexual and reproductive health and rights in sub-Saharan Africa | PLOS One
- A UK university cut the carbon footprint of its weekly canteen menu by 31% “without students noticing” | Nature Food
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
Factchecking Trump’s climate report
A report commissioned by the US government to justify rolling back climate regulations contains “at least 100 false or misleading statements”, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists. The report, compiled in two months by five hand-picked researchers, inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed” and misleadingly states that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”80
Spotlight
Does Xi Jinping care about climate change?
This week, Carbon Brief unpacks new research on Chinese president Xi Jinping’s policy priorities.
On this day in 2005, Xi Jinping, a local official in eastern China, made an unplanned speech when touring a small village – a rare occurrence in China’s highly-choreographed political culture.
In it, he observed that “lucid waters and lush mountains are mountains of silver and gold” – that is, the environment cannot be sacrificed for the sake of growth.
(The full text of the speech is not available, although Xi discussed the concept in a brief newspaper column – see below – a few days later.)
In a time where most government officials were laser-focused on delivering economic growth, this message was highly unusual.
Forward-thinking on environment
As a local official in the early 2000s, Xi endorsed the concept of “green GDP”, which integrates the value of natural resources and the environment into GDP calculations.
He also penned a regular newspaper column, 22 of which discussed environmental protection – although “climate change” was never mentioned.
This focus carried over to China’s national agenda when Xi became president.
New research from the Asia Society Policy Institute tracked policies in which Xi is reported by state media to have “personally” taken action.
It found that environmental protection is one of six topics in which he is often said to have directly steered policymaking.
Such policies include guidelines to build a “Beautiful China”, the creation of an environmental protection inspection team and the “three-north shelterbelt” afforestation programme.
“It’s important to know what Xi’s priorities are because the top leader wields outsized influence in the Chinese political system,” Neil Thomas, Asia Society Policy Institute fellow and report co-author, told Carbon Brief.
Local policymakers are “more likely” to invest resources in addressing policies they know have Xi’s attention, to increase their chances for promotion, he added.
What about climate and energy?
However, the research noted, climate and energy policies have not been publicised as bearing Xi’s personal touch.
“I think Xi prioritises environmental protection more than climate change because reducing pollution is an issue of social stability,” Thomas said, noting that “smoggy skies and polluted rivers” were more visible and more likely to trigger civil society pushback than gradual temperature increases.
The paper also said topics might not be linked to Xi personally when they are “too technical” or “politically sensitive”.
For example, Xi’s landmark decision for China to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 is widely reported as having only been made after climate modelling – facilitated by former climate envoy Xie Zhenhua – showed that this goal was achievable.
Prior to this, Xi had never spoken publicly about carbon neutrality.
Prof Alex Wang, a University of California, Los Angeles professor of law not involved in the research, noted that emphasising Xi’s personal attention may signal “top” political priorities, but not necessarily Xi’s “personal interests”.
By not emphasising climate, he said, Xi may be trying to avoid “pushing the system to overprioritise climate to the exclusion of the other priorities”.
There are other ways to know where climate ranks on the policy agenda, Thomas noted:
“Climate watchers should look at what Xi says, what Xi does and what policies Xi authorises in the name of the ‘central committee’. Is Xi talking more about climate? Is Xi establishing institutions and convening meetings that focus on climate? Is climate becoming a more prominent theme in top-level documents?”
Watch, read, listen
TRUMP EFFECT: The Columbia Energy Exchange podcast examined how pressure from US tariffs could affect India’s clean energy transition.
NAMIBIAN ‘DESTRUCTION’: The National Observer investigated the failure to address “human rights abuses and environmental destruction” claims against a Canadian oil company in Namibia.
‘RED AI’: The Network for the Digital Economy and the Environment studied the state of current research on “Red AI”, or the “negative environmental implications of AI”.
Coming up
- 17 August: Bolivian general elections
- 18-29 August: Preparatory talks on the entry into force of the “High Seas Treaty”, New York
- 18-22 August: Y20 Summit, Johannesburg
- 21 August: Advancing the “Africa clean air programme” through Africa-Asia collaboration, Yokohama
Pick of the jobs
- Lancaster Environment Centre, senior research associate: JUST Centre | Salary: £39,355-£45,413. Location: Lancaster, UK
- Environmental Justice Foundation, communications and media officer, Francophone Africa | Salary: XOF600,000-XOF800,000. Location: Dakar, Senegal
- Politico, energy & climate editor | Salary: Unknown. Location: Brussels, Belgium
- EnviroCatalysts, meteorologist | Salary: Unknown. Location: New Delhi, India
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
The post DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report appeared first on Carbon Brief.
DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report
Climate Change
New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit
The specter of a “gas-for-wind” compromise between the governor and the White House is drawing the ire of residents as a deadline looms.
Hundreds of New Yorkers rallied against new natural gas pipelines in their state as a deadline loomed for the public to comment on a revived proposal to expand the gas pipeline that supplies downstate New York.
New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit
A “critical assessment” report commissioned by the Trump administration to justify a rollback of US climate regulations contains at least 100 false or misleading statements, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists.
The report – “A critical review of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the US climate” – was published by the US Department of Energy (DoE) on 23 July, just days before the government laid out plans to revoke a scientific finding used as the legal basis for emissions regulation.
The executive summary of the controversial report inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed”.
It also states misleadingly that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”.
Compiled in just two months by five “independent” researchers hand-selected by the climate-sceptic US secretary of energy Chris Wright, the document has sparked fierce criticism from climate scientists, who have pointed to factual errors, misrepresentation of research, messy citations and the cherry-picking of data.
Experts have also noted the authors’ track record of promoting views at odds with the mainstream understanding of climate science.
Wright’s department claims the report – which is currently open to public comment as part of a 30-day review – underwent an “internal peer-review period amongst [the] DoE’s scientific research community”.
The report is designed to provide a scientific underpinning to one flank of the Trump administration’s plans to rescind a finding that serves as the legal prerequisite for federal emissions regulation. (The second flank is about legal authority to regulate emissions.)
The “endangerment finding” – enacted by the Obama administration in 2009 – states that six greenhouse gases are contributing to the net-negative impacts of climate change and, thus, put the public in danger.
In a press release on 29 July, the US Environmental Protection Agency said “updated studies and information” set out in the new report would “challenge the assumptions” of the 2009 finding.
Carbon Brief asked a wide range of climate scientists, including those cited in the “critical review” itself, to factcheck the report’s various claims and statements.
The post Factcheck: Trump’s climate report includes more than 100 false or misleading claims appeared first on Carbon Brief.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-trumps-climate-report-includes-more-than-100-false-or-misleading-claims/
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change1 year ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Carbon Footprint1 year agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Why airlines are perfect targets for anti-greenwashing legal action
-
Climate Change1 month ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Renewable Energy2 months ago
US Grid Strain, Possible Allete Sale