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
Pacific nations would be paid only thousands for deep sea mining, while mining companies set to make billions, new research reveals
SYDNEY/FIJI, Thursday 26 February 2026 — New independent research commissioned by Greenpeace International has revealed that Pacific Island states would receive mere thousands of dollars in payment from deep sea mining per year, placing the region as one of the most affected but worst-off beneficiaries in the world.
The research by legal professor Dr Harvey Mpoto Bombaka and development economist Dr Ben Tippet reveals that mechanisms proposed by the International Seabed Authority (ISA) for sharing any future revenues from deep sea mining would leave developing nations with meagre, token payments. Pacific Island nations would receive only USD $46,000 per year in the short term, then USD $241,000 per year in the medium term, averaging out to barely USD $382,000 per year for 28 years – an entire annual income for a nation that is less than some individual CEOs’ salaries. Mining companies would rake in over USD $13.5 billion per year, taking up to 98% of the revenues.
The analysis shows that under a scenario where six deep sea mining sites begin operating in the early 2030s, the revenues that states would actually receive are extraordinarily small. This is in contrast to the clear mandate of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which requires mining to be carried out for the benefit of humankind as a whole.[1] The real beneficiaries, the research shows, would be, yet again, a handful of corporations in the Global North.
Head of Pacific at Greenpeace Australia Pacific Shiva Gounden, said:
“What the Pacific is being promised amounts to little more than scraps. The people of the Pacific would sacrifice the most and receive the least if deep sea mining goes ahead. We are being asked to trade in our spiritual and cultural connection to our oceans, and risk our livelihoods and food sources, for almost nothing in return.
“The deep sea mining industry has manipulated the Pacific and has lied to our people for too long, promising prosperity and jobs that simply do not exist. The wealthy CEOs and deep sea mining companies will pocket the cash while the people of the Pacific see no material benefits. The Pacific will not benefit from deep sea mining, and our sacrifice is too big to allow it to go ahead. The Pacific Ocean is not a commodity, and it is not for sale.”
Using proposals submitted by the ISA’s Finance Committee between 2022 and 2025, the returns to states barely register in national accounts. After administrative costs, institutional expenses, and compensation funds are deducted, little, if anything, remains to distribute [3].
Author Dr Harvey Mpoto Bombaka of the Centro Universitário de Brasília said:
“What’s described as global benefit-sharing based on equity and intergenerational justice increasingly looks like a framework for managing scarcity that would deliver almost no real benefits to anyone other than the deep sea mining industry. The structural limitations of the proposed mechanism would offer little more than symbolic returns to the rest of the world, particularly developing countries lacking technological and financial capacity.”
The ISA will meet in March for its first session of the year. Currently, 40 countries back a moratorium or precautionary pause on deep sea mining.
Gounden added: “The deep sea belongs to all humankind, and our people take great pride in being the custodians of our Pacific Ocean. Protecting this with everything we have is not only fair and responsible but what we see as our ancestral duty. The only equitable path is to leave the minerals where they are and stop deep sea mining before it starts.
“The decision on the future of the ocean must be a process that centres the rights and voices of Pacific communities as the traditional custodians. Clearly, deep sea mining will not benefit the Pacific, and the only sensible way forward is a moratorium.”
—ENDS—
Notes
[1] A key condition for governments to permit deep sea mining to start in the international seabed is that it ‘be carried out for the benefit of mankind as a whole’, particularly developing nations, according to international law (Article 136-140, 148, 150, and 160(2)(g), the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea).
For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact Kimberley Bernard on +61407 581 404 or kbernard@greenpeace.org
Climate Change
North Carolina Regulators Nix $1.2 Billion Federal Proposal to Dredge Wilmington Harbor
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers failed to explain how it would mitigate environmental harms, including PFAS contamination.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can’t dredge 28 miles of the Wilmington Harbor as planned, after North Carolina environmental regulators determined the billion-dollar proposal would be inconsistent with the state’s coastal management policies.
North Carolina Regulators Nix $1.2 Billion Federal Proposal to Dredge Wilmington Harbor
Climate Change
Australia’s renewable energy opportunity
Australia has some of the largest areas of high volume, consistent solar and wind energy anywhere in the world. It is a natural advantage that many countries in our region and across Europe will envy as they ramp up their efforts to reduce carbon pollution.
Australia has an amazing opportunity to utilise this abundance of reliable energy not only to transform our own energy systems but also that of our neighbours – if we get the policy settings right.
We are, in fact, already seeing the benefits of renewable energy flowing into our electricity grids. With all the inflation pressures on our bank accounts it looks like electricity pricing may be one cost that could be turning a corner – largely thanks to cheap solar and wind energy.
Renewables are Bringing Down the Cost of Producing Electricity

Here at Greenpeace, while we think there are some important questions to ask about renewable energy, it is clear that solar and wind are certainly the cheapest energy options available.
In contrast, coal, oil and gas are not only big on pollution, they are also proving costlier as they struggle to cope with the changing nature of our electricity systems. Plus, fossil fuels are much more exposed to international price fluctuations – as we all experienced when our electricity bills rapidly rose following the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Wouldn’t it be great if we instead had energy independence, sourced from an infinite supply of clean energy?
Solar and wind (backed by batteries) can do just that and the reality is that they are already out-competing the old guard of gas and coal simply because they are quicker and cheaper to deploy. Which is good news for electricity prices!
Although whether energy retailers are passing on those savings to customers is another question. Short answer: no, they’re not – but it is a bit complex.
Why are my electricity bills still high?
There are a number of elements that make up the final amount we see on our bills. The graph below shows the breakdown of energy costs covered by our bills.
You will see roughly a third (36.2% in 2025-26) of the cost goes to maintenance and build out of the electricity grid. This includes the transmission lines needed to connect to new renewable energy sites and to connect states so they can better share their energy resources. The ‘network’ costs have been increasing but so have other components of our bill, most notably the ‘wholesale’ cost of producing electricity.

Thankfully, the cost of producing the electricity is now starting to go down (thanks to renewables and batteries), but they are coming off record highs thanks to the exorbitant cost of gas and the unreliability of coal power stations that are old and no longer fit for purpose.
During high demand times (eg, when we all get home from work on a hot day and turn on the air conditioning) spot prices can quickly jump. Add to that a couple of coal power plants breaking down (as they increasingly do), and expensive gas fired power use spikes in the system. This can quickly cancel out any of the cost savings solar power may have created during the day when prices can actually go negative.
The good news is that this is exactly the problem batteries can solve. Batteries are great at soaking up the surplus supply of solar during the middle of the day, which creates a more efficient system, and then rapidly pumping out that power during the evening peak at a cheaper rate than gas.
How much have costs come down?
According to the Australian energy regulator (AEMO), wholesale electricity prices across the east coast have dropped by 44% when comparing prices in quarter 4 of 2025 to the same period in 2024.

AEMO directly attributes the change to the significant growth in wind (up 29%), solar (up 15%), and batteries (3,796 MW of new battery capacity added). This influx of cheap renewable energy has seen a corresponding decrease in the use of polluting fossil fuels to power the grid. Coal fired power dropped by 4.6% and gas fired power fell by a staggering 27%.
The same trend can be seen in the world’s largest standalone grid in WA where renewable energy and storage supplied a record 52.4% of the grid’s energy across the final 3 months of 2025. That is an impressive result given there is no interstate connection to borrow energy from and there is no hydroelectric power in the system.
As a result, WA has seen a 13% drop in wholesale electricity prices thanks to a 5.8% reduction in coal fired power and a 16.4% reduction in gas fired power.
Australian Households Lead the Way on Solar and Batteries
Despite all the attempts to discredit clean energy by Trump and other conservative politicians, Aussie households have long known the value of renewable energy. In fact, Australia now holds the title for the highest rate of solar energy per capita in the world.
This is now being followed by the rapid takeup of household batteries with the Clean Energy Regulator being overwhelmed with interest in the Cheaper Home Batteries Program. They now expect to receive “around 175,000 valid battery applications corresponding to a total usable capacity of 3.9 GWh by the end of 2025.”’

All these extra batteries storing the surplus solar energy across our neighbourhoods during the day is not only creating drastic bill reductions for those households who are installing them, it is helping the whole grid. Which eventually will help everyone’s electricity bills.
If Australia as a whole follows the lead of suburban families by switching to cheap solar (plus wind) backed-up by batteries, it has an unparalleled opportunity to build its economy on the back of unlimited, local, clean energy harnessed from the sun and wind.
Powering our Future Economy
If there was ever something Australia has a natural advantage in, its sun and wind. But given the growing demand for electricity from data centres and the electrification of heavy industry, we are going to need more than just rooftop solar panels.
That’s where Australia has the potential, more than almost any other country, to become a renewable energy powerhouse and punch above our weight in the fight against climate change. See for example the unique opportunity to enter into the production and export of green iron.
While there is still quite a way to go before our electricity is fully sourced from solar and wind, we are well on the way. The clean energy charge is gathering pace – and our communities, oceans, wildlife and bank balances will be the better for it.
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years 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 Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change2 years 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 Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
