In major social changes, such as those we are experiencing due to global warming, there are always actors at play that promote reactions that slow down their evolution. With the energy transition at stake, demanded and recognized by science and the 194 parties or countries participating in COP 28, the interests of those who want to speed it up and those who are doing everything possible to stop it collide.

The powerful oil lobby has always been present at climate summits, but scientific evidence has shown that it has been accumulating, and the urgency of climate has in parallel increased the presence of representatives of this interest group, either as members of oil companies or as members of oil companies. .or foundations or think tanks.

According to coalition research Kick out the big polluters (KBPO)published just a week ago, over the past 20 years, delegates from the world’s largest polluting oil and gas companies and their commercial groups They attended at least 7,200 UN meetings on climate change.

Environmental groups have been decrying for some time that it is complete nonsense to have a clear direction for the transition, allowing these companies to apply pressure from within to scuttle some agreements or at least try to make them less ambitious. But the United Nations currently does not have any rules governing conflicts of interest in these meetings.

Report Kick out the big polluters (KBPO) details that at that time Shell was the company that sent the most personnel to these summits. (in total they had 115 passes with the assistance of the UN). According to the study, the company “boasted” of directly influencing the outcome of COP21, where the Paris Agreement was signed. And on top of that, he spends “millions of dollars a year” on pressure groups to “weaken climate action.”

The top 20 companies identified in the study are based in the northern hemisphere. According to the authors, this means that companies from the countries causing the most global emissions are dominating climate negotiations and trying to maneuver in favor of fossil fuel interests. Something that directly affects communities in the global south that have contributed least to the climate crisis.

Despite everything, the report assures that these data are just the tip of the iceberg. On the one hand, because many of these delegates do not declare their “affiliation.” That is They do not disclose the organizations they work for or the interests they represent.. On the other hand, since in addition to lobby In the fossil industry, climate summits are also under pressure from other business groups such as finance, agribusiness or transport.

For Miguel GolmayoSpanish military energy expert and author The blood that moves the world (Ariel), the presence of oil companies at the CS is normal, since they are the main participants in the energy transition. “Those who control oil are not going to give up billions of investments. It’s unrealistic to think you’re going to change the world’s energy structure without counting on oil companies also investing in renewable energy. Let’s leave the cheap propaganda, is a transition necessary? Yes, but with common sense. Pretending that large investors are participating in the transition process and not putting forward a number of conditions is absurd,” he says.

Loss of trust

Three days before the start of the CS in Dubai BBC published news that went even further. According to the British network, oil companies did not plan to defend their interests at the summit. The fact is that the United Arab Emirates, which chairs this case, intended to use the meetings to propose oil agreements to a number of countries.

“Using negotiations to shut down a private business is something I did not expect. But it doesn’t surprise me if I think about it coldly,” says Pedro Zorrilla Miras, a Greenpeace spokesman. “Of course, nothing will come out publicly, but unfortunately, I’m sure such conversations will happen at the CS. And also that many countries will be ready to preserve them,” he adds.

Zorilla regrets that they don’t even “pretend” anymore. And he is convinced that it is further undermines trust in these types of meetings, which has fallen in recent years, he explains, for three reasons. Firstly, due to slowness in decision making. Secondly, because the statements made are not accompanied by facts. And thirdly, because all agreements reached must be approved by consensus, which means that decisions in many cases are unambitious.

A Greenpeace spokesman said that He lobby The oil industry is made up of more than just companies which are engaged in the production and marketing of oil, gas and coal. In his opinion, pressure at climate summits is also exerted by governments of countries where these resources are key, as well as companies that have commercial agreements with the fossil industry (for example, aviation companies).

Access to all information

“Pressure to exclude fossil industry representatives is increasing. We have been demanding this for many years. Even so, last year at COP 22, these companies invited more than 600 delegates to meetings, more than any other country. And this year in Dubai, the president of the negotiations is Sultan al-Jaber, who is directly the director of the state oil company of the United Arab Emirates,” recalls Zorrilla.

As he explains, environmental NGOs have already agreed in the past sign the agreement in the “usual” format used by the UN to prevent their participation. But at the moment representatives lobby fossil fuels continue to have access to all negotiations.

“They go to the summit in delegations as if they were governments. They have access to all meetings, including those closed to the press and associations. They have access to all information. And because many small countries do not have the staff to participate in all negotiations, they often act as if they are their representatives. It’s like tobacco companies attending a WHO meeting on cancer,” concludes Zorrilla.

A Greenpeace representative believes that “to some extent” it is normal that these companies are trying to protect their interests. But he assures that this is one thing, and the fact that they write legislation the way they want is completely different. “You can see this at many EU meetings, where governments move in one direction and at the last moment significantly reduce demands. And also in Spain. Here the government wanted to increase taxes on energy companies that make extraordinary profits, and Repsol made very strong statements, assuring that it would stop investing here,” he concludes.

Misinformation on social networks

Another field of activity of the oil lobby, in addition to political propaganda at political meetings, is disinformation for the general public, and it is on social networks, where there is no mediation of journalists who can counter information, where they find the most information. comfort.

The Climate Action Coalition Against Disinformation (CAAD) notes in its third report Deny, deceive and delay that the oil company’s advertising investment in Meta (formerly Facebook) is between $4.13 million and $5.21 million.

“Deniability ads and viral campaigns that reject scientific consensus not only erode public support, but increasingly erode trust in institutions and have brutal consequences,” he says. Jenny King, CAAD Researcher. “We must recognize the threat of misinformation and disinformation for what it is: a barrier to cohesion, action and a decent future for all,” he adds.

According to this report, advertising content on Meta from companies such as Shell, ExxonMobil, BP and TotalEnergies often highlight the sustainability or other “socially progressive” credentials of the big coal companies or oil states in question. “This is despite the fact that, according to a report published last week by the International Energy Agency, oil and gas companies will invest only 1% of global volumes in clean energy,” the CAAD text emphasizes.