13/11/2024
Authoritarian Petrostates in charge of the world's response to the climate crisis.
There's a sense of déjà vu setting in – just like COP28, Adnoc and Sultan al-Jaber, once again we have COP29, Socar a state-owned oil and gas company and Mukhtar Babayev an oil executive from another authoritarian petrostate in charge of the world's response to the climate crisis that fossil fuel firms created in the first place! Cop 29.
The collaborations among Azerbaijan, Blue Carbon, and ADNOC reveal a double-edged strategy: the pursuit of carbon credits and offset markets allows fossil fuel-reliant countries and companies to present an image of environmental responsibility, even as they maintain or expand fossil fuel operations. Critics argue that such arrangements delay real decarbonisation by focusing on market-based offsets rather than direct emissions cuts. With Mukhtar Babayev leading Azerbaijan’s climate and environmental efforts, the partnership with UAE entities like ADNOC and Blue Carbon may further entrench carbon offset strategies that prioritise economic stability over much need ambitious climate targets.
A perspective on including oil executives on the board of UN Climate Change Conferences, especially in the context of COP28 hosted by the UAE and now COP29 hosted by another petrostate, it presents a significant conflict of interest and undermines the credibility of climate action efforts. Climate change, driven primarily by fossil fuel emissions, requires a concerted move away from oil and gas dependence. Bringing oil executives to the table allows them to influence the agenda in ways that delays this essential transition. The urgency of the climate crisis requires immediate action to decarbonise the global economy, and including stakeholders who are invested in maintaining fossil fuel infrastructure runs counter to this goal. The fact that the UAE used COP28 as a means to pursue new fossil fuel deals only strengthens the argument that the presence of oil industry leaders could steer the conference away from meaningful progress. While there is an argument for engaging fossil fuel companies to be part of the climate solution, history shows that these companies promote incremental changes or technologies like carbon capture that, do not address the root problem: the continued reliance on fossil fuels. The scale of climate change demands transformative action, that means setting clear boundaries on reducing the influence the fossil fuel industry have on climate policy.
Ultimately, climate leadership should prioritise voices committed to rapid decarbonisation, renewable energy, and climate justice. Allowing the fossil fuel industry to participate in these spaces could be constructive only if stringent guidelines ensure their presence doesn’t compromise the goals of reducing emissions and achieving a just, sustainable future.
The Climate Crisis and the Failures of Neo-Liberalism: Compromise, Self-Regulation, and the Illusion of Progress.
The global response to the climate crisis reveals a profound shortfall in the effectiveness of neoliberal economic frameworks. At their core, these frameworks promise that self-regulation, market incentives, and partnerships with private industry can achieve sustainable solutions to even the most complex environmental challenges. However, as the United Nations Climate Change Conference COP28 starkly demonstrates, neoliberal policies favour economic growth over environmental resilience, placing power in the hands of corporations with vested interests in the status quo. The UAE’s chairmanship of COP28 epitomises these contradictions, raising critical questions about the compatibility of climate action with a system that so readily compromises with big business.
You would not call on El Chapo to head the war on narcotics however COP29 is chaired by an oil executive from an authoritarian Petrostate.
Compromise and Conflict: Big Business at the Helm of COP28 and COP29.
COP28’s leadership by Sultan Al-Jaber, chair of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC), illuminates the risks of compromise with fossil fuel interests. Under his guidance, ADNOC produced 2.7 million barrels of oil per day in 2021, with plans to double output by 2027—a decision sharply at odds with the conference's stated goal of addressing the climate crisis. This incongruity becomes even more apparent with the UAE’s use of COP28 as a platform to negotiate fossil fuel deals with at least 15 nations. Instead of advancing a transition to renewable energy, COP28 has become an arena for securing long-term investments in oil and gas, extending fossil fuel dependency for decades to come. COP29 will be no different in Petrostate Azerbaijan, further casting doubt on the conference’s integrity are restrictions on criticising Emirati corporations, reports of ADNOC’s covert access to COP28 communications, and the controversial invitation extended to Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. Combined, these factors create a climate of constraint that discourages transparency and marginalises voices advocating for genuine climate action. Al-Jaber’s pre-conference claim that there is "no science" behind phasing out fossil fuels to achieve a 1.5°C limit only amplifies concerns that COP28 and COP29 is a platform for delaying meaningful change under the guise of climate leadership.
The Myth of Self-Regulation and the Plastic Recycling Illusion.
Neoliberalism’s reliance on self-regulation is exemplified in the failed narrative of plastic recycling. Promoted for decades by fossil fuel and plastic companies, plastic recycling has been presented as a sustainable practice that aligns industry growth with environmental responsibility. Yet, this narrative has been revealed as a myth. Plastic recycling is largely ineffective and distracts from the reality that plastic production is intrinsically linked to fossil fuel extraction. As oil production grows, so too does plastic production, with new markets for plastic acting as a byproduct of expanding oil operations. This linear, extractive model is fundamentally incompatible with any vision of a regenerative, sustainable future. Allowing plastic and oil companies to participate in climate forums only legitimises practices that ultimately drive environmental degradation.
The Neo-Liberal Embrace of Carbon Offsetting: A Deferred Responsibility.
Carbon offsetting represents the latest in a series of neoliberal market-based solutions that promise progress while effectively deferring action. The Dubai-based company Blue Carbon exemplifies this approach, purchasing large swathes of forested land in Africa with the promise of conservation. By avoiding deforestation, these projects generate carbon credits, which can be sold to polluters seeking to offset their own emissions. The theory is that by protecting forests, companies like Blue Carbon can prevent significant emissions and create valuable credits in the process. Yet, this market-based approach allows polluters in wealthy nations to continue emitting greenhouse gases as long as they can afford to "offset" them, perpetuating the global imbalance that has defined the climate crisis. Moreover, it is in the Blue Carbons best interests to keep the local population de-industrialised preserving the carbon sink with no economic benefits to the local population.
Carbon offsetting also introduces systemic issues: it commodifies ecosystems that are vital for planetary health, essentially privatising them in the name of conservation. Additionally, the verification methods for carbon credits have been criticised for overstating the actual impact of these projects, casting doubt on their role as a genuine climate solution. By creating a financial escape for polluters, carbon credits fail to address the root of the problem: the need to reduce fossil fuel dependency. Instead, they sustain industrial emissions and delay essential transformations.
Carbon Credits and Climate Justice: Deflecting Responsibility from the Wealthy.
Allowing developed nations to use carbon credits to meet their Paris Agreement commitments enables a pattern of deferred responsibility. The wealthy nations, equipped with the resources to buy credits, can meet their “obligations” without reducing domestic emissions. This undermines global climate justice by forcing vulnerable nations to shoulder an unequal share of the climate burden. Instead of promoting real reductions, carbon credits incentivise wealthier nations to continue emitting as long as they can afford the credits—a strategy that perpetuates the cycle of pollution and environmental degradation.
The neoliberal obsession with commodified solutions fails to confront the economic inequalities that drive climate change. Forest-rich, economically disadvantaged countries are often pressured into carbon credit schemes, encouraged to “preserve” their forests while the true climate villains—the world’s largest fossil fuel producers—are free to continue their practices. This dynamic perpetuates a form of economic dependency that limits sustainable development in the Global South while deflecting responsibility from high-emission nations.
Toward a Post-Neoliberal Climate Strategy: Prioritising Science and Equity.
The case of COP28 and COP29 shows that neoliberalism, with its focus on self-regulation and market mechanisms, is ill-equipped to handle the realities of climate change. As long as fossil fuel companies are allowed to influence climate policy, our efforts will be compromised by corporate interests that stand in direct opposition to necessary changes. What is needed instead is a paradigm that prioritises the science of climate change and centres equity in decision-making.
Meaningful climate action requires robust regulatory frameworks that prevent big polluters from co-opting environmental initiatives. We need policies that enforce, rather than suggest, emission reductions and that support transformative changes to our energy systems. Crucially, international climate negotiations must adopt stringent rules to bar fossil fuel interests from decision-making roles, ensuring that the voices of scientists, climate advocates, and affected communities are prioritised.
Only by moving beyond neoliberal solutions can we hope to address the climate crisis. Rather than a patchwork of voluntary commitments and self-regulated initiatives, a truly effective climate response must challenge the economic structures that prioritise profit over planet. By refusing compromise with corporate interests and rejecting the commodification of ecosystems, we can work toward a genuinely sustainable future—one that ensures a liveable climate for all.
There's a sense of déjà vu setting in – just like COP28, Adnoc and Sultan al-Jaber, once again we have COP29, Socar a state-owned oil and gas company and Mukhtar Babayev an oil executive from another authoritarian petrostate in charge of the world's response to the climate crisis that fossil fue...
