New research has revealed that thousands of representatives from the oil, gas, and coal sectors gained entry to recent United Nations climate summits, events intended to forge global agreements on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The data indicates that over 5,000 such lobbyists attended the conferences between 2021 and 2024, a period simultaneously defined by record profits in the fossil fuel industry, a surge in new extraction projects, and escalating climate-driven disasters.
The analysis, conducted by a broad coalition of environmental organizations, found these lobbyists represented nearly 860 fossil fuel entities, including major corporations, trade associations, and linked foundations. A striking finding is that just 90 of the attending companies were responsible for more than half of all oil and gas produced globally last year. These same firms are also reportedly behind almost two-thirds of all short-term fossil fuel expansion plans currently in development.
This level of access has sparked intensified criticism from climate advocates and frontline communities, who argue that the presence of major polluters undermines the integrity and urgency of the negotiations. They contend that while the summits are framed as a forum for science-based policy, they risk becoming venues for industry promotion.
“The space meant for safeguarding our future has been turned into a marketplace for the very interests driving the crisis,” said one advocate from a group representing Amazonian communities. “As our forests burn and floods worsen, these companies are inside buying influence to keep drilling.”
The issue of access is particularly pointed given the locations of recent summits, including the upcoming conference in the Brazilian Amazon, a region acutely threatened by extractive industries. Reports note that last year’s climate meeting hosted 70% more fossil fuel lobbyists than the combined total of delegates from the ten nations most vulnerable to climate impacts.
While new transparency rules now require some attendees to disclose their funding sources, critics argue the measures are insufficient and come too late. They emphasize that mere disclosure does not address the fundamental conflict of interest, calling for stricter barriers to prevent industry capture of the policy process.
“Transparency without real exclusion is just for show,” stated the head of a climate policy institute. “The process must move from revealing who is in the room to keeping out those whose core business contradicts its goals. Without this reform, these talks risk becoming complicit in the problem they are supposed to solve.”
Major oil companies frequently in attendance over the past four years declined to comment on the research findings. A state-owned energy firm set to participate in the upcoming summit defended its involvement, stating it seeks to contribute to discussions on sustainable energy models.
The ongoing presence of fossil fuel interests at the highest levels of climate diplomacy continues to fuel debates about whose voices shape the global response to the planetary emergency.