Fossil fuel lobbyists at COP29 fuel concerns over carbon capture's rolein climate policy. Picture: UN Climate Change - Kiara Worth
As COP29 opened in Baku, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) revealed that 480 lobbyists for Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage (CCUS) technologies gained access to the conference, with nearly half positioned within national delegations representing their respective countries.
This presence highlights the fossil fuel industry’s push to influence climate policy with technology widely regarded as unreliable. CCUS involves the capture of CO2, generally from large point sources like power generation or industrial facilities that use either fossil fuels or biomass as fuel.
If not being used on-site, the captured CO2 is compressed and transported by pipeline, ship, rail or truck to be used in a range of applications, or injected into deep geological formations such as depleted oil and gas reservoirs or saline aquifers.
CIEL’s findings indicate that these lobbyists exceed the combined core delegations from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the European Union.
COP29 organisers even invited 55 CCUS advocates as official guests, despite criticism of the technology’s track record. Rachel Kennerley, CIEL’s International carbon capture campaigner, argued that CCUS enables the fossil fuel industry to sidestep essential reductions, branding it as “fossil fuel greenwashing.”
She emphasised that “governments and companies simply cannot ‘clean’ their coal, oil, and gas by capturing and ‘managing’ emissions: CCS has repeatedly failed to deliver.”
Kennerley’s assessment is backed by historical data showing that over 78% of large-scale CCS projects have been cancelled or indefinitely postponed due to cost overruns and technical problems.
Critics argue that CCUS technologies, including Direct Air Capture (DAC), often prioritise corporate profits over environmental goals, extending the fossil fuel industry’s lifespan at the expense of cleaner alternatives.
In addition to substantial costs, CCS technology also brings risks associated with storage and transport, which could threaten communities already bearing the brunt of climate change.
Erika Lennon, a CIEL Senior Attorney, highlighted these issues, stating, “If left unchecked, corporate capture — as demonstrated by the volume of fossil fuel lobbyists roaming COP29 — will continue to impede progress towards climate action.”
Beyond environmental risks, the financial feasibility of CCS is also in question.
A report from Oxford University’s Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment suggests that shifting to CCS rather than renewables and energy efficiency could cost upwards of USD 30 trillion more. Despite these concerns, national climate plans increasingly feature CCUS as a means of meeting emissions targets.
The presence of 480 CCUS lobbyists at COP29—just a fraction of the 1,773 fossil fuel industry representatives in attendance—has raised pressing questions about conflicts of interest and the integrity of the UN climate talks.
IOL