Tackling Climate Corruption Is Essential To Saving The Planet
Global temperatures continue to rise, with each year over the past decade being warmer than the last. While policy and technology are central to climate action, one critical issue has yet to receive sufficient attention: climate corruption.
Corruption and climate change are closely linked considering that corruption can worsen climate change while climate change can create conditions that encourage corruption to thrive.
A 2024 academic study investigating the link between corruption and climate risk, drawing on data from 171 countries, found that there is 'a significant positive association between corruption levels and climate risk, indicating that corruption amplifies both the frequency and consequences of climate disasters.'
Despite these connections, the impact of corruption on climate efforts rarely gets the attention it deserves.
Transparency International uses the term 'climate corruption,' to refer to 'the abuse of entrusted power for private gain [which] results in climate injustice and [hinders] climate efforts.'
Corruption in the context of climate change plays out in a number of ways, including the misappropriation or embezzlement of funds intended for climate projects, lobbying by corporations to weaken climate mitigation measures and environmental regulations, offering or receiving bribes to influence the allocation of climate projects or grants, greenwashing, among others.
This think piece by the UNODC, OECD and World Bank on the impact of corruption on sustainable development, emphasizes that 'more can and should be done to address corruption and its connection to sustainable development to ensure that greater investment comes into countries and that funds, including any new investments, are not lost to corruption.'
Misappropriation of funds is a particularly concerning issue. Due to the emergent nature of climate change, a lot of resources are being channelled towards supporting projects and initiatives aimed at mitigating its effects, increasing the risk of misuse.
According to the United Nations Environment Programme, countries will need to spend $387 billion a year by 2030 to manage the risks and impacts of climate change effectively. Where such substantial funding flows, so does the risk of corruption, which diverts resources away from climate projects and erodes public trust.
One example is Australia's Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF). Researchers at the Australian National University have criticized the ERF for lacking integrity and wasting billions on ineffective carbon credits. They estimate that 70-80% of these credits go to projects that fail to deliver genuine emissions reductions, instead funding activities that would have happened anyway or projects with no lasting impact.
Another example is the misappropriation of funds from a $7.8 million project in Russia, funded by the Global Environment Facility and managed by the United Nations Development Programme, which aimed to improve efficiency standards for lighting and household appliances. Despite spanning seven years, it failed to meet its emission reduction targets, and there are 'strong indicators of deliberate misappropriation' of funds.
Climate corruption is however not limited to government and international organizations' projects, it also manifests in the corporate environment. A 2024 study of Chinese-listed firms suggests that climate risks can lead to corporate fraud by increasing pressures relating to performance, debt financing, and shareholder demands.
Greenwashing is especially prevalent in the corporate sector. Notable examples are Volkswagen's installation of 'defeat devices' in their diesel cars to manipulate emissions tests, misleadingly marketing them as environmentally friendly, and the misrepresentation of ESG-related investments by Active Super, claiming to avoid harmful industries while holding stakes in tobacco, Russian oil and gas, and coal companies.
There are also reported instances of misappropriation of climate funds in the corporate sector. For instance, in 2018, Michael Rufatto, president of the North American Power Group Ltd was found to have misused funds received from the Department of Energy for a carbon sequestration project, diverting the money for personal expenses such as legal fees, car payments, jewelry and international travel.
To combat climate corruption, here are four steps companies can implement:
The world is already grappling with the urgent problem of mitigating climate change, and every dollar spent in doing so must be spent wisely. To make every dollar count, we need to confront all forms of climate corruption head-on, while holding on to our vision of a greener, more sustainable future.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
5 days ago
- Los Angeles Times
Plastic pollution treaty talks in Geneva end without an agreement
GENEVA — Talks on a treaty to address the global crisis of plastic pollution in Geneva ended without an agreement Friday as the session was adjourned with plans to resume at a later date. Nations worked for 11 days at the United Nations office to try to complete a landmark treaty to end the plastic pollution crisis. But they were deadlocked over whether the treaty should reduce exponential growth of plastic production and put global, legally binding controls on toxic chemicals used to make plastics. Most plastic is made from fossil fuels. Inger Andersen, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, said despite challenges, despite the disappointment, 'we have to accept that significant progress was made.' This process won't stop, she said, but it's too soon to say how long it will take to get a treaty now. The Youth Plastic Action Network was the only organization to speak at the closing meeting Friday. Comments from observers were cut off at the request of the U.S. and Kuwait after 24 hours of meetings and negotiating. Like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, the U.S. opposed cutting plastic production or banning chemical additives in the treaty. It supported provisions to improve waste collection and management, improve product design and drive recycling, reuse and other efforts to cut the plastic dumped into the environment. The negotiations at the U.N. hub were supposed to be the last round and produce the first legally binding treaty on plastic pollution, including in the oceans. But just like at the meeting in South Korea last year, they left without a treaty. Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the chair of the negotiating committee, wrote and presented two drafts of treaty text in Geneva based on the views expressed by the nations. The representatives from 184 countries did not agree to use either one as the basis for their negotiations. Valdivieso said Friday morning as the delegates reconvened in the assembly hall that no further action is being proposed at this stage on the latest draft. After a three-hour meeting, he banged a gavel made of recycled plastic bottle tops from a Nairobi landfill. Representatives of Norway, Australia, Tuvalu and others nations said they were deeply disappointed to be leaving Geneva without a treaty. Madagascar said the world is 'expecting action, not reports from us.' European Commissioner Jessika Roswall said the European Union and its member states had higher expectations for this meeting and while the draft falls short on their demands, it's a good basis for another negotiating session. 'The Earth is not ours only. We are stewards for those who come after us. Let us fulfill that duty,' she said. China's delegation said the fight against plastic pollution is a long marathon and that this temporary setback is a new starting point to forge consensus. It urged nations to work together to offer future generations a blue planet without plastic pollution. The biggest issue of the talks has been whether the treaty should impose caps on producing new plastic or focus instead on things like better design, recycling and reuse. Powerful oil- and gas-producing nations and the plastics industry oppose production limits. They want a treaty focused on better waste management and reuse. Saudi Arabia said both drafts lacked balance, and Saudi and Kuwaiti negotiators said the latest proposal takes other states' views more into account. It addressed plastic production, which they consider outside the scope of the treaty. That draft, released early Friday, did not include a limit on plastic production, but recognized that current levels of production and consumption are 'unsustainable' and global action is needed. New language had been added to say these levels exceed current waste management capacities and are projected to increase further, 'thereby necessitating a coordinated global response to halt and reverse such trends.' The objective of the treaty was revamped to state that the accord would be based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full lifecycle of plastics. It talked about reducing plastic products containing 'a chemical or chemicals of concern to human health or the environment,' as well as reducing of single-use or short-lived plastic products. It was a much better, more ambitious text, though not perfect. But each country came to Geneva with a lot of 'red lines,' said Magnus Heunicke, the Danish environment minister. Denmark holds the rotating presidency of the Council of Europe. 'To be very clear, a compromise means that we have to bend our red lines,' he said. For its part, Iran said it's a disappointing moment and faulted 'nontransparent and non-inclusive processes on unrealistic elements,' particularly chemicals. The plastics industry also urged compromise. The Global Partners for Plastics Circularity said in a statement that governments must move past entrenched positions to finalize an agreement reflecting their shared priorities. For any proposal to make it into the treaty, every nation must agree. India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, Vietnam and others have said that consensus is vital to an effective treaty. Some countries want to change the process so decisions may be made by a vote if necessary. Graham Forbes, head of the Greenpeace delegation in Geneva, urged delegates in that direction. 'We are going in circles. We cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result,' he said as Friday's meeting ended. The International Pollutants Elimination Network said what happened in Geneva showed 'consensus is dead.' Thursday was the last scheduled day of negotiations, but work on the revised draft continued into Friday. Every year, the world makes more than 400 million tons of new plastic, and that could grow by about 70% by 2040 without policy changes. About 100 countries want to limit production. Many have said it's also essential to address toxic chemicals used to make plastics. Science shows what it will take to end pollution and protect human health, said Bethanie Carney Almroth, an ecotoxicology professor at Sweden's University of Gothenburg who co-leads the Scientists' Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty. The science supports addressing the full lifecycle of plastics, beginning with extraction and production, and restricting some chemicals to ensure plastics are safer and more sustainable, she added. 'The science has not changed,' she said. 'It cannot be down negotiated.' Environmentalists, waste pickers and Indigenous leaders and many business executives traveled to the talks to make their voices heard. Some used creative tactics, but are leaving disappointed. Indigenous leaders sought a treaty that recognizes their rights and knowledge. Frankie Orona, executive director of the Texas-based Society of Native Nations, said the best option now is to move forward with more negotiations to 'fight for a treaty that truly safeguards people and the planet.' McDermott writes for the Associated Press.
San Francisco Chronicle
05-08-2025
- San Francisco Chronicle
Nations will try again on plan to confront world's 'spiraling' plastic pollution mess
Nations gather in Geneva Tuesday to try to complete a landmark treaty aimed at ending the plastic pollution crisis that affects every ecosystem and person on the planet. It's the sixth time negotiators are meeting and they hope the last. A key split is whether the treaty should require cutting plastic production, with powerful oil-producing nations opposed; most plastic is made from fossil fuels. They say redesign, recycling and reuse can solve the problem, while other countries and some major companies say that's not enough. Only a treaty can mobilize the necessary global action, said Angelique Pouponneau, lead ocean negotiator for 39 small island and low-lying coastal developing states. At home in the Seychelles, Pouponneau said, plastic contaminates the fish they eat, piles up on beaches and chokes the ocean to undermine tourism and their way of life. 'It's the world's final opportunity to get this done and to get it done right,' she said. 'It would be a tragedy if we didn't live up to our mandate." United Nations Environment Programme Executive Director Inger Andersen said the issues are complex but the crisis is 'really spiraling' and there's a narrow pathway to a treaty. She said many countries agree on redesigning plastic products to be recycled and improving waste management, for example. 'We need to get a solution to this problem. Everybody wants it. I've yet to meet somebody who is in favor of plastic pollution,' Andersen said. Between 19 million and 23 million tons of plastic waste leak into aquatic ecosystems annually, that could jump 50% by 2040 without urgent action, according to the UN. Sharp disagreements on whether to limit plastic production In March 2022, 175 nations agreed to make the first legally binding treaty on plastics pollution by the end of 2024. It was to address the full life cycle of plastic, including production, design and disposal. Talks last year in South Korea were supposed to be the final round, but they adjourned in December at an impasse over cutting production. Every year, the world makes more than 400 million tons of new plastic, and that could grow by about 70% by 2040 without policy changes. About 100 countries want to limit production as well as tackle cleanup and recycling. Many have said it's essential to address toxic chemicals. Panama led an effort in South Korea to address production in the treaty. Negotiator Debbra Cisneros said they'll do so again in Geneva because they strongly believe in addressing pollution at the source, not just through downstream measures like waste management. 'If we shy away from that ambition now, we risk adopting an agreement that is politically convenient, but environmentally speaking, is ineffective,' she said. About 300 businesses that are members of the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty — companies such as Walmart, the Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, and L'Oréal — support reducing production along with increasing recycling and reuse. The coalition includes major food and beverage companies and retailers who want an effective, binding treaty with global rules to spare them the headaches of differing approaches in different countries. Some plastic-producing and oil and gas countries firmly oppose production limits. Saudi Arabia, the world's largest exporter of one common type of plastic, has led that group in asserting there should be no problem producing plastic if the world addresses plastic pollution. US position on the treaty The U.S. doesn't support global production caps or bans on certain plastic products or chemical additives to them. The State Department says it supports provisions to improve waste collection and management, improve product design and drive recycling, reuse and other efforts to cut the plastic dumped into the environment. 'If the negotiations are to succeed, the agreement must be aimed at protecting the environment from plastic pollution, and the agreement should recognize the importance plastics play in our economies,' the State Department said in a statement to The Associated Press. That's similar to the views of the plastics industry, which says that a production cap could have unintended consequences, such as raising the cost of plastics, and that chemicals are best regulated elsewhere. China, the United States and Germany lead the global plastics trade by exports and imports, according to the Plastics Industry Association. How high will negotiators aim? For any proposal to make it into the treaty, every nation must agree. Some countries want to change the process so decisions may be made by a vote if necessary. India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait and others have opposed that, arguing consensus is vital to an effective treaty. Negotiators are discussing making some provisions opt-in or opt-out to avoid a stalemate. Bjorn Beeler, international coordinator for the International Pollutants Elimination Network, said that would mean a treaty without teeth or obligations, with little value. Cisneros said that if carefully crafted, it's an option to find some common ground. Tracey Campbell, an executive vice president at the plastics and chemicals company LyondellBasell and vice chair of the executive committee of the World Plastics Council, said she'll ask negotiators to 'find a way to agree on a few things and get started' and then build from there. She suggested tackling things like product redesign, recycled content mandates and financing waste collection, waste sorting and recycling technologies. In contrast, Greenpeace will be in Geneva calling for at least a 75% reduction in plastic production by 2040. 'We will never recycle our way out of this problem,' said Graham Forbes, who leads the Greenpeace delegation. Thousands of people participating Delegates from most countries, the plastics industry and businesses that use plastics, environmentalists, scientists, Indigenous leaders and communities affected by plastic pollution are in Geneva. About 80 government ministers are attending talks that will last 10 days — the longest session yet, with adjournment scheduled for Aug. 14. Frankie Orona, executive director of the Texas-based Society of Native Nations, has been to every negotiating session. Indigenous land, water and air are being contaminated as fossil fuels are extracted and plastic is manufactured using hazardous chemicals, said Orona. 'We feel we absolutely have to be present to let them know, and see, who are the people that are really being impacted by the plastics crisis,' he said. ___
Atlantic
27-07-2025
- Atlantic
Zelensky Went Soft on Corruption Because the U.S. Did
Volodymyr Zelensky built a mythic reputation as a lonely bulwark against global tyranny. On Tuesday, the president of Ukraine signed that reputation away, enacting a law that gutted the independence of his country's anti-corruption agencies just as they closed in on his closest political allies, reportedly including one of his longtime business partners and a former deputy prime minister. To justify the decision, he cloaked it in an invented conspiracy, insinuating that Russian moles had implanted themselves in the machinery of justice. This is a scoundrel's playbook. Despite the ongoing war, Ukrainians swamped the streets of Kyiv in protest of their president's betrayal of democracy, forcing Zelensky to introduce new legislation reversing the bill he had just signed into law. It was a concession of error—and possibly an empty gesture, because the new bill is hardly a lock to pass the legislature. That Zelensky brazenly weakened Ukraine's anti-corruption guardrails in the first place shouldn't come as a shock. They were erected only under sustained pressure from the Obama administration as part of an explicit bargain: In exchange for military and financial support, Ukraine would rein in its oligarchs and reform its public institutions. Over time, the country drifted, however unevenly, toward a system that was more transparent, less captive to hidden hands. But in the Trump era, the United States has grown proudly tolerant of global corruption. In fact, it actively encourages its proliferation. Beyond the president's own venal example, this is deliberate policy. Brick by brick, Donald Trump has dismantled the apparatus that his predecessors built to constrain global kleptocracy, and leaders around the world have absorbed the fact that the pressure for open, democratic governance is off. Anne Applebaum: Kleptocracy, Inc. Three weeks into his current term, Trump paused enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act—loudly declaring that the United States wasn't going to police foreign bribery. Weeks later, America skipped a meeting of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's anti-bribery working group for the first time since its founding 30 years ago. As the head of the anti-corruption group Transparency International warned, Trump was sending 'a dangerous signal that bribery is back on the table.' For decades, the more than prosecute bribery cases; it tried to cultivate civil-society organizations that helped emerging democracies combat corruption themselves. But upon returning to the presidency, Trump destroyed USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, and the U.S. Institute of Peace, dismantling the constellation of government agencies that had quietly tutored investigative journalists, trained judges, and funded watchdogs. These groups weren't incidental casualties in DOGE's seemingly scattershot demolition of the American state. Trump long loathed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which he described as a 'horrible law,' an animus stoked by the fact that some of his closest associates have been accused of murky dealings abroad. Crushing programs and organizations that fight kleptocracy meshed with the 'America First' instincts of his base; the likes of Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon abhor the export of liberal values to the world. From the wreckage of these institutions, a Trump Doctrine has taken shape, one that uses American economic and political power to shield corrupt autocrats from accountability. Benjamin Netanyahu, on trial for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust, has been a prime beneficiary. Just as he was preparing to testify under oath, Trump denounced the prosecution as a 'political witch hunt' and threatened to withhold U.S. aid if the trial moved forward. Given Israel's reliance on American support, the threat had bite. Not long after Trump's outburst, the court postponed Netanyahu's testimony, citing national-security concerns. Trump acts as if justice for strongmen is a moral imperative. No retaliatory measure is apparently off limits. To defend his populist ally in Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, who faces charges related to an attempted coup, Trump revoked the visa of Alexandre de Moraes, the Supreme Court justice overseeing the case. Last month, Trump threatened to impose 50 percent tariffs on Brazilian steel, aluminum, and agricultural exports to punish the country for Bolsonaro's prosecution. This is hard-nosed realism, not just ideological kinship. To protect himself, Trump must defend the rights of populist kleptocrats everywhere. He must discredit the sort of prosecution that he might someday face. That requires recasting malfeasance as perfectly acceptable statesmanship. Listen: The kleptocracy club By stripping anti-corruption from the moral vocabulary of American foreign policy, Trump is reengineering the global order. He's laying the foundation for a new world in which kleptocracy flourishes unfettered, because there's no longer a superpower that, even rhetorically, aspires to purge the world of corruption. Of course, the United States has never pushed as hard as it could, and ill-gotten gains have been smuggled into its bank accounts, cloaked in shell companies. Still, oligarchs were forced to disguise their thievery, because there was at least the threat of legal consequence. In the world that Trump is building, there's no need for disguise—corruption is a credential, not a liability. Zelensky is evidence of the new paradigm. Although his initial campaign for president in 2019 was backed by an oligarch, he could never be confused for Bolsonaro or Netanyahu. He didn't enrich himself by plundering the state. But now that Trump has given the world permission to turn away from the ideals of good governance, even the sainted Zelensky has seized the opportunity to protect the illicit profiteering of his friends and allies. Yet there's a legacy of the old system that Trump hasn't wholly eliminated: the institutions and civil societies that the United States spent a generation helping build. In Ukraine, those organizations and activists have refused to accept a retreat into oligarchy, and they might still preserve their governmental guardians against corruption. For now, they are all that remain between the world and a new golden age of impunity.
