Fossil Fuel Lobbying at COP29
Since the rollout of more transparent registration requirements at COP28—and the subsequent revelation that tremendous numbers of fossil fuel lobbyists were in attendance—many of the event’s followers have questioned whether COPs are fit for purpose. While traditional lobbyists attend in droves, LSCA believes it is essential to acknowledge that it is not just fossil fuel companies and lobbying firms skewing negotiations: lawyers from prominent firms have also attended COPs to lobby on behalf of fossil fuel interests.
While COP28 brought increased transparency, fossil fuel infiltration did not begin in 2023. For example, “Kyoto,” a play that opened on the West End this year, depicts the efforts of Don Pearlman, a former Patton Boggs LLP lawyer, to derail the Kyoto Protocol.
The opening to COP29 made headlines when the President of Azerbaijan, the host country, declared that oil and gas were a “gift from god.” Furthermore, fossil fuel lobbyists outnumbered the 1033 delegates from the 10 most climate-vulnerable countries, underscoring how centrally fossil fuel companies have positioned themselves in climate talks. Fossil fuel lobbyists were not only brought by fossil fuel companies but member states- for example Italy brought Eni and Enel employees. In total, at least 1773 fossil fuel interests attended COP 29.
Tasneem Essop of Climate Action Network International contends that this influence mirrors the industry’s role in the climate crisis. “The fossil fuel industry has poisoned our lives for too long - and now its lobbyists are poisoning the climate talks, as the true architects of delay and obstruction,” Essop, a member of the coalition Kick Big Polluters Out (KBPO), said in response to the overwhelming industry presence at COP29.
The Role of Law Firms at COP
In our 2023 Scorecard, LSCA discovered that lawyers from Akin Gump, Baker McKenzie, Holland & Knight, Latham & Watkins, Linklaters, Norton Rose Fulbright, and Sheppard Mullin represented organizations that, according to KBPO, “can be “reasonably assumed to have the objective of influencing . . . policy or legislation in the interests of the fossil fuels industry” at COP28.
So what were Law Firm fossil fuel lobbying efforts at COP29?
Two lawyers from prominent global firms, Shepherd Mullin and Latham & Watkins, were nominated to attend on behalf of the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA). Founded by BP to shape carbon markets, IETA has deep ties to the industry, with former BP employees remaining at the helm, including current Managing Director Andrea Abrahams. Sheppard Mullin received a C on the LSCA 2025 Scorecard because only a small amount of fossil fuels work (one transaction and two instances of litigation) appeared in our dataset, but inconsistent access to global lobbying data means that COP lobbying is not considered in our scoring system. Meanwhile, Latham & Watkins (the firm that helped to overturn Chevron Deference) received an F.
Dubbed “The Finance COP,” COP29 attracted a huge delegation from IETA. It brought 43 participants, including representatives from Oil Major TotalEnergies and the smaller Glencore, which nonetheless boasts 150,000 employees and more than $130 billion in assets. To put IETA’s presence in perspective, Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Shell and Eni brought 39 lobbyists combined.
It doesn’t have to be this way.
Lawyers can take a number of actions to take the profession’s thumb off the scale and route its outsized influence away from fossil fuel interests. Legal professionals in the UK, for instance, could embrace Lawyers are Responsible’s recent Counsel opinion on the right of conscientious objection at work, which shows how UK lawyers can refuse fossil fuel work on the ground that their personal convictions prevent them from representing the best interests of polluters.
Additionally, lawyers everywhere can have challenging and necessary conversations about the role their peers play as lobbyists. It is only because the UNFCCC requires participants to disclose who nominated them to attend that we are able to hold law firms accountable for their COP lobbying. In our annual Scorecard, we similarly utilize the US’s lobbying disclosures to provide information about firms’ federal fossil fuel lobbying. However, in the UK, the Office of the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists only lists a fraction of law firms, and does not provide information on the compensation the firm received from each client. Advocating for expanding the register to include the financial compensation secured by lobbying activities is one way that lawyers could further climate accountability, without breaching confidentiality. Lawyers in the EU and other jurisdictions can advocate for similar disclosure rules.
Finally, law firms could commit to not representing fossil fuel interests at future COPs. Although fewer law firms lobbied on behalf of the industry at COP29 compared to COP28, prestigious firms still opt to represent fossil fuel interests, while many member states and climate organisations remain in need of legal and policy expertise. Likewise, climate-vulnerable states require greater access to talented legal representatives from top law firms. This work is rarely, if ever, taken on by top firms, which are typically conflicted out of meaningful climate work. In sum, Big Law’s involvement with the fossil fuel industry prevents them from supporting an energy transition.
Interested in being part of the solution? We welcome attorneys and students, wherever they are in the world and no matter where they work, to join us this August as we work to collectively build a community ready and able to fight for a livable future.
