Plenty of European and American architects are piling on to say that Neom, in Saudi Arabia is a sustainable idea. They make a fortune doing it. Al Gore warned in An Inconvenient Truth: “We are witnessing a collision between our civilization and the Earth.” That collision is fueled not just by carbon but by entrenched […]
The post Are you tangled up in climate conflict, because your job depends on it? New study appeared first on Green Prophet.
Plenty of European and American architects are piling on to say that Neom, in Saudi Arabia is a sustainable idea. They make a fortune doing it.
Al Gore warned in An Inconvenient Truth: “We are witnessing a collision between our civilization and the Earth.” That collision is fueled not just by carbon but by entrenched interests that benefit from the status quo. A new study in Environmental Science & Technology Letters shows how corporate capture—the ability of industries to shape the very institutions meant to regulate them—remains one of the greatest obstacles to solving the climate crisis.
First studied in the 1940s, corporate capture has been documented across sectors from fossil fuels and chemicals to food, tobacco, and pharmaceuticals. The new research, led by Professor Alex Ford of the University of Portsmouth and the International Panel on Chemical Pollution, warns that without reform, capture will obstruct efforts to address what the UN calls the triple planetary crises: climate change, biodiversity loss, and chemical pollution.
Ford describes a subtle but systemic web of influence: those tasked with protecting people and the planet can become entangled—sometimes unknowingly—in a web where funding, data, and decision-making are steered by vested interests. These strategies do not always look like outright corruption; they are often subtle, systemic, and deeply embedded.
A new study led by the International Panel on Chemical Pollution (IPCP) has investigated how corporate industries influence individuals, organisations or governments to not act in the best interest of the environment and human health.
Examples range from “Frackademia,” where universities accept fossil fuel research dollars, to pesticide companies sponsoring scientific conferences, and museums criticized for partnering with oil companies. Adam Werbach, once the youngest-ever president of the Sierra Club, famously left mainstream activism to work with Walmart in the 2000s. His shift illustrated how corporate partnerships—even well-intentioned ones—can blur lines between advocacy and business interest.
In 2011, the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) released The Future of Natural Gas, which stated that “natural gas provides a cost-effective bridge to a low-carbon future” and supported the exporting of liquified natural gas. A major sponsor of the report was the American Clean Skies Foundation, founded and chaired by Aubrey McClendon, CEO of the nation’s No. 2 gas producer Chesapeake Energy.
It is common for the New York Times, a prominently left-wing, liberal newspaper, to accept full page ads on how Saudi Arabia and Saudi Aramco are leading the renewable energy transition, while Aramco is the largest oil and gas producer in the world.
Jeanne Mortimer, the Dianne Fossey of sea turtles. She changed everything in the Seychelles.
And in the Seychelles, Green Prophet has reported how even conservation groups meant to safeguard biodiversity, such as those monitoring Assomption Island near Aldabra Atoll, were appointed by the government itself. This raises a structural conflict of interest: when the very institutions charged with protecting nature are chosen by political actors who also approve destructive resort developments, their independence is compromised.
The study catalogues the recurring tactics industries use: watering down environmental laws, suppressing or delaying critical research, funding NGOs or cultural institutions to soften messaging, and using media platforms to amplify denial or disinformation.
Not all ties to industry are damaging, the authors note. The private sector has played an important role in developing innovative technologies and supporting environmental initiatives. But involvement must be transparent, accountable, and free from conflicts of interest that undermine wellbeing.
The IPCP researchers recommend stronger conflict-of-interest policies, transparent disclosure of funding, and training for students in environmental sciences to spot disinformation and influence tactics.
Leave a Reply