[OPINION] Climate and corruption, intertwined crises

Climate change is the defining crisis of our era, but its worst impacts are intensified by another, older crisis: corruption. The two reinforce each other because corrupt practices undermine climate science, distort policy choices, and divert resources meant for the public good.

These patterns help explain the disappointing outcomes in Belém, Brazil, which hosted the 30th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), even as the summit produced one constructive development through the emerging just transition mechanism.

Corruption intersects with climate failure in three major ways. The first is the influence of fossil fuel companies and their government allies, which obstructs climate ambition. The second is the corruption that enables destructive development projects, from mining to land reclamation. The third is the misuse of funds in infrastructure and flood control, diverting resources from genuine adaptation. Together, these failures constrain what countries bring to multilateral negotiations and weaken global climate action.

Fortunately, the UNFCCC and the United Nations Convention against Corruption complement each other by highlighting the connection between climate and governance. The climate convention provides obligations and pathways for mitigation and adaptation. The anti-corruption convention establishes standards for transparency, accountability, and participatory governance.

Together, they encourage states to prevent bribery in environmental permitting, protect climate finance from misuse, and ensure meaningful community participation in climate policymaking. Both frameworks recognize that corruption weakens institutions and heightens climate vulnerability. Clean governance is not an optional add-on. It is essential for a fair transition and for achieving ambitious climate goals with public trust.

In the Philippines, we see this convergence happening as well as people see a more wholistic understanding of corruption beyond flood control projects.

3 forms of climate corruption

Fossil fuel companies have long known the consequences of their emissions, yet many funded disinformation campaigns and lobbied aggressively to block climate regulations. They supported think tanks denying climate science, shaped regulatory bodies tasked with overseeing them, and financed political campaigns that kept favorable policies in place. Governments extended tax incentives, approved new coal and gas projects, and weakened emissions monitoring systems meant to protect communities.

At Belém, fossil influence was unmistakable. Some delegations included industry executives, revealing the depth of corporate penetration in global climate diplomacy. This overshadowed the strong presence of indigenous peoples, whose stewardship of forests and ecosystems is critical for climate stability.

Still, COP30 advanced the operationalization of a just transition mechanism, designed to support workers, communities, and fossil-dependent regions in shifting toward sustainable livelihoods grounded in fairness, equity, and social protection. It was one of the summit’s few positive breakthroughs.

A second form of corruption arises from oligarchs, irresponsible corporations, and political allies who push destructive development. Mining firms often secure permits in fragile watersheds or indigenous territories through bribery or falsified consultations and escape accountability for spills, siltation, and deforestation. Dam builders rely on political connections to bypass environmental impact assessments and ignore downstream risks. Tourism developers clear mangroves, reclaim coastlines, and displace fishing communities while obtaining exemptions unavailable to ordinary citizens.

At Belém, indigenous leaders demanded full recognition of land rights, protection for environmental defenders, and direct access to climate finance. Their advocacy was strengthened by the Samdhana Institute, a regional organization supporting indigenous and local communities across Southeast Asia.

Despite such strong voices, the final texts did not include stronger safeguards because several states resisted them. This illustrates how domestic corruption influences countries’ negotiating positions. When elites benefit from destructive projects at home, governments avoid commitments that would require regulating these interests. Weak national governance thus becomes a global climate obstacle.

The third form of corruption, which has now been exposed in the Philippines, concerns infrastructure and flood control programs that are unnecessary, overpriced, or designed to generate kickbacks.

Belém did not produce stronger governance safeguards for climate finance, raising the risk that future adaptation funds will be similarly vulnerable. Corruption not only wastes money — it makes climate risk deadlier, undermines trust, weakens institutions, and ensures that adaptation measures remain superficial or counterproductive.

A moral path forward

The Catholic climate justice movement provided a strong moral voice at Belém, insisting that ecological destruction is inseparable from human suffering. Drawing from Laudato Si’, and Laudate Deum, church leaders reminded the world that climate change is fundamentally a question of ethics, justice, and human dignity.

Cardinal Pablo Virgilio David represented this perspective with clarity and courage. At COP30, he warned negotiators, “We must not make it too easy to abuse nature.” He affirmed that climate change is “an issue of morality,” a reminder that negotiation outcomes affect the poor and future generations.

Philippine and regional actors strengthened this moral framing. Aksyon Klima spoke truth to power and pushed for our country to act more courageously. ACT 2030, a consortium of think tanks from developing countries, contributed policy analysis and accountability tools to keep the negotiations development-centered.

My own organization, the Manila Observatory, a member of both Aksyon Klima and ACT 2030 and a close partner of the Samdhana Institute, sent a four-person delegation and was active in the loss and damage and just transition discussions. We provided support to the Philippine delegation, civil society, and indigenous peoples.

The official Philippine delegation worked diligently within developing country coalitions. Our negotiators were led by Environment Assistant Secretary Noralene Uy, who spoke eloquently for a country recently hit by extreme climate events. As always, Philippine negotiator Vice Yu tirelessly worked to lead developing countries in the loss and damage and other crucial negotiations.

Still, many observers were disappointed that the Philippines did not join the call for a fossil fuel phaseout. For a highly vulnerable archipelago, supporting a phaseout would have aligned national interest with moral authority.

Belém exposed the weight of corruption and vested interests that continue to impede global climate action. Yet the progress on just transition, the moral clarity of leaders like Cardinal David, and the presence of civil society organizations point to the possibility of meaningful reform. By strengthening transparency, enforcing conflict-of-interest rules, and centering indigenous, youth, scientific, and faith communities, the world can turn Belém’s frustrations into momentum for cleaner politics, stronger institutions, and a just and liveable future for all. – Rappler.com