October, 26 2021, 11:59am EDT

COP26: Just transition, or just greenwashing?
As climate change threatens people and the planet, COP26 poses a crucial opportunity to solidify commitments that will protect life in all its forms. While heads of state preemptively congratulate themselves on the success that this year's climate talks will be, millions of people, especially across the Global South, are suffering the impacts of the climate crisis, global vaccine apartheid, and ever-growing inequality.
GLASGOW
As climate change threatens people and the planet, COP26 poses a crucial opportunity to solidify commitments that will protect life in all its forms. While heads of state preemptively congratulate themselves on the success that this year's climate talks will be, millions of people, especially across the Global South, are suffering the impacts of the climate crisis, global vaccine apartheid, and ever-growing inequality.
What's the cause for celebration among the corporate elite and heads of state? The growing popularity of 'net zero' pledges, which are the fossil fuel industry's latest marketing attempt to convince the public that they can realize 'carbon neutrality.' In reality, these schemes are just Big Polluters' 'get out of jail free card' to avoid truly cutting emissions to zero or answering for decades of deception about their role in fueling the climate crisis. Later this week, CEOs of Exxon, Chevron, BP America, and Shell will be called in front of the U.S. Congress to answer for decades of deception.
" Big Oil not only lied to the American public about the reality and dangers of the climate crisis, they continue to churn out propaganda that downplays their central role in the greatest existential threat to humanity of our time," says Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA), chair of the Oversight Environmental Subcommittee, hosting this week's Congressional hearings. "The fossil fuel industry's 'net zero' campaign is just one more way Big Oil is trying to deny responsibility for their central role in climate disruption, as extreme weather, flash floods, fires and record breaking temperatures wreak havoc for life on earth. Thursday's hearing is the fossil fuel industry's Big Tobacco moment and just as it was for Big Tobacco, Big Oil must know they're no longer going to be able to lie and get away with it."
But these polluters will continue to parade a 'net zero' agenda at COP26, as revealed in Still a Big Con: How Big Polluters are using 'net zero' to block meaningful action at COP26, new research out today from Corporate Accountability, Corporate Europe Observatory, Global Forest Coalition, and Friends of the Earth International. In the lead-up to this year's negotiations, all boasting 'net zero' pledges, BP and Shell have each met with UK officials more than 50 times; Microsoft continues to hold contracts with Exxon while sponsoring COP26; and BlackRock, still heavily invested in coal, is both lobbying the EU and advising it on climate finance.
"Big Polluters have pulled out all the stops promoting their flakey 'net zero' plans on the road to COP26, from schmoozing decision-makers and sponsoring conferences to rubbing shoulders with the Queen of England." says Pascoe Sabido, researcher with Corporate Europe Observatory. "But look behind their vague ambitions and you see a chilling future of climate chaos and continued planetary destruction. These climate criminals should have no seat at the table while they continue to try and burn it down. Why has the UNFCCC not kicked them out already?"
While polluters are playing their cards via governments and greenwashing gambits, this year's Conference of the Parties is no game of Monopoly. Billions of lives are at stake, no matter how much Big Polluters stand to profit from continued delay of climate policy that can protect people and the planet.
Leonela Yasuni Moncayo, youth activist with UDAPT (Union of Affected Peoples by Chevron/Texaco), speaks from her firsthand experience in Ecuador. "The Amazon, my community and I, our skin shows the destruction and disease that big polluting companies have left in their wake. My present and future cannot depend on the will of corporations. They have shown that they will stop at nothing to make a profit, even when our rivers fill with oil, our lungs with gases, our bodies with cancer, our plants with poison and the air with smoke."
Without drastic action by governments at the UNFCCC and at home, the corporations that brought us this crisis will retain access to those decision-making spaces at COP, where rules for real solutions, as well as dangerous distractions like carbon markets, could get finalized. It's impossible to write strong climate policies with polluters in the room--but there is already a strong international precedent for protecting policy from industry influence.
"The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) provides tools that can protect policymaking from interference by the tobacco industry--which prioritizes profits over the health of the public and of the planet," explains Dr. Adriana Blanco Marquizo, Head of the Secretariat of the WHO FCTC. "Some features of the WHO FCTC that make it a strong protector of public health--such as articles on liability and conflicts with commercial and other vested interests--may also help to protect climate policy from industries that pose a danger to people and the planet."
As evidenced by the strength of the WHO FCTC, negotiating international policies without industry interference can save lives. Further, in place of any empty 'net zero' scheme brought forward by the likes of BP and Microsoft, there are real solutions that governments can deploy. People most directly impacted by these intersecting crises are closest to the solutions, as on the African continent.
"Africans are clear: we must set the agenda for African policymaking, not corporate shills," says Aderonke Ige, Associate Director at Corporate Accountability and Public Participation Africa. "It is we who experience vaccine apartheid and climate disaster. 'Net zero' is a death sentence for Africans. COVID-19 remains a mortal threat. Not only do we demand life--we demand to be in leadership on real solutions to addressing these crises."
It's time for governments around the world to reject dangerous 'net zero' distractions--and boldly advance a plan for real zero, real solutions, and a just, livable future.
Speakers included:
- Pascoe Sabido, researcher at Corporate Europe Observatory, on key takeaways from original findings about polluter influence at COP26.
- Dr. Adriana Blanco Marquizo, Head of the Secretariat of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, on legal precedent from tobacco control policy and potential applications in international climate policy.
- Representative Ro Khanna of California (D-17), spoke about the upcoming House Oversight Committee hearings on Big Oil's historic disinformation campaign, and the importance of fossil fuel accountability efforts.
- Leonela Yasuni Moncayo, 11 year old youth plaintiff in the case of gas flaring in the Ecuadorian Amazon against the Ecuadorian state, and member of UDAPT (Union of Affected Peoples by Chevron/Texaco) on the urgent need for action to address historic harms and protect a livable future.
- Aderonke Ige, Associate Director, Corporate Accountability and Public Participation Africa, on the need for real solutions over corporate greenwash.
The event was moderated by Scott Tully, a member of Glasgow Calls Out Polluters (GCOP), a grassroots group organizing for climate justice at COP26.
Speakers are available for additional questions or comments upon request.
Corporate Accountability stops transnational corporations from devastating democracy, trampling human rights, and destroying our planet.
(617) 695-2525LATEST NEWS
Insulted by Trump's Threats, Iranian Negotiators Walk Out of Peace Talks
"Don’t they think that if their threats had worked, they wouldn’t have ended up in today’s desperate situation?" said Iran's chief negotiator.
Jun 21, 2026
US President Donald Trump’s threats to destroy Iran and send US forces to occupy the country on Sunday appear to have derailed peace negotiations in Switzerland, with the Iranian delegation reportedly walking out and demanding an apology.
Following Iran’s announcement that it was closing the Strait of Hormuz again after Israel intensified its assault on Lebanon, Trump went on a tirade Sunday in which he threatened to assassinate negotiators and said Iran “won’t have a country” if access to the critical waterway was shut off, while also threatening to “take over” Iran with a full US invasion.
But after Trump’s threats—which broke the first clause of the memorandum of understanding—Iran’s negotiators filed a complaint with the Pakistani and Qatari mediators and stormed out of the mountain resort where talks were being held, according to several outlets.
While Trump clearly sought to project strength, Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said his team “do not take American threats seriously.”
In previous months, as Trump sought to squeeze concessions from the Iranians, he issued escalatory threats to wipe out their “whole civilization” and “blow up” the whole country. However, he did not act on those threats, even as Iran refused to budge from its negotiating posture.
"Don’t they think that if their threats had worked, they wouldn’t have ended up in today’s desperate situation?" Ghalibaf said.
Ghalibaf said the US had “better be more careful with their statements,” adding that “our armed forces are ready to respond in a different way." He said, “No matter what they say, we are the ones who act.
While the Iranian delegation left the venue, talks are reportedly continuing via mediators. However, according to the Lebanese outlet Al Mayadeen, the delegation said it will not return until Trump apologizes for his threats and Israel fully withdraws from Lebanon.
According to senior Israeli officials cited by Channel 12, Israel is reportedly considering “limited withdrawals” from Lebanon, including in areas within its so-called “buffer zone.” Despite Iranian claims, the officials said the US has not requested Israel’s withdrawal from the country.
Previous peace talks have been derailed by Trump’s threats to commit indiscriminate war crimes in Iran. But this past week has seen perhaps the most violent swing yet in his approach toward Iran.
Where earlier this week, Trump acknowledged Iran's right to enrich uranium and maintain a nuclear energy program like that of other nations, his outburst Sunday appeared to have been prompted by a statement by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who said the US would be "forced to accept" its right to enrichment.
And while Trump has raged against Israel’s actions in Lebanon while privately claiming that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to sabotage peace, he has not taken concrete action to force Israel to comply with the memorandum’s terms.
"The mixed messages coming out of the White House," remarked Jeet Heer, a writer at The Nation, "are going to make it much harder to end the war, and could in fact spark further conflict."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'You Won't Have a Country': Trump Threatens Full Ground Invasion and Destruction of Iran Amid Hormuz Closure
One expert said Israel's continued assault on Lebanon, which led Iran to announce its closure of the strait, posed an "existential threat" to the ceasefire.
Jun 21, 2026
Rather than force Israel to halt its occupation in Lebanon in accordance with the memorandum of understanding, President Donald Trump on Sunday responded to Iran's announcement that it was closing the Strait of Hormuz with a new litany of psychotic threats—claiming that if the waterway were closed, he would blow up the country, launch a full ground invasion to take it over, and assassinate Iranian negotiators.
According to Fox News correspondent Trey Yingst, Trump told the Iranian negotiators overnight that if they close the strait, which Iran claimed to have shuttered once again on Saturday, “you won’t have a country,” adding that they “won’t even make it back to their f***ing country,” in what appeared to be a threat to assassinate the negotiators, as happened during the initial phase of the war.
Responding to statements by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who said Iran would not give up its “right to enrich uranium” and that the US “will be forced to accept it,” Trump reportedly said Pezeshkian had better “watch his mouth” and “shape up,” or the US “will take over the rest of the country.”
It’s yet another sharp reversal from Trump, who—after months of claiming Iran must agree to “zero enrichment”—suddenly acknowledged this week that it was “common sense” for the nation to be allowed to have a nuclear energy program as other countries do.
Trump’s renewed threats against Iran, which mirror his genocidal threats earlier in the war to wipe out Iran’s “whole civilization” and “blow up” the entire country, also appear to violate the first clause of the memorandum of understanding, which calls on signatories to “refrain from the threat or use of force against each other.”
The threat to fully occupy Iran, which Trump made publicly for the first time on Sunday, stands in sharp contrast to his comments that continuing the war for much longer would cause “economic catastrophe” and that even limited ground operations, such as one he had proposed to seize Iran’s uranium, would be too big an effort to be worth it.
The war with Iran is already deeply unpopular among the American public, even without US boots on the ground. Polls have shown that even a majority of Republicans would be opposed to Trump escalating the war by deploying ground troops, and military officials have shelved planned operations to occupy certain strategic locations, including Kharg Island, fearing a large number of American casualties.
Nevertheless, Trump also told Yingst that the US could become the “guardian angel” of the Strait of Hormuz, collecting tolls and taking oil from countries using the waterway for exports. He did not make clear how the US would gain control of the strait under such a scenario.
Iran announced that it would close the strait again on Saturday after Israel deepened its occupation and escalated its bombing of southern Lebanon, despite the MOU’s ceasefire agreement covering all fronts.
Iranian negotiators have described an end to Israel’s Lebanon occupation, which has killed more than 4,000 people and forced more than 1.2 million Lebanese civilians from their homes in the south, as a red line for negotiating peace.
Behind the scenes, Trump has acknowledged that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is using Lebanon to sabotage the ceasefire and drag the US back into a full-scale war.
In the phone call with Yingst, Trump once again said he was “disappointed Israel can’t put Hezbollah away,” adding that Israel “can’t do anything without knocking buildings down.” He also said he was close to allowing Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa—the former leader of al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate—to take over the operation against Hezbollah.
While this is yet another instance of Trump using harsher rhetoric toward Israel—which Vice President JD Vance has also done in recent days—there is no indication yet that he is willing to take the next step of forcing Netanyahu to accept the ceasefire agreement by imposing material consequences, such as suspending military aid.
Even as Israel’s attacks continued unabated and threatened to derail the deal entirely, Vance did not indicate that he thought the US needed to exert more pressure.
“I think Trump and the US have done more to stop the conflict in Lebanon than any government anywhere in the world,” he said at a press conference in Switzerland on Sunday.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, described Israel’s continued escalations as “an existential threat” to the peace process between the US and Iran.
He told ABC News on Saturday that Iran’s threat to close the strait just before a meeting in Geneva this weekend was meant to be “part of a background of how serious they are” about ensuring that the US understands the stakes if Israel refuses to withdraw.
“Israel would prefer for this war to continue until you have a complete defeat of the Iranians, which, of course, is not in the cards,” Parsi said. “The Israelis sold this war to Trump as a quick, easy fix to the region’s problems that would take no more than four days, and they were dead wrong.”
“Now, Trump is recognizing that US interests necessitate that he pull out of this war and strikes this deal, but the Israelis are trying to sabotage it because they are afraid they’re going to be left out, that the balance in the region is going to shift against their interests,” he added. “They’re willing to essentially jeopardize their relationship with the United States over this.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Starmer Expected to Resign as PM, But UK Left Warns of 'More of the Same' From His Replacement
Jeremy Corbyn said Andy Burnham would be "accepting too much of the austerity that we've had imposed upon us" and "doesn't appear to be doing anything different internationally."
Jun 20, 2026
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is expected to announce as soon as Monday that he will resign, according to new reports, as Labour supporters abandon the party.
But many on the left remain skeptical that his likely replacement, Andy Burnham, will truly bring the "change" he promises.
Britain's Observer newspaper reported on Saturday that the prime minister appeared "resigned" to stepping down, well aware that "support isn't there" for his continued leadership amid the party's dismal unpopularity.
Though Starmer swept away nearly a decade and a half of Conservative rule in 2024, his honeymoon has been short-lived. His embrace of austerity in the face of a cost-of-living crisis and his government's ferocious crackdowns on pro-Palestinian speech have left progressive supporters seeking alternatives like the ascendant Green Party.
Meanwhile, his hard-right pivot on immigration has done little to siphon votes from Brexiteer Nigel Farage's far-right Reform UK party, which currently leads in national polls.
The immediate trigger for Starmer's reported resignation was Burnham's victory in Thursday's Makerfield by-election, which marked the former mayor of Greater Manchester's return to Westminster. Burnham comfortably defeated a Reform UK candidate, and The Guardian reported that he was expected to have support from about 200 Labour MPs in a leadership challenge against Starmer.
Burnham emphasized during a victory rally that it was "a last chance to change" Labour as it heads for electoral oblivion.
Responding to what he said were requests from constituents to "do something to make life more affordable," Burnham called for an end to "trickle down economics," with government interventions to bring down utility bills and rail fares, public procurement of businesses, pushes for reindustrialization, and job guarantees for people ages 16 to 18.
But some leaders on the British left have warned that Burnham will do little to deviate from Starmer's failures.
While he has pledged to reverse Starmer's welfare cuts and privatizations of public services, Burnham has also committed to maintaining the party's spending limits, which may make significant changes impossible.
Islington North MP Jeremy Corbyn, who led the Labour Party from 2015-20, said that while he personally likes Burnham, "his basic economic strategy and views... seem to me to be accepting too much of the austerity that we've had imposed upon us."
The ex-leader also said Burnham "doesn't appear to be doing anything different internationally," noting that he has not given a straight answer on whether Britain should conduct an inquiry into the UK government's policy on Gaza and its supply of weapons to Israel.
Burnham has also drawn criticism for saying he would maintain Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who has spearheaded hard-line changes to UK asylum policies and has enforced the repressive ban on Palestine Action, which has led to the arrest of thousands of nonviolent protesters, many of whom have been charged with terrorism.
"The architect of Labour’s cruel plans on settled status and persecution of free speech and protest stays in place," said Green Party leader Zack Polanski, who said it was a sign of "more of the same."
Remarking on Burnham's team of economic advisers, who include former chief economists for the Bank of England and Goldman Sachs, Polanski said it "isn’t a team of advisers which looks like challenging wealth and power."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


