- Maybe people only went to U.N.’s Climate Meetings previously to get in on the grift
- Who has profited financially from COP meetings?
This post is my response to an article in the Nov. 12, 2025 edition of the New York Times entitled: Missing at U.N.’s Climate Meeting: American Executives. Co-written by Ivan Penn and David Gelles, the subtitle was “Many business leaders are skipping the annual United Nations climate summit in Belém, Brazil, or are attending events in other cities.”
Background:
The United States is one of 4 countries out of 198 sending ZERO people to COP 30, the others being Afghanistan, Myanmar, and San Marino1.
The article includes the word “Trump” 10 times. People who stand to make a fortune selling solar equipment fume at the current President.
Maybe people only went to U.N.’s Climate Meetings previously to get in on the grift
I would take a similar but OPPOSITE point of view: Obviously people only went to U.N.’s Climate Meetings previously to get in on the grift. That may sound like an outlandish statement, but consider this;
- Canada’s incentive package for Volkswagen’s battery plant is up to $13 billion in production subsidies, plus an initial $700 million capital grant from the federal government and $500 million from Ontario2.
That is a LOT of public Canadian money to give to a Germany company, especially during the “Elbows Up” political climate in Canada. - Cash incentives and rebates for EVs are part of the reason why Elon Musk is a trillionaire. Again, that’s public money moving out of Canada and going into the pockets of a creature of questionable character. Also, EV rebates benefit those who are wealthy enough to afford an EV, and do nothing to encourage public transit ridership.
In effect, EV rebates are reverse Robin Hood, stealing from the public to give to the rich. And this whole grift was likely born at a COP meeting.
My knee-jerk reaction to the NY Times article:
Attributing the absence of American executives at these Amazon meetings solely to Trump oversimplifies the issue.
One could just as easily argue that American executives attended past climate summits only to avoid alienating governments and to avoid forfeiting lucrative contracts.
Besides, COP meetings are nothing more than the Oscars of virtue signalling, and maybe in these uncertain times, executives did a cost/benefit analysis and realized that the cost of attending heavily outweighed the benefits.
The same point of view “humanized” in “The Executive” voice of Grammarly:
Attributing the absence of American executives at these Amazon meetings solely to Trump oversimplifies the situation.
It is also possible that American executives attended previous climate summits primarily to maintain government relationships and secure business opportunities.
Additionally, some may view COP meetings as largely symbolic. In the current climate, executives may have determined that the costs of attending outweigh the potential benefits.
COP is a BIG party, full of BIG spenders (Whales in casino lingo)
Who has profited financially from COP meetings?
This is a massive question, and the answers could fill a great many book, so I asked Google Gemini. And boy did the bot deliver. Check it out:
The question of who profits financially from COP (Conference of the Parties) meetings is complex, as the financial benefits are distributed across several different sectors and groups:
1. Fossil Fuel Industry and Lobbyists
- Lobbying Influence: A significant number of lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry (oil, gas, and coal companies, along with their trade groups) attend COP meetings. Their goal is often to influence negotiations, build alliances with oil-producing countries, and block or soften decisions, such as phasing out fossil fuels.
- Continued Operations: By successfully maintaining or minimizing limitations on their operations, these companies ensure the continuation of their highly profitable business models, even while publicly engaging in climate discussions. Their attendance provides an opportunity to showcase their own transition plans and maintain access to decision-makers.
2. The Climate Finance Sector
The increasing global commitment to climate finance, often spurred by COP agreements, creates massive financial opportunities for certain institutions:
- Financial Institutions: Banks, asset managers, and other financial institutions see opportunities in the net-zero transition, sustainable finance, and the development of new market mechanisms. Agreements on new collective quantified goals for climate finance—potentially reaching over a trillion dollars annually—mean substantial capital flows they can manage and invest.
- Carbon Markets: Decisions at COP meetings on finalizing the rules for a UN-backed global carbon market (Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement) create an entirely new, regulated market. Financial institutions can profit as financiers of carbon-generating projects, buyers and sellers of credits, and providers of risk management and insurance.
- Dedicated Climate Funds: Funds established through the UNFCCC process, such as the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the Adaptation Fund (AF), and the Global Environment Facility (GEF), manage and distribute billions of dollars in climate finance to developing countries. These organizations receive funding, manage large portfolios of projects, and hire staff and consultants, growing in size and influence.
3. Host Countries and Local Businesses
- Local Economy Boost: The host city and country benefit significantly from the massive influx of tens of thousands of delegates, journalists, and observers. This provides a temporary economic boost to:
- Hotels and Tourism
- Restaurants and Catering
- Transportation Services
- Event and Security Management
4. Consulting, Advisory, and Event Organizations
- Climate Consultants and Lawyers: As the rules and mechanisms established at COPs become more complex (e.g., carbon market rules, finance reporting), there is a growing need for expert consultants and law firms to advise governments and private companies on compliance and strategy.
- Think Tanks and NGOs: Many non-governmental organizations and think tanks receive funding or sponsorship to participate, host side events, and publish reports to influence the process and advocate for specific climate policies. For example, groups organizing “investment COPs” alongside the main conference.
5. Wealthier Countries
Research suggests that the structure of the COP negotiations tends to benefit richer and larger countries at the expense of smaller, poorer ones, largely because:
- They can send significantly larger delegations, allowing them to participate in all parallel negotiations and exert greater influence.
- They often shape the narrative and focus of negotiations, particularly around mechanisms that align with their existing economic and political interests.
COP: massive investment and financing opportunities
In summary, the largest financial gains come from the massive investment and financing opportunities created by the global policy commitment to combat climate change, as well as the efforts by the fossil fuel industry to maintain their profitability by influencing the pace and scope of the transition.
FYI: emissions since COP began
Perry's Pen 
Leave a comment