As the UN’s climate talks in Paris begin, the lobbying and public relations push from some of the biggest corporations responsible for climate change has gone into overdrive. What are the messages they’re so keen to spread, and what will they mean for the COP21 conference – and for the climate?

A recent report from the NGO Corporate Europe Observatory reveals that what’s on offer at COP21 is nothing short of a climate catastrophe, a guaranteed recipe to cook the planet. But rather than sending the dish back, political leaders have asked for seconds, bringing the very companies responsible for the problem ever closer into the UN fold.

James Bacchus, a trade expert at the International Chamber of Commerce, says: “This issue is important for governments to address but it is far too important to leave to governments alone.”

Fortunately for Bacchus, the UN agrees. The problem, however, is that is has also succeeded in creating several platforms to ensure business-friendly proposals are at the heart of climate policy-making, rather than vice versa. New markets, experimental technologies, all endorsed so polluters don’t have to change their business models.

The UN’s climate chief, Christiana Figueres – who before taking up her post was principal climate change advisor to Latin America’s leading energy utility, Endesa – has even told the world to “stop demonising oil and gas companies”.

Climate vs economic growth

Particularly since the economic crisis, powerful lobbies like BusinessEurope (the European federation of employers’ organisations) have positioned climate action as directly opposed to economic growth. The EU’s climate and energy targets for 2030 reflected this, not just lacking ambition but prioritising the competitiveness of the very industries causing climate change.

The result is that governments are afraid to tackle climate change for fear of upsetting industry, or when they do, polluting industries are given huge taxpayer-funded handouts.

The oil industry would have you believe that natural gas – fracked or otherwise – is the future of clean energy, despite evidence showing that methane leakage during the extraction process can cause more damage to the atmosphere than coal.

In reality, it is an attempt by the oil industry to remain relevant in a world where at least 80% of fossil fuels need to remain in the ground to avoid dangerous climate change.

Harvard science historian Naomi Oreskes is blunt about the issue. The dash for gas, she says, will “simply increase the total amount of fossil fuels available to burn, accelerating what is already beginning to look like a rush towards disaster.”

Industry chiefs argue that putting a price on carbon and making polluters pay for emissions will transform business models. However, ExxonMobil has put an internal price on carbon, between $60 and $80 a tonne, and they’re still investing in fossil fuels.

What is the role of business?

Read between the lines and much of the issue at hand is in fact a fight over regulation: do we leave it to business to choose the lowest priced emissions reductions based on a market price, regardless of the consequences? Or do we want policies supporting renewable energy or energy efficiency, regardless of whether big business believes they are the cheapest option?

Tackling climate change means drastically transforming our economies. Governments, not markets, are best placed to do that. The phrase on the lips of many corporate lobbyists is “net-zero emissions”, which means that rather than eradicating all emissions, some can continue while experimental and untested technologies can remove CO2 from the atmosphere elsewhere.

Shell interprets it as a green light to burn fossil fuels until the end of the century. But most negative-emissions strategies require huge amounts of land to sequester carbon, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimating it would require up to twice the landmass of Africa to stay below 2C.

In the real world, “net-zero” gives polluters an excuse to continue with business as usual, claiming that future inventions will fix the problem.

Expect to hear about the Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture in Paris. It is supposed to help small farmers adapt to climate change while reducing emissions, but has been hijacked by synthetic fertiliser companies like Yara and Monsanto.

The refusal to define what “climate smart agriculture” is has allowed agribusiness to add a new green tint to business as usual, pushing the same practices that have led to deforestation, land grabs, biodiversity loss and soaring emissions.

More than 350 civil society groups are calling on COP21 to reject the concept and the Alliance, labelling it “green-washed false solutions”. At COP21 the Lima-Paris Action Agenda will hold up the cosmetic commitments from the likes of Shell and BP alongside the weak government agreement to hide the lack of ambition.

Many gave up hope a long time ago that Paris would deliver. But it could still be a step in the right direction. Hundreds of thousands have already added their name to campaigns urging governments to recognise the damaging influence “big polluters” have over climate policy, and to kick them out of COP21 and all levels of government.

If enough people get behind it, Paris could mark a watershed moment: the beginning of the end for the cosy affair between politicians and polluters.