Brazil’s organisers of the United Nations climate summit (COP30) have stirred a hornet’s nest by awarding its media strategy contract to a firm linked with Shell, one of the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies. 

Public relations giant Edelman was awarded the US$835,000 contract through a UN agency to help Brazil’s COP30 team “craft a strategic narrative”, manage international media relations, create digital content and navigate any PR crises at November’s summit, according to an agreement filed with the US government. 

News of Edelman’s PR deal with the organisers of the UN Climate Change Convention was broken last week by Climate Home News, the award-winning independent digital publication covering the international politics of the climate crisis.  

Climate change activists backed by science were up in arms last May over why oil, gas and coal, which cause three-quarters of global emissions, are not featuring on the agenda of the world’s biggest annual climate talks in Belém, Brazil. 

Experts who went through the COP30 agenda noted items including four work pillars, 16 possible negotiated outcomes, three advisory circles, one ethical stocktake, councils and roadmaps, except for the elephant in the room – fossil fuels – which they demanded the climate summit must heed. 

Calls continue to grow for public relations and advertising companies to stop promoting fossil fuel producers as the world battles to reduce carbon emissions.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres, a vocal advocate of climate action, has described PR firms that work with fossil fuel companies as “Mad Men … fuelling the madness”. 

No spin 

Fossil fuels are the main source of global warming emissions, one of the most pressing existential issues facing humanity today.

Understanding the scope of their impacts is critical for informing choices around energy production—and for preventing the worst impacts of climate change. 

Asked about Edelman’s appointment, a spokeswoman for Guterres told Climate Home he reiterated his call to all PR and advertising companies to stop taking on new fossil fuel clients and “set out plans to drop your existing ones”. 

Edelman, which renewed its global partnership with Shell last year, has repeatedly come under fire from climate campaigners for its long-standing association with the fossil fuel industry. 

Climate Home reported that it had learned that the same executive overseeing the firm’s work with Shell in Brazil – where the energy company is ramping up oil and gas output – will also work on the COP30 contract. 

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), which managed the contracting process for the COP30 presidency, told Climate Home that Edelman’s selection did not contravene its rules on conflicts of interest. 

But critics say the PR agency’s fossil fuel-related work alone should exclude it from undertaking media relations at the UN climate talks. 

“Edelman has obvious conflicts of interest and is completely unsuited for a role at the climate talks,” said Duncan Meisel, executive director of Clean Creatives, a campaign group of PR professionals calling for agencies to stop working for fossil fuel clients. 

Rachel Rose Jackson, director of climate research and policy at the NGO Corporate Accountability, said that “having a fossil fuel supporter and climate crisis enabler playing a key role in COP30 is egregious”. 

“We are not going to save the planet with a snazzy PR spin,” she told Climate Home. 

Meisel said the firm’s messaging advice at COP30 could be compromised by its work with big polluters.  

“The COP presidency has no guarantee Edelman’s advice will be serving the interests of the planet,” he said. 

Bronwen Tucker, public finance manager at Oil Change International, an advocacy group, called Edelman’s involvement in COP30 a “five-alarm conflict of interest”, adding “there is no firewall or contract clause” strong enough to prevent conflicting interests. 

Asked about such criticism, a spokesperson for Edelman said the company believed climate change was the greatest crisis of our time, requiring bold solutions, collaboration, and innovation.  

“Edelman is committed to being part of the change by working with diverse clients, including energy companies, who have a vital role to play in the transition as affirmed at COP28 and in the UAE Consensus,” the spokesperson added, referring to the accord at the Dubai summit that called for transitioning away from fossil fuels. 

Climate Home has posed whether a PR firm that helps Big Oil spin fossil fuel expansion can be entrusted with crafting the world’s most important climate narrative.  

Conflict of interest 

Brazil’s COP30 team and the UNDP clearly thought so when, early last month, they picked Edelman, a long-standing adviser to Shell, to support media strategy for this year’s climate summit. 

Edelman said that “working with diverse clients…who have a vital role to play in the transition” is part of its commitment to tackle the climate crisis. UNDP, which ran the selection process on behalf of the COP30 presidency, said the appointment did not break its conflicts of interest policy. 

Campaigners, however, warned that no such protections or firewalls can be strong enough.

Especially when discovered that the same executive overseeing Edelman’s work with Shell in Brazil will also pitch in on the COP30 contract – polishing the energy giant’s efforts to ramp up oil and gas production in the South American country one day and delivering the message that the world must shift away from fossil fuels the next. 

With the UN chief reiterating that the “Mad Men” should drop their fossil fuel clients and the world’s top court describing support for fossil fuels as “wrongful” acts, calls for a reckoning on polluters’ influence over climate talks are only growing louder. 

The dust is barely starting to settle after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) pronounced in a historic ruling last month that countries have legal responsibilities to protect the climate system from “significant harm”, including global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions. 

Governments, lawyers, activists and climate-vulnerable communities are working out how the 132-page advisory opinion can support stronger and faster climate action in courts around the world. 

Support for the ruling is, however, far from universal. The Trump administration, for one, is likely to shun the ICJ’s view as it takes an axe to US climate policy, including a key finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health. 

Even so, experts believe the landmark ruling will be hard for the White House to ignore as it provides ammunition for new and ongoing court cases in the US, and could lead to US-based fossil fuel companies getting sued overseas. 

Developing countries, meanwhile, are mulling what the world court’s advisory opinion means for climate finance provided by rich nations, which they say has lagged far behind their needs. 

It states that, under the Paris pact, developed countries must provide financial support to help developing nations cut emissions “in a manner and at a level that allows for the achievement of” the 1.5 °C warming limit. 

It also suggests that some richer developing countries could be expected to chip in too – a longtime call by the US and Europe. That’s likely to add fuel to many fires at the UN climate negotiations.