The 30th annual UN climate conference, COP 30, was held in Belem, Brazil, from November 10 to 21, 2023. Historically, these conferences serve as platforms for international agreements aimed at reducing reliance on fossil fuels and facilitating financial support from wealthier nations to developing countries. This year's event, however, garnered minimal attention from American media, with no representatives from the U.S. federal government in attendance. Key leaders from China and India were also absent, as both countries prioritize economic growth driven by fossil fuels and are unlikely to commit to reducing their energy consumption.

Environmental organizations are facing significant challenges. The Sierra Club, the largest grassroots environmental group in the U.S., has reported a drastic decline in membership, losing 60% of its supporters since 2019. This decline has resulted in multiple layoffs and a projected budget deficit of $40 million, coinciding with a period of reduced environmental protections under the Trump administration. Similarly, 350.org, founded by climate activist Bill McKibben, announced a temporary suspension of its operations due to a 25% drop in income for the upcoming fiscal years, following its previous efforts to block the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has revised its predictions regarding oil demand, suggesting it may continue to grow until 2050, contrary to earlier forecasts that anticipated a peak by 2030. This shift reflects a broader trend of countries and corporations reassessing their commitments to climate initiatives.

At COP 30, sponsors included National Grid and Williams Companies, both involved in fossil fuel infrastructure. National Grid operates within the U.S. energy market, while Williams Companies has faced opposition in its efforts to construct a natural gas pipeline across New York Bay. The presence of these companies at climate discussions underscores the ongoing tension between fossil fuel interests and climate activism, as they continue to advocate for energy projects that may conflict with environmental goals.

In parallel, the fossil fuel industry is actively seeking to evade accountability for climate-related damages through various legal strategies. Companies such as ExxonMobil and Suncor are facing lawsuits from municipalities and Native American tribes, alleging that these corporations have misled the public regarding climate change. The industry has sought legislative support for a blanket waiver of liability and has attempted to influence the judicial process by petitioning the Supreme Court to dismiss these cases.

Since 2021, the fossil fuel sector has made multiple attempts to have the Supreme Court intervene in lower court cases, all of which have been rejected thus far. The latest petition involves a case from the City and County of Boulder, Colorado, which has been delayed for years due to the industry's tactics. The Colorado Supreme Court recently allowed the case to proceed to discovery, which could compel the release of documents related to the companies' conduct.

Critics have described the industry's legal arguments as lacking substance, relying on vague constitutional interpretations rather than specific federal laws. The Supreme Court typically reviews final judgments, yet the oil companies are seeking to challenge a preliminary decision that merely allows the case to advance. Concerns about judicial ethics have also emerged, particularly regarding potential conflicts of interest among justices. Justice Amy Coney Barrett has familial ties to Shell, a major fossil fuel player, raising questions about her impartiality in adjudicating climate-related cases. Similarly, Justice Samuel Alito has financial interests in oil companies, complicating his participation in related matters.

The absence of a binding ethics code for the Supreme Court has led to scrutiny regarding the management of conflicts of interest, especially in cases with significant implications for climate accountability. The fossil fuel industry appears eager for the Supreme Court to intervene to protect its interests, potentially at the expense of public accountability and environmental justice. As litigation continues, the implications for corporate influence in the judicial system and the broader fight against climate change remain significant.