 There are more delegates at COP26 associated with the fossil fuel industry than from any single country. That's the shocking conclusion arrived at by NGO Global Witness who have assessed the participant list published by the UN. The group reports that 503 people with links to fossil fuel interests have been accredited for the climate summit. That's bigger than Brazil, who with 479 delegates have the biggest delegation of any nation. To discuss the findings and why they matter, I'm joined by Dominic Kavakeb from Global Witness. This is a bit more concrete. Who are these people? What does it mean to be a delegate who's associated with fossil fuel interests? And do you think this is having a big effect on the outcomes here? Well, it's hard to say for sure exactly what they're doing. I was there myself last week trying to keep an eye out for fossil fuel lobbyists, but funnily enough, they don't walk around with big badges telling you who they are and what they represent. But I did come across the EU's own pavilion area, which I don't know if people are familiar with, but each country has their own pavilion. And the EU's pavilion had a whole load of side events that had been hosted on Energy Transition Day. And I think there's about five of those events that were actually hosted. So not just panellists, but hosted by gas companies. There was another one hosted by Hydrogen Europe, who are a huge lobby group based in the EU, kind of lobbying for rules around dirty, dirty hydrogen to be used. So we know that they are trying to influence those kind of debates around the periphery of the talks. We can't say exactly who they are and where they are on an individual moment, obviously. But what is actually quite worrying is that 27 of the national delegations that we looked at have fossil fuel delegates as part of their delegation. So that's the likes of Canada, the likes of Brazil and other countries. So in those instances, it's actually quite possible that they may well be able to access the talks directly and actually be part of the negotiations, which is obviously one step further in terms of being in terms of being really a big problem. Let's look at a statement from one of the groups you identify, the International Emissions Trading Association, or the IETA. They're backed by many major oil countries. They have 103 delegates at COP26, including free from BP, so the British Oil and Gas Company. The group responded to claims they were part of the oil and gas lobby by telling the BBC the following. We have law firms, we have project developers, the guys who are putting clean technology on the ground around the world. They're also members of our association as well. We're not coming to a shuddering halt today and tomorrow and suddenly there's going to be no emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels. There is a process to transition that's underway and carbon markets are the best way to make sure that transition takes place. That was a spokesperson for that association. Do you think there is anything to the suggestion that it's too simplistic to include something like an emissions trading association as purely fossil fuel lobbyists? And clearly also, I mean, the message that spokesperson is trying to get forward is that given that we're not going to move away from fossil fuels tomorrow, we do have to engage with them in the short term. Is there anything to what that guy is putting forward? Honestly, I read that statement that they gave to the BBC and frankly, I fully understand it. There's kind of all kinds of straight jargon in there. But no, of course not. You wouldn't expect to see tobacco lobbyists or people working on behalf of the tobacco industry walking around at a health convention. You'd say that it's completely wrong or perverse. And I think the same argument applies. The fossil fuel industry are driving the climate crisis by and large. They are the ones who, you know, more than any other sector have created this mess, have put us in this mess and you've had so much fanfare over the last few weeks. In fact, much further back than the last few weeks over the last couple of years, looking to COP26 as the time and place where we're going to see so much action, we're going to see so much change come out. And it's really disappointing to see that actually the people who are represented the most are those who've got a stake in the climate crisis. You've got a stake in the continued burning and extraction of fossil fuels. There was a time when they were the least trying to debate it. And thankfully now that seems to die down a bit. But it's undeniable their impact on the climate crisis. They're driving the climate crisis. And so how on earth can they be part of the solution? How can they be part of those discussions? I mean, doesn't make any sense to me. Show me a fossil fuel lobbyist who's arguing for no more fossil fuels. There was a moment when BP called themselves beyond petroleum, but I think they ended up changing it back. In any case, they didn't really follow through on it. The research you've done will, I suppose, support the position of people like Greta Thunberg, who have suggested that COP26 is not much more than a PR exercise. Let's look at a clip of her speaking in Glasgow. The leaders are not doing nothing. They are actively creating loopholes and shaping frameworks to benefit themselves and to continue profiting from this destructive system. This is an active choice by the leaders to continue to let the exploitation of people in nature and the destruction of present and future living conditions to take place. The COP has turned into a PR event where leaders are giving beautiful speeches and announcing fancy commitments and targets. While behind the curtains, the governments of the global north countries are still refusing to take any drastic climate action. This is no longer a climate conference. This is now a global north greenwash festival. A two week long celebration of business as usual and blah, blah, blah. Dominic, does your research and I suppose, you know, does your analysis support what she's saying there that COP26 is just a greenwashing exercise and it's not really achieving anything meaningful? It certainly adds to the skepticism and the cynicism that people will rightly have about the ability of these kind of international conferences to actually deliver the change that we want to see. So I can totally, yeah, can totally get that argument on the one hand, but it's not just that, you know, like we already would have doubts over these sets of world leaders actually delivering on the climate crisis and the fact that it is COP26 and we're still not really seeing change. Paris Agreement was signed 2015 and we're still on course to breach 1.5 degrees at some point in the near future. So the cynicism is very, very easy to understand and I wouldn't criticize anyone, especially not Greta for taking that position. But, you know, in some senses, you have to try and take the positives about the situation and there are positives. The reason why so many people are looking at this COP and so many people are talking about this COP is because climate, the climate crisis has really exploded into people's psyches and the biggest reason for that is undoubtedly the street movements that people have been taking to the streets all over the world, youth activists to really propel this into people's minds. And so, you know, people around the world are looking to this COP for action and you could very well make the case that actually we're not going to see anything positive come out of it. We have seen some commitments already made by a number of countries and on paper you would say some of these commitments are actually pretty good, whether they're going to be delivered and whether they go far enough and whether they are worth the paper they're written on is a whole different matter altogether. So, I would say that the cynicism is easy but, you know, I have to say I was there last week myself. It almost feels, pardon the pardon, like a good COP, bad COP situation. On the one hand, you know, you've got the people in power who are sitting around the rooms who are, you know, who are doing the blah, blah, blah as Greta has kind of rightly put it. But at the same time, it's also an immensely powerful experience to be surrounded by indigenous leaders from all around the world, to be, you know, part of the people on the outside who are having their voices heard. So, it's very difficult to say that come the end of this week we're going to be on the right path towards reversing the climate crisis. But, lots more people are beginning to think about this, lots more people are taking it seriously and the more that happens, the harder it is for our leaders to ignore what is blindingly obvious.