The United Nation’s annual climate conference (COP29) this year has been a hot mess. The countries that sent the most delegates tend to be relatively unfree, undemocratic, and not very “green.” Attendees have been told both that wealthy western countries need to “pay up or humanity will pay the price” and that fossil fuels are “a gift from God.” Significant disagreement exists over how much some countries ought to contribute financially to other countries to mitigate climate change. Recipient countries would love to see that number reach a trillion dollars annually. Representatives of wealthy countries are understandably reluctant to give away that kind of money.

The rocky COP 29 meetings have resulted from an environmental movement that has moved a long way from its roots of focusing on specific environmental issues. Environmentalists got landmark federal legislation passed in the middle of the twentieth century on clean air and water, endangered species, and universal wastewater treatment:

• 1948 Water Pollution Control Act (Amended 1956, 1972)
• 1955 Air Pollution Control Act
• 1963 Clean Air Act (Amended 1966, 1970, 1977, 1990)
• 1973 Endangered Species Act

Environmentalists also built the recycling industry and consumer conscientiousness in the 1970s and 1980s. They thought of themselves as the conscience of society — taking the moral high ground and urging businesses and consumers to heed potentially destructive downsides of their behavior. 

But in the 1990s, the environmental agenda changed in two important ways. It shifted its focus to “global” issues such as climate change including the anti-globalization movement that famously protested the World Trade Organization meetings in Seattle. The environmentalists joined a broad ideological coalition — not only focusing on water quality or saving whales, but pushing social issues and income equality.

Environmentalists became discontent with the (in their eyes) piecemeal results of being society’s conscience. Instead, they wanted to direct society to act according to all their environmental priorities. They recognized that to do this, they would need far more direct influence over corporations. Rather than divesting from problem companies, environmentalists shifted to “impact investing” strategies where they would buy shares of offending companies to get a seat at the table. Then they could change corporate behavior from the inside.

But they ran into the problem that financial markets are much deeper than the environmental movement’s pockets. They did not have nearly enough financial resources to redirect corporate priorities. So, they decided they would have to use other people’s money to accomplish their aims. 

Kofi Annon, former Secretary General of the United Nations, realized something similar when he commissioned the “Who Cares Wins” report to assess how global financial institutions could be harnessed to advance UN millennium goals. Environmentalists quickly adopted the same playbook and used Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria to move their concerns to the center of the finance and business community.

There’s no denying that the environmental movement has made great strides in its campaign against fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions. They have literally reshaped parts of the economy according to their priorities. They have also enlisted much of corporate America and control the commanding financial heights of the economy. They have advanced significant regulatory rules in Europe and in the U S.

Environmental strategists were right that conscripting finance and business interests into their crusade would help them implement their priorities. What they seemed to miss, however, was that their attempt to control people’s lives would foster popular resentment and backlash. They also miscalculated the ways in which working with business and financial interests would be a two-way street.

Greenwashing (paying lip-service to environmental goals and values to improve one’s reputation, without meaningful change) is not some small hiccup in environmental policy. It is a natural consequence of creating financial and social rewards for adopting the right green phrases, terms, and targets. As environmentalism got involved with business, business got involved with environmentalism. Nowhere has this been clearer than in the current global climate conference.

Courting the support of oil-producing countries like the United Arab Emirates (COP28) and Azerbaijan (COP29) by hosting the annual climate conferences there seems to have backfired spectacularly. Literally thousands of coal, oil, and gas lobbyists have attended the past two COP meetings to strike deals to expand fossil fuel production! The current COP president, Ilham Aliyev, has been scolding northern European countries about imposing their costly environmental goals on the rest of the world. 

At the same time, the environmental movement’s courting of oil and gas interests as well as of broader business and financial interests, has led to increasingly disillusioned true believers. Many environmental advocacy groups have fiercely criticized COP29 and COP28 for selling out the movement. Given that this year’s conference is being held again in an authoritarian petro-state, they have a point.

Today’s environmental movement has undergone an interesting transformation. Their desire to rule society rather than to counsel it shifted the movement’s priorities and tactics. As they harnessed business, finance, and government to achieve their goals, they created resistance and resentment. 

They also found that these institutions brought their own influence to bear on environmentalism. Grifters and opportunists have flocked to the “green” sector because that’s where so much money has moved. But these folks often care little about the environment itself – though they are happy to put on the moral mantle of environmentalism.

As COP29 limps to a close, those in the environmental movement have some important decisions to make. Will they continue their quest for power and influence at the expense of the purity of their goals and the possibility of more co-opting by non-environmental interests? Or will they return to the role of society’s “conscience,” providing information and recommendations for how to better preserve the environment? 

Choosing the latter will ensure that they can stay on message better and foster less resentment from the rest of society. In fact, if done well, this would look a lot like free market environmentalism. Acting as a “conscience” leaves people free to act according to their own plans and economic realities – incorporating environmental concerns when and where they believe they make sense. This will allow the goals of environmentalists to mesh better with economic constraints. Ignoring those constraints in a relentless campaign to force society to adopt environmental policies will create immediate disasters worse than potential disasters they may or may not prevent in the distant future.