By: Mohd Younus Bhat
While climate change is real and climate research is urgent, there is a darker reality that cannot be ignored. The climate crisis has turned into a big-money industry that focuses more on appearances than real results. Leaders across the world have declared climate emergencies. Trillions have been pledged for adaptation and mitigation. Projects are approved in international summits, glossy reports are released with theatrical flair, and consultants fly from one sustainability conference to another. But the grim metrics continue unabated—carbon emissions rise, ice caps melt, and heatwaves grow more frequent and deadly. The promises grow louder while the planet gets hotter.
What has emerged is not just inefficiency—it is profiteering under the pretext of planetary salvation. Climate change has been commodified, repackaged as a billion-dollar business opportunity. At the heart of this system is an unholy nexus of bureaucrats, researchers, and policy brokers who monetize the crisis rather than solve it. Research projects that claim to “build resilience” or “develop frameworks for green futures” are routinely funded, with little or no field validation. And in most cases, what exists are verbose documents, animated presentations, and a trail of unspent or misused money.
Consider the Green Climate Fund (GCF), launched to support vulnerable countries in confronting climate change. Despite its noble intention, several funded projects have shown no measurable results on the ground. For example, in Senegal, a multi-million-dollar project aimed at coastal resilience faced criticism from civil society organizations for failing to deliver basic safeguards or infrastructure improvements. In Peru, allegations emerged that a GCF-funded project was benefiting private interests, bypassing local stakeholders it claimed to support.
India, too, is no stranger to such systemic rot. The Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAMPA), created to restore forests cleared for development, has repeatedly been misused. In several states, instead of planting trees or supporting forest communities, CAMPA funds were spent on administrative expenses like buying smartphones, laptops, and furniture. In Odisha, government auditors found that crores were spent on non-forestry purposes, raising serious questions about transparency and impact. The same pattern played out in Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand, where fund diversion became routine, and actual afforestation was poorly monitored or non-existent.
Jammu & Kashmir, a region highly vulnerable to climate extremes, has witnessed similar failures. A performance audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General revealed that nearly 25% of funds meant for disaster risk reduction were siphoned off to projects with no link to mitigation—ranging from construction of roads to unauthorized purchases. In several cases, documents listed climate training programs and awareness workshops that were either never conducted or grossly inflated in scope. The infamous Roshni land scam, although framed around economic upliftment, also touched the environment sector—land meant for forests and conservation was encroached and sold off to elites under the guise of “development.”
Beyond India, in Uganda, climate funds disbursed through NGOs were found to be embezzled using fake receipts and ghost employees. A forensic audit found no trace of several activities that had allegedly been completed. In the Philippines, the government’s “Greening Program” claimed to plant over a billion trees. Later audits revealed that nearly 88% of those trees were either dead or never planted to begin with.
What is worse is how this industry shields itself. The climate expert class—consultants, NGOs, international advisors—thrive in ambiguity. They use polished jargons like “resilience plans,” “adaptability,” “coping mechanisms,” “mitigation measures,” Sustainability,’ “partnerships” to sound important and avoid clear answers. Peer-reviewed publications and conferences validate each other in an endless echo chamber, while the actual beneficiaries—communities living through floods, droughts, and heat—see no change. Paper-based success replaces physical impact. No one verifies whether claimed interventions ever happened. If you ask too many questions, you are labelled anti-science.
The media, unfortunately, has often served as an amplifier for these empty claims. Press releases are printed uncritically. Sensational headlines about breakthrough innovations circulate widely, only to be forgotten when those breakthroughs vanish into bureaucratic black holes. Investigative journalism into climate spending is rare, because access to documents is limited, and criticism is branded as obstructionist. Yet, silence is complicity.
This systemic failure is not just about climate—it reflects how institutions worldwide function today. Governments treat sustainability goals like PR campaigns. Politicians invoke net-zero pledges while approving new coal and oil extraction. Large-scale renewable projects often displace indigenous communities and forests, in the name of clean energy. Global climate talks promise justice, while elite consultants benefit from travel, contracts, and visibility. It is hypocrisy draped in the language of sustainability.
Even the world’s most prestigious scientific body—the IPCC—has not been immune to criticism. Leading researchers have highlighted the misuse of emission scenarios like RCP 8.5 to justify extreme projections, fuelling panic, poor policy prioritization, and misaligned funding. Instead of serving as a neutral advisory platform, climate science has become intertwined with political narrative building.
The truth is, we are facing two crises. One is the ecological emergency that threatens life on Earth. The other is an accountability crisis—an industrial-scale grift exploiting fear, urgency, and public trust. Until we distinguish real climate action from performative metrics, we will keep funding the same problems we claim to solve.
This is a wakeup call—not against science or policy—but against silence. Journalists must dig deeper. Policymakers must mandate audits and demand field verification. Scientists must be willing to challenge flawed data and resist institutional capture. And citizens must demand outcomes, not just narratives.
The climate fight must be real, not rhetorical. The planet does not need another summit. It needs the truth.
Because the environment deserves better than bureaucratic theatre. And journalism, if it must remain relevant, must investigate—not just echo.
The writer is Research Scholar, Department of Earth Sciences, Pondicherry University, India.
yunusbhatt586@gmail.com
