As the climate negotiations at COP31 commence in Antalya, Turkey, it is worth asking what these global climate summits are actually delivering, and whose interests they ultimately serve. After successive COP summits, an uncomfortable question emerges: has green become the new black, or in many cases red?
Climate diplomacy increasingly resembles a theatre of moral laundering, in which states with deeply troubling human rights and environmental records cloak themselves in the language of sustainability while continuing to pursue policies that fuel war, repression, and ecological destruction. Rather than driving meaningful accountability, the rhetoric of the green transition too often serves as a source of political legitimacy, allowing governments to project environmental leadership abroad while avoiding scrutiny of the violence and exploitation that underpin their power.
Two of the last three climate COPs were hosted by petro-states that used the prestige of the conference to burnish their international image and advance deals that arguably undermine both climate justice and the rights of populations in some of the world’s most vulnerable regions.
COP28, held in Dubai, provided the United Arab Emirates (UAE) with an opportunity to position itself as a global climate leader, despite its continued entrenchment in the political economy of fossil fuels. At the summit, Emirati officials highlighted investments and acquisitions involving millions of hectares of land across Africa, presented under the banners of climate mitigation, food security and sustainable development. Yet, for critics, these initiatives raise serious concerns about a new wave of green extraction and land grabbing.
These contradictions become even more striking when considered alongside the UAE’s wider geopolitical and military engagements in the region, including allegations of its involvement in financing and supporting armed actors in conflicts in Sudan and elsewhere in the Horn of Africa. This raises a fundamental question about the credibility of a state seeking to position itself as a champion of climate action and sustainable development while facing accusations of contributing to conflicts that produce mass displacement, humanitarian devastation and environmental destruction. The juxtaposition exposes the limits of a climate diplomacy that celebrates green development while leaving the political, military and economic forces driving violence and ecological destruction largely unexamined.
The following COP was awarded to Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan—another petro-state whose wealth and geopolitical influence have been built on hydrocarbons. The symbolism was difficult to ignore: the world’s premier climate forum once again convened in a city whose fortunes are inseparable from oil and gas. The irony is that this COP as many others, many reported, served as a forum to promote fossil fuels.
This year, COP31 is being held in Turkey, a country whose government faces serious criticism over repression, military interventions and its role in regional arms and security relationships. These issues raise broader questions about the relationship between climate diplomacy, militarisation and the international arms trade, particularly where weapons transfers and political alliances risk contributing to violence and atrocities in conflict-affected, but also climate-affected regions.
The contradictions become even more pronounced when considering the transition to the next summit. Ethiopia is set to host COP32 in 2027. The prospect of Ethiopia presenting itself as a global leader in climate action raises profound questions about the relationship between environmental diplomacy and the country’s record of war, mass atrocities and environmental destruction.
The contradiction is particularly stark given the devastation of the Tigray war, the grave allegations of genocidal violence, and continuing armed conflicts and insecurity in other parts of the country. These realities expose the gap between Ethiopia’s international image as a beacon of green development and the experiences of populations living through violence, displacement and ecological devastation.
Ethiopia and the COP32 in 2027
Ethiopia’s planned hosting of COP32 presents a profound paradox. The government is eager to showcase the country as a model of green transformation, renewable energy investment and climate-resilient development. Yet this image sits uneasily alongside the legacy of the genocide in Tigray, widespread human rights violations and continuing conflicts across the country, which also involves the weaponised destruction of the environment. In Ethiopia, it seems green is red.
The contradiction is not simply about the political credibility of the host government. It concerns the very meaning of climate justice.
How can a government credibly present itself, and be supported by others, as a champion of environmental sustainability while communities across the country continue to experience the destruction of their livelihoods, homes, agricultural systems and natural environments through armed conflict and state violence? How can climate resilience be meaningfully discussed when war itself is producing deprivation, displacement and heightened vulnerability to climate shocks?
War is not only a humanitarian and political catastrophe; it is also an environmental one. Armed conflict destroys agricultural land, forests, water infrastructure and ecosystems. It disrupts food production and local economies, contaminates the environment, displaces communities and undermines the institutions and social systems necessary for climate adaptation.
In Tigray and other conflict-affected parts of Ethiopia, the destruction of livelihoods and productive infrastructure has compounded existing vulnerabilities. Communities already exposed to drought, erratic rainfall and other climate-related hazards have faced additional deprivation through violence, displacement and the disruption of essential services.
The environmental consequences of conflict are therefore inseparable from its social and political consequences. Violence produces deprivation, deepens inequality and leaves already vulnerable populations less able to withstand the impacts of climate change. These are not peripheral concerns that can be excluded from discussions about sustainable development. They are central to climate justice.
Ethiopia’s green development narrative must therefore be examined against the lived realities of those experiencing war, dispossession and environmental destruction. A country cannot meaningfully claim climate leadership while the human and ecological costs of its development and security policies remain unaddressed.
COP-Washing: The New Greenwashing
This pattern points to a broader phenomenon: COP-washing.
Much like corporate greenwashing, COP-washing, I argue, occurs when states use the prestige and visibility of international climate platforms to cleanse their reputations, convert environmental rhetoric into diplomatic capital and deflect attention from authoritarianism, human rights violations, militarisation and extractive economic practices.
Hosting a COP offers governments an extraordinary opportunity to shape international narratives. It provides access to world leaders, investors, multilateral institutions and international media. It allows states to present themselves as responsible global actors committed to the planet’s future.
But these performances of environmental leadership can obscure the realities taking place beyond the conference halls. The language of sustainability can become a diplomatic shield behind which governments continue practices that undermine ecological protection, social justice and human rights.
The problem is not simply that some COP hosts are petro-states or governments with authoritarian tendencies. It is that the international climate process risks legitimising these governments without demanding meaningful accountability for the policies and practices that contradict the principles of climate justice.
Climate diplomacy cannot be separated from questions of power, accountability and historical responsibility. Nor can the green transition be understood exclusively through carbon markets, renewable energy investments and technological innovation. It must also confront the political and economic structures that produce environmental destruction, dispossession and vulnerability.
Climate justice cannot exist without social and political justice. A genuinely green future cannot be built on the foundations of war, forced displacement, land dispossession or impunity.
If COP summits continue to serve as platforms for reputation management by authoritarian and petro-dependent governments, the international climate movement risks losing not only its credibility but also its moral purpose.
The question, therefore, is not simply whether COP hosts can deliver ambitious climate commitments. It is whether they are willing to confront the violence, exploitation and environmental destruction embedded in their own policies and political economies.
A climate summit that celebrates “green development” while ignoring the destruction of human lives, livelihoods and ecosystems is not delivering climate justice.
In too many places today, green has become a colour of concealment.
In some cases, green is black. In Ethiopia, it seems green is red.
Photo by engin akyurt on Unsplash
Note: This article gives the views of the author/academic featured and does not necessarily represent the views of the Global Development Institute as a whole.
Please feel free to use this post under the following Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Full information is available here.