Copenhagen — The final video in our series from Copenhagen focusing on the overall influence of Business and Industry Non-Governmental Organizations and how they attempt to shape the climate debate.

Copenhagen — They started appearing at business and industry meetings in 2001 after Marrakesh — the UN climate meeting that established rules for a global market for trading greenhouse gases. Representatives for the emissions trading industry became increasingly more visible and today compete with rich, well-connected carbon-emitters for international influence.

“You’re seeing a new commodity emerging that has been 10 years in the making,” says Doug Russell, a former UN delegate from Canada who now consults on climate for private corporations. The industry was worth $126 billion this year, but that market could mushroom depending on the decisions being made in Copenhagen and in the years after.

Governments are turning to traders for expertise in how to reduce global emissions without collapsing the global economy, Russell says. “All representatives are looking at the International Emissions Trading Association.” For good reason: the IETA represents more than 160 companies worldwide, including many multinational heavyweights: top financial players (Citigroup, Deutsch Bank, Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse), big oil (Shell, Gazprom, and Petrobas), large conglomerates (Mitsubishi , Dow Chemical, Rio Tinto) and others who smell big money in the new carbon economy (Deloitte and Touche, Lloyds Register, New York Mercantile Exchange).

Despite the impressive lineup, the traders are still an emerging force. “It’s a bit premature to talk about carbon markets gaining power at the moment,” says Henry Derwent, president of IETA. “Power remains in the hands of companies that need to reduce their emissions.” But IETA and related groups are rapidly gaining clout by providing industry with ways to reduce emissions by “trading” certificates that allow companies to release a given amount of carbon.

Sometimes called “cap and trade,” the idea is simple enough: governments give out or sell “permits” that allow companies to emit a given amount of carbon dioxide. Those permits are tradable and can become quite valuable, bought up by firms having a tough time meeting new emissions targets. The system is already in place in Europe and is gaining traction around the world. The deals emerging around the world have already sparked controversy, as seen in Carbon Watch, a new series by our colleagues at the Center for Investigative Reporting and Frontline World.

With so much money at stake, the financial industry has set its sights on the carbon trading biz. And like any corporation with a stake in the outcome of a global treaty, emission traders are lobbying lawmakers to make sure their interests are kept in mind.

“We are a lobbying organization,” says IETA’s Derwent. ”We say to governments, ‘Hey, you should do it this way, not that way.’” Sometimes governments are receptive, and sometimes it’s a tough sell, as in the United States right now. Before lobbying the U.S. Congress, he says, the traders have faced two major obstacles: first, challenging widely held beliefs that climate change isn’t really happening, and second, convincing lawmakers that the perilous financial industry is part of the solution.

“It’s our misfortune to be in a time when people aren’t liking the words ‘trader’ and ‘markets,’ at a time when people associate trading and banks with all sorts of financial shenanigans,” Derwent says. To help sway Congress, the carbon trading industry tripled the number of people it had lobbying in Washington during the first half of this year.

”We are in desperate need of low-cost solutions here,” Derwent explains. “We’re talking about the transformation of the world’s economy over an incredibly short period of time if we are to do what scientists tell us is necessary…” And the answer to that is using the carbon market “as a means of insurance.” Convincing the public to trust financial traders may be tough, he admits, but Derwent believes his industry knows the way forward: build your membership, increase your lobbyists, and apply pressure. In the end, he says, “the strategy is very simple.”

Copenhagen — More than almost any other industry, oil has a lot hanging in the balance as world leaders meet here to discuss a low-carbon future. The world’s two largest publicly traded companies, Royal Dutch Shell and ExxonMobil, together earned nearly $8 billion in the last quarter alone. They are leaders in an industry that employed more than 350 lobbyists in Washington during the first six months of 2009. Shell secured the lobbying expertise of a former U.S. senator. Exxon hired a former staffer for the Energy and Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Each company now has proxies here in Copenhagen who sit through meetings and participate on panels. Yet unlike most industries, their representatives have shied away from discussing what they want from the talks and whether they think they’ll get it. The industry-backed International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association is scheduled to hold a side event next week featuring Chevron, Canada’s Nexen, Brazil’s Petrobras, Norway’s Statoil, and France’s Total — some of the biggest names in the biz. But an association rep declined to discuss the industry’s message with ICIJ.

In fact, no one seems to be talking. Officials from Exxon and Shell declined to be interviewed in Copenhagen, though they spoke with ICIJ during the October climate negotiations in Bangkok.

“This isn’t a place for lobbying,” Exxon’s Brian Flannery told us back then. “All the industry associations recognize their key issue is to work at home, with their governments, in their capitals.” Flannery said he attends the talks to network — which in turn makes it easier for his company to lobby at home. “You form contacts all over the world, people you know who will answer the phone because they respect you.”

Royal Dutch Shell sees carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a cornerstone of the solution — as do many countries and most carbon-intensive industries. While Shell refused to speak with ICIJ here, its climate change adviser David Hone was also more talkative in Bangkok. Shell wants CCS included as a way for companies to offset their emissions. Brazil — a country less likely to benefit from the technology — doesn’t agree. Hone described Shell’s response: “We have put some effort into talking with the Brazilian government to understand their concerns and see if there’s a way around that,” he explained. “It’s a combination of sitting down with delegates or legislators, organizing presentations for groups of them or their staff… Talking to the delegates opens doors for people back in Shell Brazil, who may then go and have a follow-up conversation.”

In contrast to the oil lobby in Copenhagen, some coal industry officials here are more talkative. The coal lobby is a major force on climate policy from China and Australia to the EU and the United States. Consider the comments of Jim Rogers of Duke Energy, a top U.S. electric power company. More than 50 percent of Duke’s energy comes from coal. Rogers, in fact, points out that if his company were considered one of the 192 countries at the talks this week, it would rank 41st in emissions. “We’re not applying for country status,” he jokes, “although maybe we should to be part of the negotiations.”

Rogers is eager to discuss how his company works to reduce its carbon footprint while shaping U.S. policy. “The conventional wisdom here is there will not be any meaningful agreement unless the U.S. is prepared to deal,” he says of Copenhagen. “My mission here is to let people know we’re serious about this, but there are some serious issues to resolve, like credit for reforestation, China, and India.”

“My belief is the coal industry ought to be supporting sensible policy,” he adds, “and putting all of their energy in coming up with technology that allows us to use their product in a low-carbon world.”

Rogers says he had the opportunity to discuss his concerns during a Wednesday meeting with President Obama. His goal: to help get a sympathetic group of senators to push a climate bill through the U.S. Congress. “My strategy is to focus on 15 to 17 moderate Democratic senators and eight to 10 moderate Republicans,” he explains. “I do think they’ve been receptive.”

Copenhagen — “Lobby On!” exclaimed Rosa Kiltgaar Andersen of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers. Andersen was wrapping up a closed-door meeting here in Copenhagen at which farmers from India to Australia discussed how to influence delegates at the climate change talks.

Agriculture is big business — and a big lobby on climate change. Ag accounts for major shares of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions — about a quarter of all CO2 emissions, more than half of the methane emissions, and nearly all the world’s nitrous oxide emissions. Because of that, Andersen says, they should be included in the global discussion about how they’ll be asked to reduce that impact.

Andersen’s federation represents 97 country associations, and they’ve had a presence at the UN climate talks since the Bali convention two years ago. In Copenhagen, they’re here hosting events showcasing their own solutions, including training farmers to have more sustainable practices. To get their message across, they try to get access to “the right people,” Andersen says. “We have a widespread network of people from their own countries. I talk to my own government and so do all the other ones, and we try to influence the policymakers.”

Russell Williams of the American Farm Bureau Federation says the industry’s goal at the UN talks is to “make sure anything that comes out of here doesn’t negatively affect the ability of farmers’ ability to feed the world.” Williams has been lobbying the U.S. Congress for two years. He is one of 188 lobbyists representing agriculture on climate change in Washington — a figure that has more than doubled over the past six years. The agriculture industry is the fourth largest industry lobby on climate in the United States, with about 80 businesses and trade organizations registered.

“We have a lot of power when we’re in D.C., but once we get here, it’s a different story,” Williams says. Here in Copenhagen, the industry must vie for time against other interest groups. But a key role, he adds, is to offer a hand if U.S. negotiators need an agricultural voice.

“I go and speak to the U.S. delegation about concerns we may have,” Williams explains. Those concerns might include changes in proposed text or “an intervention some other country may make that we think it may be negative on agriculture,” he says. “If they want some talking points on that, that’s what I’m here to provide.”

Copenhagen — The electric industry is a hodgepodge of interests — high-carbon coal, lower-carbon natural gas, and near-zero-carbon nuclear. Each has a lot to gain and a lot to loose depending on the outcome of the Copenhagen climate talks. And the winner will depend largely on the agreed-upon targets for reducing emissions. Carbon-heavy power generators would like far-off targets. Carbon-light companies stand to gain from near-term goals.

John Scowcroft represents a variety of interests for Eurelectric, the European association of electric power companies. One of Europe’s most prominent lobbyists on climate change, Scowcroft came here to Copenhagen to wander the halls, to “loiter,” as he put it in a recent article about industry influence on the UN process. He comes across country delegates in the conference center and does what he can to repeat the Eurelectric position: the industry needs long-range targets and an immediate and clear framework to spur investment.

Like many industries, electric power interests will host a side event next week, showcasing their assessment of how the world could become “carbon-neutral” by 2050. It’s a typical stance of carbon-heavy industries today; no longer do they fight to deny that climate is changing or that the world needs to change how it uses energy. “We have to be carbon-neutral by 2050,” says Scowcroft. “We’re looking for a framework to lead us there.”

For carbon-intensive power companies, the ideal outcome for a UN framework would feature major carbon reduction targets by the year 2050 or thereabout — allowing them to outfit their plants with technology to sequester carbon and store it underground. If faced with nearer term targets, Scowcroft adds, many companies would have to turn to natural gas — a technology investment that wouldn’t payoff in the long run.

“Natural gas would be the easiest, quickest low carbon option,” he says. “But over the long term, it still emits a fair amount of carbon. We need to make major technical investments — I’m talking about carbon capture and storage.” And that won’t be widely available until at least 2025 — assuming the industry receives plenty of political and financial help, he says.

Enter the Natural Gas Lobby. The cleanest-burning of fossil fuels, natural gas has much to gain from a UN climate treaty with aggressive short-term goals for cutting carbon emissions. Those seeking closer targets argue that the carbon capture and storage — a controversial technology — may not be widely available for at least 30 years. Natural gas — which emits about half the carbon of burning coal — is available now.

Erik Gonder represents the International Gas Union, with natural gas industry members in 71 countries. Gonder recognizes that the more strict the short-term targets, the more potential benefit to the gas industry. He’s set up an exhibit at the Copenhagen talks and is hoping to attract policymakers to the IGU’s side event later this week. The industry message? Gas is essential to a sustainable energy future – a cleaner-burning fuel that can help the world transition from coal to carbon-free power.

“That is why we would like to market natural gas more strongly than we do today,” Gonder says. The IGU — which represents 95 percent of the world’s gas market — enlists its members to lobby their governments. And the efforts have been successful, Gondor boasts. “Through our high-level members, we’re able to get into the corridors of power.” Gonder says the IGU is already preparing for post-Copenhagen talks and plans to carry the industry’s message that gas can help carry the world into a less carbon-dependent future.

Copenhagen — Industry officials are arriving in droves today to take part in what’s being pegged as the seminal global event on climate change. The place is expected to fill with representatives of traditional carbon-intensive industries, like oil and coal. But the first to set up their exhibit booths at the conference center in Copenhagen are largely those whose voices have been drowned out — the people representing wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources.

The Global Wind Energy Council wants the talks to produce targets for emission reductions. “The higher the better, because wind turbines help reduce emissions,” says Rune Birk Nielsen, speaking on behalf of the council. For the first time, wind has followed more established industries in coordinating a global message among its member companies.

“We’ve got almost every large manufacturer in the world, including the Chinese and the Americans,” Nielsen said. “For the first time you see these companies stick together with the global voice. The message is, ‘wind power works.’”

While the wind industry tries to makes itself heard at the UN talks, it’s having more success at the national level. “On the UN level it’s so blurry — there are so many delegates and representatives,” Nielsen says. “On the national level it’s much easier. We know who we want to talk to. They’re much more accessible.” The countries most receptive to the industry lobby: China, India, Brazil, and the United States — the very countries so key to achieving a binding agreement at the Copenhagen talks, which conclude Dec. 17.

Pete Gorton, director of the International Solar Energy Society, said his industry can’t compete with the cash-backed lobbying of the big carbon emitters. It depends, instead, largely on grassroots advocacy at a national level. “We believe it’s effective,” he explained. “If we had more money, we could do more. But we’re optimistic. I’m paying my own way here. I’m here out of interest.“

Before the ICIJ team leaves for Copenhagen we sat down with Marianne Lavelle, who has been heading up our domestic coverage, to find out what’s going on in Washington.

Follow our coverage in Copenhagen on Twitter or at our site.