New Delhi(ABC Live): Climate Transparency vs Greenwashing has become the defining issue in climate governance. Transparency ensures that climate pledges are real, measurable, and verifiable. Greenwashing, by contrast, creates the illusion of progress while emissions continue to rise.

The divide between developed and developing nations deepens this challenge. The Global North often overstates financial contributions, while the Global South struggles with limited reporting capacity. As the Belém Climate Summit 2025 approaches, the contest between Climate Transparency vs Greenwashing will determine whether the Paris Agreement remains credible.

Climate Transparency vs Greenwashing: Global Progress in Data

Analysis: Transparency has reduced projected warming by nearly 2°C compared with 2015. However, emissions are still climbing, not falling. Furthermore, climate finance flows remain below pledged levels, raising questions of credibility and trust.

Climate Transparency vs Greenwashing: The Hidden Threat

Greenwashing undermines the Paris Agreement by inflating progress. It takes many forms:

• Governments highlight distant net-zero targets while expanding fossil fuel projects now.

• Donor countries report “mobilised” climate finance that includes loans or repackaged aid.

• Corporations market “carbon-neutral” products based on unverifiable offsets.

Why transparency matters:

• Standardised reporting exposes inconsistencies.

• Peer reviews verify data and reduce manipulation.

• Digital tools like satellites, AI, and blockchain provide independent checks.

Data Insight: UNEP found that 40% of corporate net-zero claims lack credible short-term plans. In contrast, OECD assessments revealed that up to 30% of reported climate finance flows were overstated. Without robust transparency, Climate Transparency vs Greenwashing would tilt in favour of greenwashing, weakening global trust.

Climate Transparency vs Greenwashing in the Global North–South Divide

Historical Responsibility

• North: Responsible for about 75% of cumulative CO? since 1850.

• South: Contributed less historically but faces the harshest climate impacts.

Current Divide

• North: Stronger institutions and reporting, but prone to finance-related greenwashing.

• South: Limited capacity, reliant on UNEP support, but demands fairness in finance and technology transfer.

Analysis: Transparency is the only tool to verify whether the finance is new, additional, and grant-based. Without it, pledges risk becoming accounting tricks, feeding the Climate Transparency vs Greenwashing problem.

Case Study: Methane Monitoring

• Algeria & Yemen (South): Satellite monitoring detected leaks. Repairs cut 4.1 MtCO?e—equal to one million cars off the road.

• EU (North): Reported methane cuts, but part of the reduction came from outsourcing polluting industries abroad.

Lesson: Independent monitoring is vital. Without it, both North and South risk false reporting. In Algeria and Yemen, leaks would have gone unreported. In Europe, outsourcing could have been presented as genuine progress. This case shows how Climate Transparency vs Greenwashing plays out in practice.

Strengthening Climate Transparency vs Greenwashing: The Road Ahead

1. Build Southern Capacity – Invest in institutions, digital MRV systems, and permanent reporting frameworks.

2. Hold the North Accountable – Independent audits of climate finance to stop double-counting.

3. Adopt New Technology – Expand use of satellites, AI, and blockchain for real-time verification.

4. Dual Accountability – North is accountable for finance and support. South is accountable for effective use and measurable action.

? Why ABC Live is Publishing This Report Now

This report comes at a decisive moment:

• The Global Transparency Forum convenes in Korea in September 2025.

• Nations are submitting updated NDCs before the Belém Summit.

• Rising greenwashing scandals and North–South finance disputes threaten climate trust.

In this context, Climate Transparency vs Greenwashing has become the litmus test for the survival of the Paris Agreement.

? How This Report is Unique

• Evidence-Based: Provides data tables and trend analysis, often missing in mainstream coverage.

• Greenwashing Lens: Directly links transparency gaps to false claims.

• North–South Perspective: Highlights inequities in finance, reporting, and responsibility.

• Policy-Oriented: Suggests actionable reforms for accountability and fairness.

• Forward-Looking: Connects today’s transparency debates to the decisive Belém 2025 Summit.

? Sources

1. UNEP – Emissions Gap Report 2023

2. UNFCCC – Enhanced Transparency Framework

3. UNEP – Capacity-Building Initiative for Transparency (CBIT)

4. OECD – Climate Finance Provided and Mobilised 2013–2022

5. IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report (2023)

6. International Methane Emissions Observatory (IMEO)

7. UNEP – Adaptation Gap Report 2023