

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The interview with Mary Robinson comes as the Trump administration seeks to undercut climate research and congressional Republicans target portions of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.
Former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson is urging the European Union to step up and lead the way on combating the climate emergency in the face of U.S. President Donald Trump's efforts to dismantle the U.S. response to the crisis. Her remarks come as congressional Republicans are moving ahead with a plan to scale back Democrats' signature climate law passed in 2022.
Speaking on a Thursday episode of the podcast "Radio Schuman" from Euronews, Robinson said that she is "hoping that there will be a sense that actually the E.U. now has an opportunity, because the United States is being badly led on climate, actually stupidly led on climate."
Robinson highlighted the fact that Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office withdrawing the United States from the Paris climate agreement, the global treaty aimed at reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, reprising a move from his first term in office. She also noted the Trump administration's efforts to undercut climate research. In April, the Trump administration dismissed hundreds of scientists and experts working on the 6th National Climate Assessment, the government's flagship climate report.
These moves from the U.S. come as the E.U. has tempered its climate ambitions.
When asked whether she's critical of how the E.U. is currently handling climate change, Robinson said that the "E.U. is taking a long time, and we would need to see leadership now, but it's better to get good leadership than rush leadership."
As part of an independent group of global leaders called The Elders, Robinson recently met with E.U. officials where she and her fellow leaders sought to "encourage Europe to step up."
"The E.U. should step up on climate and nature and fulfill the commitments that are necessary," she told the Euronews.
On top of the actions by the Trump administration Robinson highlighted, a GOP megabill currently making its way through Congress includes provisions that target the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)—a move that green groups have slammed.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee has approved a portion of the bill that would take back billions of dollars in unspent funds from IRA grant programs, and Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee are pressing ahead with a portion of the bill that repeals clean energy incentives under the IRA.
"Fossil fuel companies have embedded themselves in universities across the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, and beyond."
The fossil fuel industry seeks to obstruct climate action by using money to influence research and establish ties at Western universities, raising concerns about academic independence and the integrity of scientific inquiry, according to a study published Thursday.
The study, published in the peer-reviewed journal WIREs Climate Change, was authored by researchers at six universities who conducted the first-ever literature review of academic papers and civil society investigations into Big Oil's links to higher education.
"We find that universities are an established yet under-researched vehicle of climate obstruction by the fossil fuel industry," the authors wrote.
"Fossil fuel companies have embedded themselves in universities across the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, and beyond," they concluded.
"Everything that's been done so far by researchers on this indicates an emerging consensus... that this is a really serious and significant problem that needs to be taken a lot more seriously," Geoffrey Supran, director of the Climate Accountability Lab at the University of Miami and a co-author of the review, told Financial Times.
Jennie Stephens, a professor at the ICARUS Climate Research Center at Maynooth University in Ireland who also co-authored the study, told DeSmog that "when you pull it all together, you realize how pervasive a strategy this has been."
"The science has been telling us that fossil fuel phaseout is the number one thing that we need to focus on, but within our universities, there's very little research on how to do fossil fuel phaseout," Stephens told The Guardian. "This provides some explanation for why society has been so ineffective and inadequate in our responses to the climate crisis."
NEW: In @WIREs_Reviews today, our latest peer-reviewed research shows fossil fuel companies have systematically infiltrated academia, threatening to bias research and undermine meaningful climate action. THREAD.
📰Open access: https://t.co/S2Kzaq6HGt
— Geoffrey Supran (@GeoffreySupran) September 5, 2024
Research on the links between Big Oil and universities in the U.S., U.K., Canada, and Australia has indeed been limited. The authors could only find 14 peer-reviewed papers and 21 civil society reports published in English between 2003 and 2023.
The studies they did find document the strong influence of the industry on institutions of higher education. They cite a number of examples, many of which are from elite universities. BP contributed between $2.1 million and $2.6 million to Princeton University's Carbon Mitigation Initiative between 2012 and 2017 and remains a sponsor. In 2017, a public relations firm working with BP wrote in an internal memo that partnership with Princeton was a way of "authenticating BP's commitment to low carbon."
An influential 2011 study by industry-linked researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Energy Initiative helped persuade policymakers that natural gas was a helpful "bridge" fuel—which effectively became Obama administration policy. Lead author Ernest Moniz became the U.S. Secretary of Energy in 2013.
These outcomes indicated the success of an industry strategy to influence university research and debate. A leaked 1998 internal memo from American Petroleum Institute, a lobby group, the subject matter of which was "build[ing] a case against precipitous action on climate change," recommended fostering "cooperative relationships with all major scientists whose research in this field supports our position."

Fossil fuel industry influence hasn't been studied nearly as thoroughly as other potential conflicts of interest or sources of bias in the research process, the authors wrote. Their literature review found that many academics had drawn comparisons to tobacco and pharmaceutical meddling in academia. They wrote:
The studies reviewed here revealed parallels between fossil fuel industry strategies and those of industries like tobacco and pharmaceuticals. For example, fossil fuel companies have supported research that had commercial applications (e.g., hydraulic fracturing) or was otherwise favorable to their legal and policy positions (e.g., anti-punitive-damages law review articles)... Previous [conflict of interest] research has noted how the pharmaceutical industry stands out for arguing that it produces beneficial products, whereas industries like tobacco and lead seek to minimize the apparent harms of their products. The fossil fuel industry today appears to do both, and notably positions itself as an innovator of purportedly beneficial climate solutions, such as natural gas and carbon capture and storage.
The authors of the review also drew attention to universities' opacity in dealings with Big Oil, writing that there's a "widespread lack of transparency on funding ties, amounts, and contract details."
They wrote that, though academics have not devoted much attention to industry influence on higher education, some activists and NGOs have long tried to raise the issue. Campaigners seconded that fact in responding to the study on Thursday.
"This literature review confirms what students in our movement have known for years," said Jake Lowe, executive director of Campus Climate Network, told The Guardian. "Big Oil has infiltrated academia in order to gain undue credibility and obstruct climate action."
Lowe's group is one of many that's calling for universities to "dissociate" from fossil fuel interests—a movement that Supran, the Miami professor, called "basically divestment 2.0."
The problem is by no means limited to English-speaking countries. An investigation by Investigate Europe and openDemocracy last year found that European universities are also rife with Big Oil influence.
Universities have used millions of dollars to fund research promoting natural gas as a "clean" alternative to oil and coal and downplaying the negative impacts of fossil fuel emissions.
An analysis of more than two dozen U.S. universities' donor bases reveals the lengths fossil fuel companies have gone to in recent years to manipulate research into the climate emergency, pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into some of the country's schools as scientists struggle to convince policymakers that extractive industries must be reined in.
The Fossil Free Research (FFR) campaign partnered with progressive think tank Data for Progress to conduct the first-of-its-kind study—released Wednesday—of donations from companies including BP, Chevron, and ExxonMobil, and found that between 2010 and 2020, fossil fuel giants donated more than $676 million to 27 universities that lead in the field of climate research.
That figure likely represents "just a fraction of the true total" amount that the industry has contributed to universities, said Geoffrey Supran, associate professor of environmental science and policy at the University of Miami and a member of the FFR Advisory Board.
"It's no mistake that fossil fuel companies have continued to make major financial gains through the climate crisis; fossil fuel industry executives, knowingly, have long misled the public about their impact on it and used their profits to manipulate climate research."
"Estimating this massive lower bound figure is a crucial first step towards compelling university officials to reckon with the conflicts of interest inherent in accepting fossil fuel money, especially to fund climate-related research," said Supran.
The schools that were found to be the top recipients of fossil fuel money include University of California, Berkeley, which took more than $154 million, and University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, which took more than $108 million. Both schools received the vast majority of their fossil fuel funding from BP.
George Mason University and Stanford University both received more than $50 million and nine schools including Harvard University, Princeton University, Iowa State University, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) all took more than $10 million each.
"It's no mistake that fossil fuel companies have continued to make major financial gains through the climate crisis; fossil fuel industry executives, knowingly, have long misled the public about their impact on it and used their profits to manipulate climate research," said Data for Progress.
The funding of climate research by the very companies worldwide researchers have called on to drastically reduce their carbon emissions presents "a serious conflict of interest," added the group.
The study pointed to numerous examples of universities using fossil fuel money to complete climate research, including:
Data for Progress polled 1,230 likely voters between January 20-23 about Fossil Free Research's findings and determined that universities' decision to accept fossil fuel funding is detrimental to their public image.
More than 61% of respondents had a favorable view of Harvard before learning about the schools' fossil fuel funding, compared to 47% after learning.
MIT's approval rating plummeted by nine points, and GWU's fell by 11 points.
More than three-quarters of likely voters said they support universities adopting funding transparency policies to ensure readers of the institutions' climate research are informed about funding sources behind the research.
More than half of respondents said they would support legislation to prevent the federal government from using research with conflicts of interest when crafting policy, and 58% of voters said they supported increased federal funding for climate research at colleges and universities.
"For far too long, the fossil fuel industry has partnered with universities to greenwash its reputation and gain undue influence on climate-related research quietly and in the background, but not anymore," said Chelsey Gilchrist, an Ohio State University student and FFR board member. "With the help of this report, students will continue to expose campus ties to the fossil fuel industry and hold their universities accountable until Fossil Free Research is won."
Earth is the warmest it's been in 100,000 years, a new reconstruction of historical temperature data finds, and with today's level of fossil fuel emissions the planet is "locked into" eventually hitting its highest temperature mark in 2 million years.
The new research published Monday in Nature was done by Carolyn Snyder, now a climate policy official at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as a part of her doctoral dissertation at Stanford University, according to the Associated Press.
Snyder "created a continuous 2 million year temperature record, much longer than a previous 22,000 year record. [Snyder's reconstruction] doesn't estimate temperature for a single year, but averages 5,000-year time periods going back a couple million years," AP writes.
"We do find this close relationship between temperature and greenhouse gases that is remarkably stable, and what the study is developing is the coupling factor between the two," Snyder told National Geographic.
AP further reports:
Temperatures averaged out over the most recent 5,000 years--which includes the last 125 years or so of industrial emissions of heat-trapping gases--are generally warmer than they have been since about 120,000 years ago or so, Snyder found. And two interglacial time periods, the one 120,000 years ago and another just about 2 million years ago, were the warmest Snyder tracked. They were about 3.6 degrees (2 degrees Celsius) warmer than the current 5,000-year average.
With the link to carbon dioxide levels and taking into account other factors and past trends, Snyder calculated how much warming can be expected in the future.
"Snyder said if climate factors are the same as in the past--and that's a big if," AP notes, "Earth is already committed to another 7 degrees or so (about 4 degrees Celsius) of warming over the next few thousand years."
Nature described Snyder's findings in greater detail in an article accompanying her published study: "Even if the amount of atmospheric CO2 were to stabilize at current levels, the study suggests that average temperatures may increase by roughly 5deg C over the next few millennia as a result of the effects of the greenhouse gas on glaciers, ecosystems and other factors. A doubling of the pre-industrial levels of atmospheric CO2 of roughly 280 parts per million, which could occur within decades unless people curb greenhouse-gas emissions, could eventually boost global average temperatures by around 9deg C."
"This is not an exact prediction or a forecast," Snyder told Nature, advising caution regarding her study's temperature predictions. "The experiment we as humans are doing is very different than what we saw in the past."
There has been some controversy in the scientific community following the publication of Snyder's research: several climate scientists told National Geographic that they felt Snyder's estimate of future temperature rise, far higher than many previous estimates, was an outlier, signaling that her methods were faulty.
Michael Mann, an influential climate researcher at Penn State University who was not involved in Snyder's research, told Mashable "I regard the study as provocative and interesting, but the quantitative findings must be viewed rather skeptically until the scientific community has thoroughly vetted the analysis."
Other scientists said they were intrigued by Snyder's findings and hoped her study would lead to additional research. Jeremy Shakun, a climate researcher at Boston College, told AP, "Snyder's work is a great contribution, and future work should build on it."
"It's a useful starting place," Snyder told Nature about her research. "People can take this and improve upon it as more records become available."
It wasn't just Exxon that knew fossil fuels were cooking the planet.
New investigative reporting by Neela Banerjee with Inside Climate News revealed on Tuesday that scientists and engineers from nearly every major U.S. and multinational oil and gas company may have for decades known about the impacts of carbon emissions on the climate.
Between 1979 and 1983, the American Petroleum Institute (API), the industry's most powerful lobby group, ran a task force for fossil fuel companies to "monitor and share climate research," according to internal documents obtained by Inside Climate News.
According to the reporting:
Like Exxon, the companies also expressed a willingness to understand the links between their product, greater CO2 concentrations and the climate, the papers reveal. Some corporations ran their own research units as well, although they were smaller and less ambitious than Exxon's and focused on climate modeling, said James J. Nelson, the former director of the task force.
"It was a fact-finding task force," Nelson said in an interview. "We wanted to look at emerging science, the implications of it and where improvements could be made, if possible, to reduce emissions."
The 'CO2 and Climate Task Force,' which changed in 1980 its name to the 'Climate and Energy Task Force,' included researchers from Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Amoco, Phillips, Texaco, Shell, Sunoco, and Sohio, among others.
One memo by an Exxon task force representative pointed to a 1979 "background paper on CO2," which "predicted when the first clear effects of climate change might be felt," noting that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was rising steadily.
And at a February 1980 meeting in New York, the task force invited Professor John A. Laurmann of Stanford University to brief members about climate science.
"In his conclusions section, Laurmann estimated that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would double in 2038, which he said would likely lead to a 2.5 degrees Celsius rise in global average temperatures with 'major economic consequences,'" Banerjee reports. He told the task force that models showed a 5 degrees Celsius rise by 2067, with 'globally catastrophic effects,'" Banerjee reports.
The documents show that API members, at one point, considered an alternative path in the face of these dire predictions:
Bruce S. Bailey of Texaco offered "for consideration" the idea that "an overall goal of the Task Force should be to help develop ground rules for energy release of fuels and the cleanup of fuels as they relate to CO2 creation," according to the minutes of a meeting on Feb. 29, 1980.
The minutes also show that the task force discussed a "potential area" for research and development that called for it to "'Investigate the Market Penetration Requirements of Introducing a New Energy Source into World Wide Use.' This would include the technical implications of energy source changeover, research timing and requirements."
"Yet," Banerjee notes, "by the 1990s, it was clear that API had opted for a markedly different approach to the threat of climate change."
The lobby group teamed up with Exxon and others to form the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), which successfully lobbied the U.S. to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol.
The damning revelations are the latest in an ongoing investigation into what the fossil fuel industry knew about climate change and then suppressed for decades --all while continuing to profit from the planet's destruction.
Reports that Exxon, specifically, lied about climate change were published in early October in the Los Angeles Times, mirroring a separate but similar investigation by Inside Climate News in September. Those findings set off a storm of outrage, including a New York Attorney General probe.
Nelson, a former head of the API task force, told Banerjee that API decided to shift gears with the growing powers of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the early 1980s.
"They took the environmental unit and put it into the political department, primarily lobbyists," he said. "They weren't focused on researching or improving the oil industry's impact on pollution. They were less interested in pushing the envelope of science and more interested in making it more advantageous politically or economically for the oil industry. That's not meant as a criticism. It's just a fact of life."