Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

Cambridge University students demanding fossil-free research

"Universities should not be engaged in concealing the influence of the powerful over scholarship," writes the authors. "Rather, they should protect the integrity of researchers who make courageous claims grounded in evidence and careful research." (Photo: Terry Macalister / via Fossil Free Research)

To Confront the Climate Crisis, Universities Must Refuse Fossil Fuel Industry Funding

Every research dollar, lab hour, and project report that is beholden to or biased by fossil fuel industry influence is a missed opportunity to address the climate crisis.

After a summer of record-breaking heat waves sweeping the northern hemisphere from Europe to China to California and while environmental justice advocates debate the merits of climate provisions of the landmark Inflation Reduction Act passed by the U.S. Congress, there’s another critical, if less well known, front opening in the struggle to support climate action.

American research universities like Harvard and Stanford are on the front lines of this debate. Each institution has announced new climate programs—funded by massive donations of $200 million and $1.7 billion, respectively. And each announcement has been met with calls from students, alumni, faculty, and staff to ban fossil fuel funding for these programs. At Stanford, the inaugural dean insisted the new Doerr School of Sustainability would be “open to” donations from and work with the fossil fuel industry. As the school launches officially this week, oil and gas prospecting are prominently advertised among the school's "industrial affiliates program." If the industry succeeds in consolidating its influence at these centers, the consequences will echo for decades.

As Harvard and Stanford alumni whose careers focus on environmental justice, we urge our alma maters to refuse oil and gas industry money. Over 740 academics and hundreds of alumni from both schools agree with us. At Cambridge University, momentum has been building this summer around such a ban. Yet neither Harvard nor Stanford has committed to refusing fossil fuel industry research funding.

Instead of corporate interest, climate research should be accountable to frontline communities disproportionately impacted by the climate crisis already.

Funding sources have a major impact on research outcomes. As demonstrated repeatedly by scholars, industry funding can lead to unconscious bias among researchers, significantly skewing the framing and findings of scholarship toward outcomes that favor the funders. Precedents for banning funding from specific industries already exist, such as the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health’s policy refusing grants and other support from tobacco-related companies.

Proponents of corporate funding will argue that a diversity of funding sources can bolster the quality of research when paired with good intentions and appropriate guardrails. However, the American Association of University Professors warns that corporate funding can constrain, not strengthen, “the independence of researchers…no matter how elaborate the safeguards.” Other experts mapping the extent of industry influence within universities have noted the chilling effect of fossil fuel funding on academic research, reporting that academics fear losing their funding if they take positions that aren’t friendly to the industry.

Universities should not be engaged in concealing the influence of the powerful over scholarship. Rather, they should protect the integrity of researchers who make courageous claims grounded in evidence and careful research.

Little in the fossil fuel industry’s track record suggests it can be trusted as a good faith partner. Fossil fuel executives have engaged in an explicit strategy to muddy debates in media, policymaking, and international negotiations. The industry’s work to influence research agendas, promote scholarship they have funded, and attempt to buy the silence of scientists is just another facet of this strategy.

Even as the industry claims to be contributing to a clean energy transition, analysts have exposed its claims as greenwashing. Meanwhile, oil and gas companies continue to invest heavily in new fossil fuel projects.

Research universities should prioritize bold action to address the magnitude of the crisis, rather than working to strengthen the fossil industry’s bottom line. Every research dollar, lab hour, and project report that is beholden to or biased by fossil fuel industry influence is a missed opportunity to address the climate crisis, let alone the pressing justice challenges associated with it.

To help address the climate crisis effectively, research at universities like Harvard and Stanford must be grounded in climate justice values. This means directing their vast institutional resources toward research agendas guided by the needs of the planet’s most vulnerable. Universities have a vital role to play in this work: bridging disciplinary silos to make sure responses to climate change are equitable. Globally, we have the technologies and technical know-how to rapidly and equitably decarbonize our energy infrastructure while safeguarding biodiversity. Yet, vast challenges remain in the lopsided distribution of resources to scale up these capacities globally and make connections across fields of knowledge.

Instead of corporate interest, climate research should be accountable to frontline communities disproportionately impacted by the climate crisis already. Preexisting inequalities, including racial injustice, gender inequality, and legacies of slavery and colonialism, work to compound droughts, floods, fires, and other climate-fueled catastrophes. As BIPOC- and youth-led movements have emphasized with prophetic power, we have our work cut out for us.

Universities do not need fossil fuel funding, but the fossil fuel industry needs Harvard and Stanford’s prestige to keep legitimizing its business model.

To the institutional leaders of our alma maters, we call on you to refuse fossil fuel industry research funding. Embrace the path to an equitable, livable future for our planet.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Paul Nauert

Paul G. Nauert

Paul G. Nauert is a Harvard alum and currently a PhD candidate in History at Stanford working on connections between U.S. foreign policy and the global politics of climate (in)justice.

Catherine Harris

Catherine Harris

Catherine Harris is a Harvard/Stanford alum and currently an associate professor of architecture, art, and ecology at the University of New Mexico.

Caleb Schwartz

Caleb Schwartz

Caleb Schwartz graduated Harvard in 2020 with a degree in environmental science and public policy and has been organizing with the Harvard fossil fuel divestment effort for four years.

We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.

'She's Just Awful': Critics Swing After Sinema Ditches Dems Just Days After Warnock Win

"Apparently 'independent' is the new way to say 'corporate lobbyist,'" said one critic.

Jon Queally ·


Advocates Applaud as FTC Sues to Stop Microsoft-Activision Mega-Merger

Biden's FTC, said one consumer campaigner, "is showing, once again, that it is serious about enforcing the law, reversing corporate concentration, and taking on the tough cases."

Brett Wilkins ·


Press Freedom Champions Renew Call for DOJ to Drop Charges Against Assange

"It is time for the Biden administration to break from the Trump administration's decision to indict Assange—a move that was hostile to the media and democracy itself."

Jessica Corbett ·


Oral Arguments Boost Fears of SCOTUS Buying Theory That Would 'Sow Elections Chaos'

"This reckless case out of North Carolina could explode the unifying understanding that power ultimately rests with the people of this country," one campaigner said of Moore v. Harper.

Jessica Corbett ·


War Industry 'Celebrating Christmas Early' as House Passes $858 Billion NDAA

"There is no justification to throw... $858 billion at the Pentagon when we're told we can't afford child tax credit expansion, universal paid leave, or other basic human necessities," said the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. "End of story."

Brett Wilkins ·

Common Dreams Logo