Over the past decade, students around the world have put pressure on many universities to sell their fossil fuel investments. Today, as guest host of the Climate Forward newsletter, I’ll share some news about how the movement is expanding into new territories.
Cambridge University faculty and senior staff are poised to vote on legislation that would require the university to stop funding from coal, oil and gas companies. This is the first of its kind for a major university, and votes could take place as early as this fall.
The people I interviewed had no predictions about the vote, but the proposal seemed to have a solid following, especially among young academics at the university.
Based on its success, activists are increasingly turning their attention to the millions of dollars the university receives from the oil and gas industry for research, sponsorship, and collaboration. These donations have given the companies a boost to fame and renown, even as they continue to invest billions in new fossil fuel projects that scientists say are heating the planet to dangerous levels. Activists say they can greenwash their company’s image by appropriating environmental certifications.
“By working with the fossil fuel industry, we give them legitimacy and implicitly endorse them,” said researcher Luke Kemp. climate risk At Cambridge, and one of the scholars who asked for a vote. “This should be absolutely uncontroversial for academics who are clearly and genuinely concerned about climate change.” Kemp said he plans to vote in favor of the bill.
In Cambridge, corporate partnerships include the BP Institute, founded in 2000 with a £22m donation from the oil and gas giant, and a professorship funded by Royal Dutch Shell, which conducts research on oil drilling. It contains. Oil and gas companies also fund university academic awards and various research projects that advance careers in the oil industry.a New Paper Published Tuesday The climate scenarios put forward by oil majors such as BP and Shell have shown that they remain at odds with the Paris Agreement goal of a safe and habitable planet.
James Hardy, spokesman for the University of Cambridge, said the university’s industry partnerships are supporting “world-leading research critical to the energy transition”, have been carefully evaluated by experts, and have received “high levels of expertise.” “We are working with partners who have been selected because they have the relevant skills and competencies.” Expertise, scale and access to global markets. The issue of collaboration is “continued to be discussed within the university.”
The University Council may raise a procedural objection to the ballot or amend or postpone the proposal before proceeding to the ballot.
A Guardian study found that the University of Cambridge received £14 million, or about $17 million, from oil giants between 2017 and 2021, second in the UK after Imperial College London, which focuses on science and engineering. Cambridge said the tally of fossil fuel funding it has received for research projects is £5 million over the past two financial years.
Shell said its partnerships with academia have led to valuable research and the results of the Cambridge vote “do not change our commitment to pursuing climate science with academic institutions around the world.” BP commented. refrained from
The vote comes at a time when other universities are under pressure to reassess their research partnerships with the fossil fuel industry. Stanford University was criticized this year after it announced that its new climate school would accept donations from fossil fuel companies.
Since then, hundreds of Stanford students, alumni, and faculty have signed an open letter Call on schools not to accept funding for fossil fuels.
“At many universities, climate and energy research programs have become financially dependent on oil and gas funding,” said Benjamin Franta, a researcher at Stanford University who specializes in history. We know that it causes a big problem from a sexual point of view.”delaying and denying climate change, including the effects of the fossil fuel industry; influence in academia.
The scheduled votes at the University of Cambridge are conducted under the University’s archaic system of allowing scholars to submit suggestions, or ‘grace’, on matters of concern to the University’s governance. Prior graces deemed binding if adopted by vote include: free speech guidelines Whether to continue the tradition of public posting student academic performance.
The latest reprieve requires universities to no longer accept research funding, sponsorships, or other collaborations with fossil fuel companies that continue to build new fossil fuel infrastructure or explore new fossil fuel reserves. The university is also demanding that it cut ties with companies that continue to be part of industry groups that lobby against climate change legislation.
These conditions will almost certainly disqualify all major oil and gas companies currently operating.
Fossil Free Research encouraged academics to vote in favor of a student-led campaign against climate research at industry-funded universities. Zach Coleman, campaign spokesman and former Dean of the Cambridge Students’ Union, said:
Emily Sandford, an astrophysicist at the University of Cambridge, said she feels a generational responsibility to act on climate. “I have students who grew up in a world where there was no question that climate change was happening,” she said. It’s time to do
Important news from The Times
The Great Storm to Come: No one knows exactly when, but climate change could bring too much rain and snow to California in the coming decades. The New York Times used data from a new study to visualize what that might look like.
Generation gap: As the climate change bill moves to President Biden’s desk, young activists are warning lawmakers that the job is not done yet.
Contents of the climate bill: There is a detailed analysis of what is included in the Inflation Control Act.
“Blood Diamond”: The West claims that the war in Ukraine has turned Russia into an exporter of conflict diamonds. The feud exposes the difficulty of regulating the gem trade.
A conservationist dies: The killing of a rhino ranger in South Africa has heightened fears that poaching rings are becoming increasingly violent.
Windfall Oil Profits: Saudi Aramco said second-quarter profit nearly doubled last year. Demand for oil is projected to increase over the next decade.
Upgrade or pay: New York developers are rushing to curb emissions in their large buildings to meet limits set by recent legislation. increase.
from the comments section
Cases against carbon capture: According to Charles Harvey and Kurt House, this technology could actually facilitate the extraction of more oil and gas.
Before You Go: Can Electric Trucks Get Converts?
A 3-ton electric truck that can go from 0 to 60 miles per hour in about 4 seconds, the Ford F-150 Lightning could be an all-around win. We are well positioned to revitalize manufacturing in the Midwest and South while reducing America’s greenhouse gas emissions. gas discharge. The problem is that trucks are expensive and there are currently not enough of them to meet demand. A lot depends on whether you can overcome those problems.
thank you for reading. I will be back on Friday.
Manuela Andreoni, Claire O’Neill and Douglas Alteen contributed to Climate Forward.
Please contact us at climateforward@nytimes.com. We read all messages and reply to many!