No reason to keep ties to the fossil industry

Geert-Jan Kroes, Liesbeth Hondelink & Gerrit Schaafsma

In their open letter Sense Jan van der Molen, Marc Koper and Victor van der Horst plead for continued co-operation between Leiden University and the fossil fuel industry. They argue that the energy transition is complex, with solutions required for the cement industry, and for steel and ammonia production. They also call for the government, rather than universities, to take action and impose stricter regulations on industry. In their letter they make two main claims. First, they argue that the fossil fuel industry is uniquely well-placed to facilitate the energy transition and we must therefore maintain our relationship with them if we want to tackle the climate crisis. Secondly, they claim that given the crisis situation we are in, we should partner with any entity that might be able to help us deal with climate change. Neither of these arguments stand up to scrutiny.

Finding solutions and scaling up?

​​While it is true that finding solutions for the cement industry and for steel and ammonia production will not be easy, it is important to see that there is a common denominator. All three require energy to be supplied in the form of heat. Whether that is done using fossil fuels or clean energy is to a large extent the same issue as how we heat our houses and power our vehicles: we should do it in a way that avoids carbon dioxide emissions. The extra hydrogen required for ammonia production (needed for artificial fertilizer) can in principle be made cleanly by electrolysis of water. Only the production of cement requires a radically different solution, as 60% of the carbon dioxide produced actually comes from the reaction by which cement itself is made. Van der Molen, Koper and Van der Horst claim that the fossil fuel industry is necessary for developing and scaling up these types of technologies and bringing them to market.

The argument that the fossil fuel industry is necessary for scaling up and bringing new technologies to market (for example to produce green hydrogen) is inherently flawed, as can be seen by how the production of “battery electric vehicles” (BEVs) has evolved. The market leader in the production of BEVs is Tesla, and the scaling up of this new technology has been achieved without partnering with traditional car firms. Note that we are not saying that BEVs represent a true clean energy technology solution. The purpose of this example is simply to show that scaling up a new technology is more likely to take place in a company that has no short-term financial interests in profiting from an older rival technology. It is unrealistic to expect firms with a vested interest in continuing to profit from an older technology (fossil fuels) to be major contributors or innovators in a field of new technology (clean energy) that is likely to displace their main source of revenue. We take no stance on the particular technologies needed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but what is clear is that the fossil fuel industry is not needed for bringing them to market, or scaling them up.

Corporate sponsorship and the social license to operate

Most of the research at Leiden University that is sponsored by fossil fuel firms is related to technologies and processes that may contribute to the energy transition. However, these firms see funding for ‘green’ research as purchasing a social license to operate. The social license to operate refers to the ongoing acceptance of a company or industry’s standard business practices. Fossil fuel firms depend on this to continue their polluting activities. If the public were to become aware of the scale of the environmental destruction brought about by the fossil fuel industry, it is likely that they would not be able to continue operating in the same way that they do now.

From the perspective of the fossil fuel firms, the sponsorship of ‘green’ projects is similar to advertising: every euro spent on advertising is meant to generate a return for the firm. By spending money to support ‘green’ projects at universities, the fossil fuel industry buys public and political support for its broader activities, most of which involve vastly expanding fossil fuel production. It is clear from Shell’s financial statements that it is not serious about reducing fossil fuel production: in 2022 they spent almost twice as much on actual advertising compared with what they invested in renewables.

If scientists were to reject funding from these firms and cease collaborations (as they have done when it comes to the tobacco and weapons industries), it could play an important role in getting the public to realize the dangers posed by the fossil fuel industry and lead to much stricter government regulations. This is precisely what has happened with the tobacco industry. If the scientific community were to withdraw its support from the fossil fuel industry it would send a clear signal that may generate the greater government regulation that Van der Molen, Koper and Van der Horst call for.

Time for a new approach

The fact that fossil fuel firms have known since the 1970s that their continued activities would have catastrophic effects raises an important question: what purpose would it serve for scientists to continue working with them, if, over a fifty-year period they have continued to expand production? These firms have known for decades that they need to change course, but have consistently failed to do so. There is no reason to believe that further cooperation with them will bring about a different outcome. In fact, Shell has just cut 200 jobs at its low-carbon unit. As scientists, we cannot directly bring about a change in government policy, but by refusing to work with fossil fuel firms we can send a clear and powerful message that they need to be regulated much more strictly.

Under these circumstances we cannot wait for the government to take on a more prominent regulatory role but rather we should, like the Free University of Amsterdam, halt new collaborations until the fossil fuel industry has made a demonstrable commitment, in line with the Paris Agreement, to restrict global warming to well below 2°C, and preferably 1.5°C.