Reasons for Leiden University to cut ties to the fossil fuel industry
On the 27th of September, Leiden University will host a debate about the relationship between the university and fossil fuel firms.
In anticipation of the upcoming debate I decided to create this post about some of the arguments that are likely to be raised. The content of this post is based on work done by members of Scientist Rebellion, mainly at the VU and the UvA, and some of my own work. I have adapted the material to make it more applicable to the situation at Leiden. In the first part of the post I discuss the most important arguments for cutting the ties between the university and the fossil fuel industry. In the second half of the post I discuss some of the counter-arguments and how to respond to them.
An overview of the main arguments:
Maintaining ties with the fossil fuel industry violates research ethics and the values of the university
Leiden University claims to want to act as a ‘reliable authority in societal and political debates’. Continued collaboration with the fossil fuel industry radically undermines the ability of the university to be a reliable authority on issues related to the climate crisis. The fossil fuel industry violates basic research ethics and our values because it has driven science misinformation for decades, thereby undermining public trust in science. A recent court case in California has brought to light how fossil fuel firms have for decades undermined public trust in science. As state attorney general Bob Franta said: “Oil and gas companies have privately known the truth for decades — that the burning of fossil fuels leads to climate change — but have fed us lies and mistruths to further their record-breaking profits at the expense of our environment. Enough is enough.”
Moreover, the fossil fuel industry has a business model that is intrinsically harmful and is the leading contributor to ecosystem collapse, and thereby violating human rights. Finally, research shows that fossil fuel funding leads to biased research outcomes.
The best available scientific evidence supports the call for cutting ties with the fossil fuel industry
The latest IPCC report makes it clear that “climate science has been undermined significantly by climate change counter-movements, in both legacy and new/social media environments through misinformation, including about the causes and consequences of climate change”. By working with fossil fuel firms, Leiden University would be actively aiding an industry that is one of the major reasons why more substantive action on climate change has not been taken.
The arguments for collaborating with the fossil fuel industry are scientifically unfounded
There is no scientific evidence that the fossil fuel industry is needed for the energy transition. The International Energy Agency has developed a detailed path to net zero in 2050, which shows that energy needs can be met without further expanding the extraction of fossil fuels. There is also no evidence that the fossil fuel industry invests significantly in renewable energy. Instead, economic data shows that the fossil fuel industry continues investing largely in fossil fuel extraction.
Breaking the ties with the fossil fuel industry is necessary to protect academic freedom
Academic freedom is the right to research free from outside influence. Research shows that fossil fuel funding biases research, thereby undermining this freedom. Moreover, the fossil fuel industry has systematically undermined public trust in science for decades, contributing to a climate in which scientists routinely become subject to threats and attacks. Accepting money from fossil fuel companies represents an inherent conflict of interest, could taint essential research and compromises academic freedom. Examples of this include the funding of the Sustainablity School at Stanford University, where fossil fuel firms have committed hunderds of millions of dollars. Unsurprisingly, the main research at the Sustainablity School has become carbon capture and storage, which is one of the primary means by which fossil firms hope to legitimise their continued fossil fuel projects. In the Netherlands, funding from large fossil fuel firms undermines academic freedom because it incentivises research on issues that are not the most efficient way of dealing with the climate crisis.
The fossil fuel industry uses collaborations with universities to greenwash their harmful business
Collaborations between universities and the fossil fuel firms legitimize the continuation of their harmful business. Currently, the public is falling victim to extensive greenwashing campaigns, leading us to believe that Shell — together with Tony’s Chocolonely and Ikea — is one of the most socially responsible businesses in the Netherlands. By deciding to cut ties, the University can help change that perception and tell the public the truth about the enormous dangers posed by the fossil fuel industry. This signal will contribute far more to the sustainable energy transition than any project a fossil fuel company might sponsor at the university.
MappingFossilTies.org is an independently run initiative by academics who are crowd-sourcing information from students and staff at universities around the Netherlands in order to better understand the extent of the influence exercised by the fossil fuel industry. The hope is that by bringing to light these ties the broader academic community will come together to demand greater transparency and the protection of the independence of universities across the countries. Information already submitting to the initiative already makes clear how corporate actors continue to fund research that furthers their interests without the link being directly obvious. There are several examples of academic staff who have received funding from the oil and gas industry and appear to work to promote the continued extraction of fossil fuels.
The decision to break ties with the FFI must be made now, and cannot be postponed any longer.
There is no time to lose! At current emission rates, our chance to stay below 1,5 degrees centigrade will be zero before the end of the decade. Senior global environmental leaders like Al Gore and former climate negotiator Christiana Figueres have called out the fossil fuel industry for working against the development of renewable energy and for ‘anti-climate plotting’ that contributes to the climate crisis. The Secretary General of the UN, António Guterres, recently said that we have entered “the age of boiling” and called for immediate, swift action to radically reduce fossil fuel emissions. The evidence for climate change is all around us, from wildfires in Canada and the Mediterranean, to flooding in Spain and China. We cannot allow the most important contributor to climate change, the fossil fuel industry, to use the good name of Leiden University to further their own goals, goals which are contrary to the mission of the university.
Now that we have covered the main arguments for cutting the ties, let us turn to some arguments in favour of maintaining the ties and how to respond to them:
A decision to break ties with the fossil industry violates academic freedom
The claim that a decision to break ties with the fossil industry violates academic freedom is incorrect. Academic freedom describes the freedom to research and teach without external interference. Academic freedom does not justify unethical research practices. The fossil fuel industry has a long history of intentionally and systematically harming science and human rights, and is therefore not a suitable partner for the university.In fact, breaking ties with the fossil fuel is necessary to secure academic integrity. Research shows that funding from the fossil fuel industry biases research.
The fossil fuel industry’s business model has been and continues to be predicated upon knowingly spreading false and misleading information pertaining to the climate crisis. Academic freedom, on the other hand, is predicated upon free inquiry and the pursuit of truth. Funding from an industry reliant upon falsehoods is therefore incompatible with the ethos of academic freedom.
The fossil fuel industry is needed for the energy transition
This argument is advanced by the fossil fuel industry itself, but is factually incorrect. The fossil fuel industry is the most important obstacle to the energy transition. The fossil fuel industry has actively harmed the energy transition for decades, as it conflicts with their business interests, and will continue doing so. After a thorough portfolio review, this is also the conclusion drawn by pension fund ABP. The investment funds of many other universities have also made the same decision, but for financial rather ethical reasons. If the fossil fuel industry was genuinely contributing to the energy transition, these pension funds would expect to see a major increase in their share price in the decades to come. It is telling that many of these funds predict that the fossil fuel industry will shrink and that the plans that firms have do not put them in a good position to benefit from the energy transition. Furthermore, the fossil fuel industry is not aligned with the Paris goals, is investing only a minuscule part of their income in renewables, and has recently even reduced their climate ambitions.
We need to cooperate with the fossil fuel industry to develop carbon capture and storage
This is the argument used by the Sustainability School at Stanford University. While most mitigation scenarios of the IPCC rely on negative emissions, the IPCC is also clear about the fact that the effectiveness of CCS is unproven at scale, despite decades of research. Due to this major uncertainty, reliance on CCS should be as limited as possible. As Al Gore points out, the fossil fuel industry is using CCS as a way to justify delaying the phase-out of fossil fuels, thereby slowing down the energy transition. The CEO of one of the largest oil and gas firms in the U.S. recently said that CCS is a way to ‘prolong our industry’. It is important to note that, at present, most CCS is used to extract additional natural gas from wells that have been depleted. In others, CCS is being used to expand fossil fuel production.
Fossil fuels are still necessary for the foreseeable future
One of the biggest misconceptions is that we need to continue working with the fossil fuel industry in order to reduce carbon emissions. Some have argued that we cannot have a modern industrialized economy without a significant fossil fuel sector. This is at odds with recent scientific and economic research, which shows that transitioning to wind, water, solar and battery storage technologies can provide reliable and cheap energy that is able to replace virtually all of the energy that we currently get from fossil fuels. We cannot end our reliance on fossil fuels overnight, but we need to make sure that we work with partners who are committed to rapidly phasing them out.
Investments by the fossil fuel industry are needed to finance the energy transition
The claim that fossil fuel investments are needed to finance the energy transition is both incorrect and misleading. While many fossil fuel companies have renewable energy projects, these few ‘green’ projects are utterly irrelevant given the vast number of ‘carbon bombs’ which they are planning to detonate. Many fossil fuel firms have recently cut back on their committments to renewable projects, with Shell making a drastic U-turn. In 2021 the company committed to reducing production by 1 or 2 percent per year for the remainder of the decade. It has now changed direction and plans to increase production until at least 2030. Research by Climate Action, a NGO that tracks climate committments, shows that Shell has does not have plans in place for spend the necessary amounts to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. Furthermore, most funding for renewable energy projects come from governments (in the form of subsidies) or institutional investors like pension funds, and not from fossil fuel firms.
Moreover, research shows that the green transition will likely result in net savings of many trillions of dollars, even without accounting for climate damages or co-benefits of climate policy.
By cooperating with the fossil fuel industry, we help them to transform
The expectation that a University could help the fossil fuel industry to transform into sustainable corporations presupposes that the fossil fuel industry wants to transform, which is not supported by evidence. The fossil fuel industry is making record profits with fossil fuels, and has recently scaled down their already insufficient climate plans. For example, Shell’s own data shows that it is only spending a tiny fraction of its capital expenditure on developing low-carbon alternatives. This indicates that the fossil fuel industry has no interest in being transformed. Moreover, it is naive to assume that scientists will influence the fossil fuel industry, and not the other way around. The fossil fuel industry has actively undermined climate science for decades, and engaged in extensive greenwashing.
A university decision to break ties with the fossil industry is ‘cancel culture’
“Cancel culture” is a polemical, loaded term, and should be avoided in this discussion, which should be based on careful scientific and ethical considerations alone. The University has the right and obligation to decide against collaborations with an industry that has a proven track record of intentionally and systematically harming science and human rights. There are many similarities to relationship between the Vrije Universiteit and the Confucius Institute. That relationship was ended when the university leadership came to recognise that the there was not enough ‘openness and transparency’ about the funding of the institute and how that may shape the activities of the researchers. Universities have ended research relationships in the past because of a misalignment of values. This is the case with the fossil fuel industry.
If we ban cooperations with the fossil fuel industry, we also need to break ties with many other industries
This argument is an example of “whataboutism”, which is a problematic rhetorical tool. The logical extension of this argument would be that universities cannot make any assessment of research funds they receive, which is clearly undesirable.
In no instance is the historical and public record of corporate wrongdoing and harm as clear as in the case of the fossil fuel industry, with the exception of tobacco. Research shows that the fossil fuel industry has a business strategy that poses an existential threat to humanity. The IPCC report clearly documents that the fossil fuel industry has actively worked against the energy transition for decades, and intentionally undermined climate science. Refusing to collaborate with this particular industry is therefore warranted, while this is less obviously the case for other industries.
Every researcher should be free to make up their own mind about collaborating with the fossil fuel industry
Academic freedom does not include a right of engaging in unethical research partnerships. The fossil fuel industry has a scientifically documented track record of harming science, and scientists. The fossil fuel industry’s long-running campaign of climate change denialism has contributed to a toxic atmosphere of public distrust in science.
Collaborations with the fossil fuel industry are liable to legitimate their long-running practice of undermining the scientific process, as well as their human rights violations. Allowing individual researchers to contribute to this would be at odds with the mission of the university and may lead to serious conflict between academics.
How can money going to ‘green’ research projects be a bad thing? Surely any money spend on doing research that may aid with the energy transition is a good thing.
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.
My hope is that you will be convinced that there are good reasons to end the relationship between Leiden University and the fossil fuel industry. Please remember to register for the event on the 27th of September to join the discussion on the future of our university!
