Prestigious U.S. universities, often seen as leaders in climate research, have accepted over $100 million from fossil fuel interests since 2003, raising serious concerns about conflicts of interest and academic independence. This revelation comes from a new report compiled by the student-led Campus Climate Network, which highlights the financial ties between six top schools and the fossil fuel industry. As these universities claim to be at the forefront of climate science, their reliance on funding from polluting industries has sparked calls for divestment and greater transparency.
The report, focused on institutions like Princeton University, Columbia University, and American University, exposes how fossil fuel companies and their charitable arms have donated millions to elite schools. These financial relationships, largely kept under the radar, suggest a potential conflict of interest in universities’ climate research and policies. According to student researchers, these schools accepted over $100 million in industry-related funding over the past two decades, often through donations, investments, and grants.
“Fossil fuel companies are hijacking our universities to perpetuate their own toxic industry, and we students are not having it anymore,” said Will Kattrup, a research lead with Campus Climate Network.
The institutions involved have long benefited from their reputations as climate leaders. However, the new report raises questions about whether these financial ties compromise their positions on climate change and environmental research.
The student researchers behind the report used tax forms, conflict of interest statements in academic papers, and public information requests to track the financial flow between universities and the fossil fuel industry. Between 2003 and 2023, Princeton, American, Columbia, the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Cornell, and the University of California, San Diego received over $100 million from fossil fuel companies.
The analysis shows that these figures are likely underestimates, as many university research centers do not publicly disclose their donors, and some of the data only covers the most recent decade. In addition to fossil fuel companies, millions more came from organizations that enable the industry, such as banks funding oil expansion or groups that have spread climate disinformation.
One of the most concerning findings from the report was the publication of over 1,500 academic articles funded by fossil fuel interests. These publications raise questions about potential bias in research that directly impacts climate policy and public understanding of environmental issues.
Princeton University stands out as one of the most financially entwined with the fossil fuel industry. The report revealed that Princeton appears to have owned an oil and gas company, Petrotiger, which earned the university millions of dollars in investment income over the last decade. According to student researcher Alex Norbrook, Princeton earned nearly $140 million from its investments in Petrotiger, despite the school’s public claims of dissociating from fossil fuel companies in 2022.
“Princeton’s claim that it is a climate leader is false,” Norbrook said. “The university cannot make this claim while continuing to promote the fossil fuel industry behind the scenes.”
In addition to the earnings from Petrotiger, Princeton received over $40 million in direct contributions from fossil fuel companies between 2013 and 2023. The university’s investments in the oil and gas sector generated an additional $350 million during the same period. Despite its recent decision to sever ties with major fossil fuel companies, Princeton’s financial relationships with the industry persist, casting doubt on its commitment to genuine climate action.
American University, another institution highlighted in the report, accepted over $1 million from the fossil fuel industry in the past decade. Additionally, the Koch Foundation, known for promoting climate disinformation, donated nearly $1.41 million to the school. American University has also placed several industry-tied individuals on its board of trustees, further deepening concerns about fossil fuel influence within the institution.
Columbia University, meanwhile, accepted over $43 million in fossil fuel-related funds since 2005 and produced 784 academic papers with industry backing. The Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia, founded in 2013, received more than $15 million from fossil fuel companies. Student researchers point out that industry-funded research centers like Columbia’s are more likely to produce studies that favor continued fossil fuel use, potentially delaying necessary climate action.
The report was released by the Campus Climate Network, a student-led coalition that advocates for universities to cut ties with the fossil fuel industry and take a stand on climate change. The findings have energized student activists, who argue that universities cannot claim to be climate leaders while accepting funding from the very industry that is driving the climate crisis.
“Universities globally are often caught in a web of financial and research dependencies with the fossil fuel sector,” Campus Climate Network wrote on its website. “These ties not only conflict with the ethics of academic independence but also hinder the progress of genuine climate research.”
Maddie Young, a student organizer with the Sunrise Movement and the Campus Climate Network, emphasized the need for universities to divest from fossil fuels and embrace their role as climate leaders. “It’s time for our universities to become real climate leaders and cut ties with the fossil fuel industry once and for all,” she said.
COMMENTS