Should universities take polluters’ money for climate research?

As sea levels rise and university budgets fall, accepting donations to fund climate research might seem like a no-brainer. But what if that donor is simultaneously pumping out carbon dioxide?

At Trinity College Dublin, the newly created position of CRH chair of climate science has prompted controversy, with students decrying the company lending both name and financial backing to the role; CRH is the owner of Irish Cement, the country’s third largest carbon emitter. Karen Wiltshire, environmental scientist and former vice-director of Germany’s Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, will be the first to take up the job.

“By facilitating the country’s third biggest polluter, Trinity has not only facilitated, but encouraged greenwashing,” said Jenny Maguire, president of the institution’s students’ union (TCDSU). “It leads us in the union to question how serious our university is when it comes to preventing the destruction of our planet.”

The TCD Environment Society said: “The meaningful climate action which we urgently need cannot be realised as long as decisions, whether or not they are forced by external pressures, are made according to the ‘need’ for profit rather than considering the actual needs of people on a planet with a rapidly changing climate.”

Speaking to Times Higher Education, Professor Wiltshire argued that industry collaboration was crucial amid a rapidly advancing climate crisis. “We need to engage in productive ways with all the stakeholders in every direction,” she said. “We’re on a trajectory which is so incredibly fast. If all these conglomerates didn’t fund stuff, we really would be up the creek without a paddle.

“We need to keep a wary eye on what’s going on, and we need to be critical – but we should not be so naïve as to think we can get away with funding this out of the back of someone’s garden shed.”

Linda Haaland, an activist with the campaign group Scientist Rebellion and a PhD candidate at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), said many environmentally conscious academics nevertheless find themselves applying for grants funded by major polluters. “We need money to be able to do research, and government funding in recent years has been drastically cut,” she said.

Others are reluctant to openly criticise such companies for fear of reprisal. “One thing we notice a lot in Scientist Rebellion is that a lot of people are hesitant to contribute to actions and speak up publicly because so many people have their positions funded by the state-owned fossil fuel company Equinor,” she said.

Equinor has poured hundreds of millions into Norwegian universities since 2009, with the latest five-year agreement, announced in March, splitting NKr380 million (£27.3 million) between NTNU, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, the Norwegian School of Economics and the universities of Oslo, Bergen and Stavanger.

NTNU has stressed that the deal “safeguards the institution’s independence and students’ and staff’s academic freedom”. But direct influence over research output may not be the primary goal of many benefactors, according to Marco Grasso, professor of political geography at the University of Milano-Bicocca (UNIMIB). Professor Grasso resigned as director of a UNIMIB research centre unit in 2022 after the university signed an agreement with the Italian oil firm Eni, lamenting the lack of “transparency and clarity” involved in the deal.

Major companies “often don’t need universities to do their research. What they need most is to be legitimised by an agreement with a public university,” he said. “These companies need to keep and strengthen ‘social licence’ to operate.”

Campus resources on the Sustainable Development Goals

Professor Grasso said agreements between universities and fossil fuel companies typically follow a “clear pattern”, with research often favouring “rather utopian projects” like nuclear fusion over existing renewable technologies that could pose immediate competition to fossil fuels.

Economists Douglas Almond and Xinming Du, of Columbia University and the National University of Singapore respectively, shared a similar view. Fossil-funded research can still produce “some good research outputs”, Dr Du said. “For example, they can improve energy efficiency, reduce leakage or improve carbon capture technology.”

But the fossil fuel industry has a vested interest in funding certain research, Professor Almond said: “Just dragging out the energy transition to renewables is a billion-dollar question for these guys.”

In 2022, Professor Almond, Dr Du and colleague Anna Papp published a study into university-based energy institutes, concluding that the institutes primarily funded by the fossil fuel industry published reports with a “more favourable” sentiment towards natural gas over alternative energy sources.

Ahead of her first term as Trinity climate chair, Professor Wiltshire said she welcomed stances contrary to her own. “I find it entirely acceptable that people care so much,” she said. “I’m grateful towards anyone who wants to do something in a big way – whether that’s being irate, or providing funding. Anything that can move things forward.”

In a statement, Trinity said: “In general terms, Trinity works with industry because we want to make things better. Trinity warmly welcomes CRH’s support for the Chair in Climate Science. We also look forward to the impactful research that will emerge from this position.”

emily.dixon@timeshighereducation.com