Asking academics to reject their own research funding can seem like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. It’s a big ask; I’d know because I’ve tried it. Old habits die hard, and after months of campaigning with Fossil Fuel Research that much had become very clear. Even so, the end result was overwhelmingly positive: the publication of a letter signed by over 500 distinguished academics calling on universities to reject fossil fuel industry money for climate related research, arguing that such funding is incompatible with their own social and scientific mission.

There’s a lingering misconception that all funding is good funding, and all research is good research. What matters is the work done, surely, rather than where the money is coming from? The signatories of this landmark beg to differ. And the argument goes much further than the usual claim that fossil fuel research funding is a form of corporate greenwashing.

"The current situation belies any claim that it is in these companies’ immediate financial interest to move away from fossil fuels"

At the heart of the matter lies a fundamental conflict of interest: the very companies whose core business models are diametrically opposed to science-led climate action become endowed with the power to lead it. Just as tobacco companies have now been near unanimously barred from funding clinical research, fossil fuel companies’ vested interest in the status quo should forfeit them the right to have a say in the future of our planet.

Indeed, the current situation belies any claim that it is in these companies’ immediate financial interest to move away from fossil fuels: oil has never been more profitable. The argument that fossil fuel companies will be forced to turn to renewables for survival should be considered for what it is: a myth. Conservative estimates give us another fifty years of plentiful oil reserves, while new extraction techniques may allow us even longer. Big oil knows this: a close look at the finances of Shell, BP and Exxon reveals that investments into renewable energy represent just a few percent of their total capital expenditure. 

Simply put, none are aligned with the Paris Agreement’s goals of limiting warming to 1.5C because they don’t need to be. Their interests lie in slowing the transition away from fossil fuels, with Shell even fighting a Dutch court ruling over the issue. 

In light of this, fossil fuel companies’ colonisation of academia poses a worrying threat to the integrity of university research. The University of Cambridge received over £2.8m in funding from fossil fuel companies in 2020-1, despite the fact that industry-funded research has been shown to yield results that are favourable to industry interests. 

This bias can take many forms. On one level, as has happened with the tobacco industry in the past, it can be actively misleading, producing results that contribute to the insidious and pervasive spread of misinformation about the scale and severity of the climate crisis.

Other methods are more subtle. Endowed with vast and diffuse financial capital, fossil fuel companies are able to influence the very nature and direction of the energy transition through pouring money and resources into select areas such as carbon capture and hydrogen power. However, there is a lot of research to be done and only a finite capacity to complete it. With time rapidly running out, the last to decide what is or isn’t researched should be those whose core business activities lie at the very heart of the problem.

"Social research into climate solutions is currently grossly neglected due to this reliance on corporate money"

Further to this, heavy reliance on corporations for research funding perpetuates the fallacy that we can "invent" our way out of climate catastrophe. The reality is much more nuanced. The challenges of mass immigration, resource depletion and global food insecurity require more than technological innovation: as the IPCC makes clear, structural changes to society are just as important. Yet social research into climate solutions is currently grossly neglected due to this reliance on corporate money, an imbalance that can only be addressed through systemic changes to the way research is funded.

The call for universities to reject fossil fuel funding is therefore intrinsically bound up with the call for funding for climate change research to be prioritised by governments and universities. What we research must be considered with climate targets in mind, and this cannot happen within a university system taking funding from those who for decades have been at the coal face. Relying on fossil fuel companies to fund green research is a recipe for disaster, and at the moment it seems the only recipe we have. 

Things don’t have to be this way. The vast spending power of universities and governments shouldn’t be underestimated. In 2021 alone philanthropic giving to US universities topped $52 billion dollars, while the extraordinary pace of scientific development in this ongoing pandemic has demonstrated the immense potential of university research when supported by the unequivocal financial backing of a government in full crisis mode.

The effects of climate change can already be felt, but through innovation and adaptability we can still avoid the worst of what’s to come. That process begins today with research that is prioritised, balanced, and above all fossil free. For without this crucial step, there can be no just, green transition.