A weekly reckoning with life in a warming world—and the fight to save it

Maddie Meyer/Getty

For decades, activists have been calling for Harvard, the richest university in the world, to divest from fossil fuels. But the school dragged its feet, even as other universities and elite institutions divested, and even as fossil fuels became less and less appealing financially. Finally, last week, Harvard announced it will no longer invest any of its nearly $42 billion endowment in fossil fuels.

Others have already written about the significance of this move—you might start with The Guardian’s write-up, or Bill McKibben’s explanation for his new newsletter. I’d like to point you instead to a few TNR pieces that shed light on the broader tangle of fossil fuel money in academia and American research.

Support Our Journalists

Our writers and editors are bringing you vital reporting, explanation, and analysis to understand the current climate crisis—but they need your help.

Here’s a special offer to subscribe to The New Republic.

—Heather Souvaine Horn, deputy editor

Try The New Republic for just $10

Most people reading this newsletter are probably aware that the fossil fuel companies knew about climate change very early. They responded by funding misinformation campaigns. But a surprising number of climate-concerned people seem unaware of just how much fossil fuel money still goes into the institutions whose research set the tone for both public discourse and policy proposals. Ben Franta wrote about this for TNR last summer. Watching Stanford University faculty debate and ultimately reject divestment, he noticed many professors were defending the fossil fuel industry and pointing to the many “partnerships” through which oil companies funded Stanford research.

Throughout, a common theme was fear of retaliation from oil companies should Stanford divest. The dean of the School of Earth, Energy and Environmental Sciences, Stephen Graham (who also happens to be a former employee of both Exxon and Chevron), encouraged faculty to oppose the resolution, warning it would “undermine those partnerships” with the oil and gas industry “so successfully cultivated over the years,” resulting in a shift of funding “away from Stanford toward other institutions.” At the end of the meeting, Stanford’s faculty senate voted by over 70 percent to keep investing in fossil fuels.

This sort of performance has to make you wonder about the independence of the research produced in these fossil fuel partnerships. And the problem isn’t unique to Stanford, Ben pointed out:

The Harvard Kennedy School has received millions from Shell Oil Company (among other fossil fuel interests) and hosted events sponsored by the company. The University of Texas at Austin’s Energy Institute is funded by Chevron, ExxonMobil, and other fossil fuel groups. And MIT’s Energy Initiative (branded as the Institute’s “hub for energy research, education, and outreach”) is funded almost entirely by fossil fuel companies, including Shell, ExxonMobil, and Chevron. These are just a few examples. In 2010, the Center for American Progress analyzed 10 research collaborations between fossil fuel companies and U.S. universities, including Arizona State University, U.C. Berkeley, U.C. Davis, Iowa State University, and more. “In a majority of the 10 contracts,” the resulting report stated, “the university gave up majority control over the governing body in charge of the university-industry research alliance, and in four cases actually ceded full control to the participating corporations.”

MIT’s Energy Initiative is a particularly glaring example, since then-Professor Ernie Moniz, who founded it, went on to head the Department of Energy during the Obama administration. A year ago, TNR’s Kate Aronoff penned an exhaustive summary of Moniz’s ties to the oil and gas industry. While Moniz was in office, a paper produced by the Energy Initiative became the foundation of the administration’s pro–natural gas policy, which is believed to have led to a dangerous spike in methane emissions.

Universities aren’t the only research institutions with this problem. As Kate outlined just a few months ago, ExxonMobil also gives lavishly to policy think tanks, including Brookings, the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, among others. It’s the kind of thing that people might not have blinked at in the 1990s, though they probably should have. Today, however, that kind of consistent support reads differently, particularly when viewed alongside a recent undercover investigation that caught an Exxon lobbyist on tape bragging about the corporation’s ability to partner with think tanks to affect policy outcomes. “How you interpret this set of facts depends on how you think about financial incentives and corporate giving,” Kate wrote. “But by funding the institutions that help define ideas about what constitutes a reasonable climate debate, the company may be exerting more influence over public discourse than the public realizes.”

Divestment is important. But hold your applause. American research institutions still have a long way to go.

—Heather Souvaine Horn, deputy editor

Advertising

Stat of the Week

That’s how many 16- to 25-year-olds in a recent study said they were frightened by the future. Read about the full study on climate anxiety here.

Good News

Dharna Noor and Amy Westervelt are both exceptionally good journalists. They’re joining forces for a mini-series on the Drilled podcast about how the fossil fuel industry has worked to influence elementary, secondary, and higher education, indoctrinating students over a series of generations. The subject matter is likely to be disturbing, but there’s no doubt this is going to be a terrific series.

Bad News

The vast majority of farm subsidies worldwide are destroying the planet and exacerbating inequality, according to a new United Nations report.

Elsewhere in the Ecosystem

The Federal Government Sells Flood-Prone Homes to Often Unsuspecting Buyers, NPR Finds

NPR’s extensive reporting on houses being sold by the Department of Housing and Urban Development is pretty bonkers. Don’t miss it:

The homes that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sells are foreclosures. The previous owner was unable to pay their federally insured mortgage, and the house was seized by a bank and turned over to HUD. Only a small percentage of foreclosed homes in the United States end up being sold by HUD, but the numbers add up. Between 2017 and 2020, HUD sold nearly 100,000 homes around the country.

Like [Larry] McCanney, many buyers are first-time homeowners excited to find a house they can afford. There is a nationwide shortage of affordable homes, especially for low-income families. Providing safe, affordable housing is HUD’s mission.

But an NPR investigation finds that the homes HUD sells are disproportionately located in flood-prone places, compared with Zillow records of all homes sold in the United States. The agency does not fully disclose the potential costs and dangers of living in harm’s way, and some of these transactions have happened as local governments are buying out properties in the same areas to mitigate flood risk.

Huo Jingnan, Rebecca Hersher, Tegan Wendland, Steve Newborn, Daniel Rivero | Morning Edition