After the University announced in September 2022 that it would be divesting its endowment from publicly-traded fossil fuel stocks and dissociating from 90 fossil fuel companies, one of the University’s two major research partnerships with fossil fuel companies came to an end. Between 2010 and 2020, Princeton received over 36 million dollars from fossil fuel companies, almost all of which was from ExxonMobil or British Petroleum (BP). Princeton cut ties with ExxonMobil, yet the partnership with BP continues.
Since 2000, BP has funded Princeton’s Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI) since 2000 whose mission is “to lead the way to a compelling and sustainable solution to the carbon and climate change problem.”
While activists have criticized the research relationship, saying that it has the potential for biased results, researchers at CMI defend the ties, saying that the support helps find climate solutions and gives researchers opportunities to influence their company sponsors.
According to a report from the University’s Faculty Panel on Fossil Fuel Dissociation, dissociation is only necessary “when the actions of that company are found to being strong contradiction with Princeton University’s core values,” which applied to companies engaged in active disinformation campaigns, a bar which Princeton noted no companies met at the time, and those that profit off of tar sands, coal, and other high-emitting forms of energy production.
The lack of a complete dissociation from all fossil fuel companies and the University’s continuing relationship with BP has drawn the ire of campus activists. “The fact that [CMI] is solely funded by BP raises suspicions when the Institute’s work allows the company to direct the climate conversation towards energy changes that benefit it,” wrote Associate Opinion Editor Eleanor Clemans-Cope ’26 and Contributing Columnist Alex Norbrook ’26 in February.
Princeton’s Office of Research & Project Administration approves all research-funding relationships on campus, requires that contracts with sponsors allow for academic freedom, ensuring that research findings are not influenced by the source of their funding.
Recipients of BP’s funding defended the partnership as critical to climate research priorities.
“We need everybody to solve the climate problem. We are not going to succeed if we polarize the conversation,” Professor Emeritus of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Robert Socolow, who co-founded the CMI said in an interview with the ‘Prince.’ “We need a lot of people coming from many different starting places and that includes industry.”
Co-founder and current director of the CMI Stephen Pacala echoed Socolow’s sentiment.
“Dissociation always struck me as virtue signaling. That was, in my view, intellectually lazy virtue signaling, because those who want to do it have every intention of continuing to use the product,” Pacala said.
Climate activists on campus, however, disagree.
“Princeton should not be participating with the fossil fuel industry because it is the industry that is doing the most damage to your future. Why is Princeton, an institution that is dedicated to essentially educating people for the future, partnering with the one industry that is still committed to ruining your future?” asked Lynne Archibald ’87 in an interview with the ‘Prince’. Archibald is a member of Divest Princeton who has written a number of articles advocating for divestment and dissociation.
Researchers at the CMI also defended the University’s previous relationship with ExxonMobil. Before dissociation, ExxonMobil was a member of an industrial affiliates program run by the Andlinger Center that sponsored research at Princeton. Additionally, ExxonMobil had a senior scientific advisor affiliated with the Andlinger Center that used to identify Princeton scholars for ExxonMobil to fund.
In an interview with the ‘Prince,’ Senior Research Engineer for the Andlinger Center Eric Larson said, “Having the relationship with Exxon was an opportunity to influence them in a way that we won't be able to do now. Regardless of the funding, [the influence] is probably more important and we've lost that.”
Socolow, who called the decision to disassociate “misguided,” said, “We lost [Exxon’s] view and their input of where they're coming from, which I think you need in order to understand the problem.”
Multiple Princeton climate researchers who spoke to the ‘Prince’ agreed that BP is more environmentally responsible than ExxonMobil, explaining BP has more aggressive and respected emissions targets than ExxonMobil.
At the same time, those researchers said they found the distinction in dissociation drawn by the University between ExxonMobil and BP to be questionable. Socolow said, “Among the major oil companies to start making distinctions, I don't think it's so simple…I don't think there is a big enough difference to make the distinction we did, I think it was a stretch.”
Potential influence on BP
A number of researchers who spoke with the ‘Prince’ noted that the relationship between researchers and BP is far different from that with ExxonMobil, noting how the relationship with ExxonMobil was a transactional exchange of funding for research. With BP, on the other hand, the relationship is closer: professors at Princeton are in periodic contact with upper management at BP, sharing their research findings and occasionally advising BP on business decisions, according to multiple researchers involved in the relationship who spoke to the ‘Prince.’
Researchers at CMI believe that they have had a strong influence on BP. Senior Research Scientist Chris Greig told the ‘Prince’ a story about Robert Socolow at a meeting with BP executives.
“[Executives at BP] said, you know, so we're presenting our targets on methane reductions from our operations. They were quite proud of it. But Rob Socolow stood up and said, ‘Hang on a minute. That's pathetic. That's just not not bold enough. It's not, it's not quick enough. It's not ambitious enough. You guys need to do better than that,’” Greig recounted.
Greig continued, “We had a bit of a debate about that then they got their board together, and reported back to us that they had lifted the level of ambition and they put it out in the press.”
CMI researchers also said that Princeton’s relationship with BP is at least partially responsible for increasing the level of ambition of BP’s methane program and getting BP to commit to a net-zero goal.
A document released by the House Oversight Committee as part of a Congressional Inquiry into fossil fuel companies revealed that CMI advised BP to “understand the potential for [carbon capture and storage] CCS to enable the full use of fossil fuels across the energy transition and beyond.”
That same document revealed that CMI advised BP on a campaign strategy.
Professors associated with CMI insisted that BP had no say over what the CMI should study or what they found. Pacala said, “BP has no say over what we study. They give us the money without consultation about what it is we're going to say. We just tell them what we found out.”
Later, he continued, “Our goals have from the very beginning to end the carbon and climate problem. That's everything we do is focused on stopping the carbon and climate problem. I want to end global warming. And I want to end it for you, I want to end it for me, I want to end it for my kids, and I want to end it for my grandkids.”
“The only pushback we've ever gotten for that [fossil fuel funding] is in Princeton University publications,” he added.
Pacala said, “When somebody asks me, are your results tainted by the fossil money, I often point to that result [of the net-zero America study]. If so, then that industry must cherish its own demise.”
The Net-Zero America study is the flagship product of the CMI. The report goes into great detail to lay out five distinct possible pathways that the United States could take to decarbonize its entire economy with already-existing technologies. It is difficult to understate the study, which was the first of its kind: the report was extensively covered in the news and, according to both its critics and supporters, was highly influential in the construction of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
The same way that CMI’s supporters cite the Net-Zero America study, which dictates that no more fossil fuel production occurs after 2050, as proof of its independence from BP, so do its critics. Archibald pointed out that “four out of the five pathways [in the report] rely on fossil fuels.” She also blamed the study for treating carbon capture and storage as “a viable strategy for transition away from fossil fuels” even though, according to Archibald, “it’s not a viable technology.”
“CMI was created by BP, it’s the sole funder, and one of their main recommendations to BP was to focus on carbon capture and storage as a way to prolong their industry life,” Claire Kaufman GS, a Divest Princeton activist, said. “Yeah, it does reduce carbon emissions, but not to the extent we need to and it's a big diversion of funds that could be used better elsewhere [researching renewable energy sources].”
Greig, whose research is primarily concerned with negative emissions technologies, defended carbon capture and storage as critical to a smooth transition away from fossil fuels.
Recently, fossil fuel companies saw their profits surge after gas prices rose during the Russia-Ukraine war. In the midst of these increased profits, BP, like multiple other fossil fuel companies, scaled back its climate goals and increased its investments in oil and gas production.
Many have accused fossil fuel companies of greenwashing, a term used to describe the exaggeration of climate promises and credentials for the purposes of positive public relations. Archibald, like many other activists, said that BP’s relationship with Princeton is, in part, a public relations endeavor intended to distract from their lack of climate progress and continued profit off of climate change.
Some CMI researchers have been skeptical of fossil fuel sponsors as multiple have told the ‘Prince’ that they have been personally divested from these companies for years, but they still appreciate the opportunity to influence the company.
“Consider their ambitions and their stated objectives with some level of skepticism. You know, they speak out of two sides of their mouths, when they’ll say we want to be net zero by 2050, but then their capital allocation doesn't reflect that,” Greig said. “And I tell them that. I can do that. I have tenure. I don't need their funding to be employed.”
Julian Hartman-Sigall is an assistant News editor for the ‘Prince.’
Please send corrections to corrections[at]dailyprincetonian.com
Correction: This piece has been updated with additional context on Princeton’s September 2022 divestment and disassociation.
Read More
Opening up the “Black Box” of AI Models to Understand the Human Mind with Dr. Leslie and Dr. Lombrozo
Lina Kim, Aanya Kasera, and Senna AldouboshIn this episode of Brains, Black Holes, and Beyond, Aanya Kasera sits down with Dr. Leslie and Dr. Lombrozo, professors and researchers who are part of heading the brand new interdisciplinary research initiative, Natural and Artificial Minds (NAM).
Princeton’s new ‘Latinx Student-Athlete Organization’ aims to foster belonging
Josefina GurevichSince sophomore students established Princeton’s first Latinx Athlete Student Organization, they have worked to build community and support Latinx student athletes campus-wise.
Since sophomore students established Princeton’s first Latinx Athlete Student Organization, they have worked to build community and support Latinx student athletes campus-wise.
U. notifies students of potential changes to water taste and color
Christopher Bao and Leela HenslerNew Jersey American Water (NJAW), one of the water providers to the University, warned of potential discoloration and bad taste in water.
New Jersey American Water (NJAW), one of the water providers to the University, warned of potential discoloration and bad taste in water.
