Two years after announcing that it would cut financial ties with certain segments of the fossil fuel industry, the University re-opened the door to research funded by those companies in an Oct. 3 letter to the faculty.
“It’s not right for Princeton to promote sustainability initiatives when their research is being funded by the culprits [of the climate crisis],” said Raquel Rodriguez ’28, a member of Sunrise Princeton, at an Oct. 4 rally protesting the decision.
In 2022, the University announced it would dissociate from — meaning “refraining, to the greatest extent possible, from any relationships that involve a financial component” with — 90 fossil fuel companies. The companies, including ExxonMobil, all met a list of criteria that included involvement with highly-polluting segments of the industry.
The University also pledged to eliminate all endowment holdings in publicly traded fossil fuel companies and established a fund to support energy research that would be otherwise impacted by dissociation. The move was heralded as “historic” at the time and came after nearly a decade of student activism.
In its October announcement, however, the University wrote that dissociation “adversely and inequitably affected scholars whose research programs are addressing pressing environmental problems.” It claimed that scholars had lost out on funding for “research to combat the harms of climate change,” as well as collaborative partnerships.
As a result, the University will now allow researchers to accept funding from companies otherwise meeting the dissociation criteria, with the caveat that researchers use the funds with the “aim to produce environmental benefits.”
While the Board of Trustees issued the 2022 decision to cut ties with some fossil fuel companies, University spokesperson Jennifer Morrill said in a statement to The Daily Princetonian that the most recent rollback was made by the University administration, “which has the responsibility for determining how to implement the Board of Trustees’ fossil fuel dissociation decision.”
Several students, including some involved in Sunrise, said the move undermined their trust in the University.
“Without dissociation, Princeton will continue to be implicated in the exploitative and racialized capitalist system that contributes to the climate crisis,” wrote Connie Gong ’25, vice president of the Princeton Conservation Society. “It erodes my (already limited) trust in the University administration’s ability to act on student calls for change.”
The Sunrise rally, planned weeks in advance, was originally intended to introduce Sunrise’s “Finish the Job” campaign to pressure the University to divest the rest of its endowment from fossil fuels and to implement other climate-friendly measures. However, it turned into a call for the University to “do the job” in the wake of the announcement. About 60 students attended the rally.
“Princeton dismantled dissociation and we demand that the University put the pieces back together,” said Alex Norbrook ’26 at the rally. “The University has taken over a decade of work from students, faculty, and staff, and they’ve shredded it all.”
Norbrook is an Opinion columnist for ‘Prince.’
Rally co-coordinator Mira Eashwaran ’26 noted that climate is a very personal issue for many students, noting that “just a week after Hurricane Helene, the University decided, ‘We’re going to work with the fossil fuels that have caused that climate disaster. We’re going to let them back into our community.’”
Eashwaran is a staff Features writer for the ‘Prince.’
Others questioned whether fossil fuel funding would influence the outcomes of research.
Cameron Farid ’26, president of the Princeton University Energy Association, said that he had “no evidence of funding from a fossil fuel company impacting the direction of research in any way,” citing his internship with the Andlinger Center for the Environment last summer.
James Daniels ’26, who criticized the 2022 dissociation decision as “ineffective” and harmful to the health of the endowment in an article in The Princeton Tory, welcomed the reversal but critiqued the abruptness of the move.
“The sudden reversal showcases the University’s lack of foresight and continued climate hysteria that paralyzes innovation to existing technologies,” Daniels wrote to the ‘Prince.’
Daniels also challenged the current University criteria for “purposely exclud[ing] projects that acknowledge the continued short-term importance of fossil fuels.”
In September — prior to the University’s policy announcement — Sunrise released a report arguing that Princeton continues to “to invest in, profit from, and produce research that serves the interests of fossil fuel companies.”
This included criticism of fossil fuel funding that the University receives for climate research, which allegedly allows companies to promote their image and protect their business models. One main focus was the BP-funded Carbon Mitigation Initiative, which Sunrise stated was used by BP to “advance its communications campaign to promote natural gas, boost its credibility as a supposed climate leader, and influence policy at the highest level.”
The report also criticized the University’s stakes in Petrotiger, an oil and gas company from which the University has reported earning nearly $140 million in investment income and direct financial contributions, or cash transactions, over the last 10 years. Though Princeton’s current ownership stake in Petrotiger is unclear, Vice President for Finance Jim Matteo confirmed at the Sept. 30 Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC) meeting that University investment in Petrotiger began in the 1980s.
“We believe research will have a more significant positive impact than any choices the University makes about its investments or management of resources,” Morrill wrote to the ‘Prince.’ She argued that the recent change in dissociation was consistent with the University’s guidelines on divestment and dissociation, which encourage responses that “offer at least some possibility of constructive impact” and are “consistent with the fundamental character of the University as an academic institution.”
The guidelines also encourage the University to respond in ways that “can merit broad support through the University.”
Speaking to the ‘Prince’ after the rally, Sunrise co-coordinator Liz Kunz ’27 said, “It’s more important now than ever to reaffirm the importance of activism on the Princeton campus in demanding that the University listen to student voices.”
“We’re going to continue to raise awareness and build our movement so that Princeton takes us seriously and actually prioritizes their students’ future. Because right now, I don’t feel represented by Princeton,” said Sunrise co-coordinator Anna Buretta ’27.
Michelle Miao is a News contributor for the ‘Prince’ from Oxford, Ohio.
Miriam Waldvogel is an associate News editor and the investigations editor for the ‘Prince.’ She is from Stockton, Calif. and often covers campus activism and University accountability.
Please send corrections to corrections[at]dailyprincetonian.com.
Correction: A previous version of this article said that climate disinformation was a part of the list of criteria for dissociation. In fact, it was proposed by the Board of Trustees, but did not become a criteria.
Read More
Opposition to weapons divestment referendum takes shape
Annie Rupertus and Miriam WaldvogelAs the vote on USG referenda approach, their opposition is taking shape. This is especially true of the controversial Referendum No. 5, which calls on the University to divest from weapons manufacturers.
As the vote on USG referenda approach, their opposition is taking shape. This is especially true of the controversial Referendum No. 5, which calls on the University to divest from weapons manufacturers.
Play the Friday crossword, ‘Having a Cow’
Claire Kaneshiro and Jessica CurranBlast off into this legend-dairy puzzle by Senior Constructor Claire Kaneshiro and Contributing Constructor Jessica Curran.
Blast off into this legend-dairy puzzle by Senior Constructor Claire Kaneshiro and Contributing Constructor Jessica Curran.
Energy researchers report surprise, enthusiasm at reinstated fossil fuel funding
Christopher BaoProfessors are reacting with pleasant surprise to the news that the University partially reversed its decision to bar fossil fuel companies from funding research.
Professors are reacting with pleasant surprise to the news that the University partially reversed its decision to bar fossil fuel companies from funding research.
