On Oct. 3, Princeton gutted its landmark policy on fossil fuel dissociation, which once barred certain fossil fuel companies from funding University research and is now weakened to the point of irrelevance. This is a profoundly troubling decision that undermines the fight against climate change. In this action, Princeton has chosen to align itself with the industry most responsible for driving the climate crisis.
In 2022, Princeton took a principled stand. Recognizing that many fossil fuel companies were fundamentally at odds with the University’s “core values,” the Board of Trustees implemented a policy of dissociation, cutting financial ties with 90 fossil fuel companies. This policy, based on recommendations made by a panel of faculty experts, was enforced against too few companies — only those heavily invested in the most polluting sectors, coal and tar sands, rather than the full group that the experts recommended cutting ties with. But it signified the start of a commitment to sustainability and an acknowledgment that those perpetuating environmental destruction should not influence the pursuit of climate solutions.
Now, in a stark reversal, Princeton has welcomed these companies back, allowing them to fund research projects. This decision is a betrayal of the University’s mission and academic integrity, as well as a disservice to its students and the global community. How can an institution that prides itself on shaping the future be so willing to sell it off to the very companies that are burning that future to the ground?
Fossil fuel companies have long used partnerships with prestigious institutions like Princeton to project an image of engagement and responsibility, even as they open new dirty energy projects. This tactic diverts attention and resources from the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing fossil fuel reliance and undermines efforts to hold these companies accountable.
Research funded by fossil fuel interests is more likely to support the industry and often serves to entrench fossil fuel reliance rather than advance solutions that run counter to their financial interests. Internal documents from companies like BP reveal strategies to “advance and protect the role of [natural] gas — and BP — in the future of energy conversation,” no matter what the science says. Such agendas focus on sustaining fossil fuel use under the guise of innovation, delaying the necessary shift to renewable energy sources.
Take ExxonMobil. A notorious climate obstructionist, Exxon has poured millions of dollars into Princeton research, funding studies that directly improved oil and gas combustion. Incredibly, one Exxon employee worked out of an office on Princeton’s campus for years. In 2022, Princeton acknowledged the incompatibility of Exxon’s business practices with our University values and rightly expelled the company. Yet, under the new policy enacted today, Exxon is free to resume funding research — despite the fact that Princeton still recognizes that Exxon engages in practices worthy of dissociation.
Princeton’s new policy includes provisions that supposedly safeguard against conflicts of interest, stipulating that only research aimed at “the amelioration of the environmental harms of carbon emissions” will be eligible for funding from dissociated companies. At first, this guardrail sounds fair, but it can be interpreted broadly to encompass projects that entrench fossil fuel extraction, provided that they simply claim to reduce environmental harm.
For example, this would likely allow research that enhances oil drilling efficiency or reduces emissions from natural gas production because they mitigate certain impacts, even though they ultimately facilitate ongoing fossil fuel reliance. Princeton’s efforts do not address the fundamental problem: the urgent need to transition away from fossil fuels entirely.
Princeton introduced a further guardrail that could theoretically prevent egregious fossil fuel influence: when a company on the dissociation list proposes a research project, an “ad hoc expert faculty committee” will review its proposal. But this review process is unaccountable to the point of uselessness. Princeton’s announcement does not tell us who the committee would be, with what metrics and standards — if any — it would evaluate the proposal, and how — if at all — it would explain its decision-making rationale to the public for each case.
The University weakened this guardrail more by moving to no longer publish the names of companies that meet Princeton’s limited dissociation criteria. From now on, then, the University community will be left in the dark about when Princeton dissociates from a company, whether that dissociated company proposes to fund Princeton research, and whether their research proposal violates University values by entrenching fossil fuels.
Moreover, the University’s assurance of academic freedom for faculty to publish their work regardless of whether the company likes the results fails to address the subtle pressures that come with industry funding. Researchers may feel constrained in their work, knowing that critical findings against fossil fuels could jeopardize future funding.
And these companies have a history of withdrawing support from studies that do not align with their interests, influencing the direction of academic inquiry. In fact, BP itself has done this, cutting funding from its programs at Harvard and Tufts while keeping funding stable for Princeton — because Princeton researchers were more “synergistic” with its aims.
Although Princeton insists that accepting funding from fossil fuel companies is the only viable path forward, this thinking locks us into a future reliant on the very forces driving the climate crisis. For years, fossil fuel companies have promised to contribute to sustainability goals. Yet just as the world is breaching the first major temperature barrier — 1.5 degrees celsius — fossil fuel companies are openly retreating from these commitments. We cannot trust fossil fuel companies to change the status quo when they have a vested interest in maintaining it.
By choosing to prioritize relationships with fossil fuel companies over the well-being of the planet and future generations, Princeton has abdicated its responsibility to lead and sent the message that prestige and immediate financial gain outweigh the urgent need to address the climate emergency. This choice has far-reaching implications and may set a dangerous precedent for other institutions. And as students, faculty, staff, alumni, and the broader community, we must hold the University accountable and advocate for policies that align with the urgent needs of our time.
The climate crisis cannot be addressed through half-measures or by collaborating with those who perpetuate it. True progress demands that we sever ties with the perpetrators of environmental destruction. Princeton’s decision today is a setback, but it also serves as a clarion call for renewed activism and unwavering commitment to building a just and liveable world.
Eleanor Clemans-Cope and Alex Norbrook are the former co-coordinators of Sunrise Princeton, a group of students fighting for climate justice. Eleanor is a junior economics major and head Opinion editor at the ‘Prince.’ Alex is a junior history major and a columnist for the ‘Prince.’ Eleanor can be reached at eleanor.cc[at]princeton.edu and Alex can be reached at alexnorbrook[at]princeton.edu.
Read More
Play the Friday puzzle, ‘Star Words’
Luke K. SchreiberMay the force be with you as you solve this puzzle by Contributing Constructor Luke K. Schreiber.
May the force be with you as you solve this puzzle by Contributing Constructor Luke K. Schreiber.
TFG: Ti-family-gressions
Marley Hartnett-CodyContributing Writer for the Prospect Marley Hartnett-Cody reflects on her Tigressions arch sing during First-Year Families weekend.
Contributing Writer for the Prospect Marley Hartnett-Cody reflects on her Tigressions arch sing during First-Year Families weekend.
An entire fanbase 'furious' at John Fisher ’83 as Athletics play final game in Oakland
Charlie RothOn Thursday, September 26th, the Oakland Athletics played their final game in Oakland after calling the city its home since 1968. Fans have not been happy with the decision to leave the Bay Area, blaming owner Josh Fisher '83.
On Thursday, September 26th, the Oakland Athletics played their final game in Oakland after calling the city its home since 1968. Fans have not been happy with the decision to leave the Bay Area, blaming owner Josh Fisher '83.
