UK Universities Take $50 Million in Fossil Fuel Funding Since 2022 (theguardian.com) 32
Major fossil fuel companies have committed tens of millions of pounds in funding to UK universities since 2022, it can be revealed, despite many of these institutions having actively pledged to divest from oil and gas. From a report: According to freedom of information requests submitted by the climate journalism site DeSmog, more than $50m in research agreements, tuition fees, scholarships, grants and consultancy fees have been pledged to 44 UK universities by 32 oil, coal and gas companies since 2022. The largest contributors were Shell, the Malaysian state-owned oil company Petronas, and BP. These three companies account for more than 76% of the total figure awarded, having given $25.5m, $6.30m and $5.94m respectively.
A further 10 companies made up nearly 21% of the remaining contributions during this period: Sinopec, Equinor, BHP Group, Total Energies, Eni SPA, Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil, Scottish Power, Kellas Midstream and Ithaca Energy. Previous reporting from openDemocracy and the Guardian found that between 2017 and December 2021, $108.1m in funding was given to UK universities by some of the world's biggest fossil fuel companies. These partnerships have shown no sign of abating, and DeSmog's research shows an additional $50m has been pledged since 2022, even after 102 higher education institutions promised to stop taking funding from the fossil fuel industry.
A further 10 companies made up nearly 21% of the remaining contributions during this period: Sinopec, Equinor, BHP Group, Total Energies, Eni SPA, Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil, Scottish Power, Kellas Midstream and Ithaca Energy. Previous reporting from openDemocracy and the Guardian found that between 2017 and December 2021, $108.1m in funding was given to UK universities by some of the world's biggest fossil fuel companies. These partnerships have shown no sign of abating, and DeSmog's research shows an additional $50m has been pledged since 2022, even after 102 higher education institutions promised to stop taking funding from the fossil fuel industry.
Yes? AND? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know the "Be a good person" bullshit narrative is strong.
But universities, like every other business ARE BUSINESSES.
Their ultimate goal is to maximize cash intake/profit.
Why let some crybully shame you into acting against your best interests?
Re: (Score:1)
Shareholders should care!
Energy companies aren't alarmed that the next generation are being indoctrinated by purple haired, gender inclusive, tree-hugging, climate change accepting, leftists?
Re: (Score:2)
They DO care.
About the correct thing. Maximizing the value of their share.
Which is the only SANE way to handle it.
Re: (Score:1)
Basically, everyone understands that there is very little science being done, but no one wants to say it. People who are doing science aren't swayed by their funding, they collect the data and report on it, and if the people paying the bills aren't happy, well then that's just too fucking bad, because their hopes and dreams don't change the data.
But science is not easily found these days. They dress up their "results" in the same clothes that people associate with science, but in the end, the people invol
Re: Yes? AND? (Score:1)
All that is clearly being implied, but I'd like to see evidence of that. What are they doing with the money?
Money is money, and "bad" companies could be funding "good" research to which they could easily pivot, or, at least, into which they could branch out.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad companies....
Say it with me "Patrice Cullors"
Re: (Score:2)
"They are public institutions"
And I repeat. AND? They're still profit-seeking institutions. Businesses.
Why are they profit-seeking?
Because the profit motive helps them fund their pet projects.
All the flowery, 'Frou frou" language doesn't change this.
And recent "woke" wording is worth less than a couple squares of toilet paper during a diarrhea storm.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no we aren't. We're a registered charity. When we're negotiating contracts with external entities to do work for them we're explicitly forbidden from including a profit margin.
Re: (Score:2)
501c(3)?
Still incorporated.
And "non-profit" doesn't mean you don't turn a profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh huh.
Re: (Score:2)
Being a good person is bullshit? That explains a lot of your thinking.
Considering that universities get a lot of public support (i.e. tax money/breaks), it's not unreasonable to expect them to also not help trash the planet. In fact, it's not unreasonable to expect anyone not to block efforts to address climate change.
Re: (Score:1)
Education makes fooling people impossible.
Way overstated.
Re: (Score:3)
Correct, in fact, I've often found the opposite to be true, so sure of their educated selves.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between education and indoctrination, though admittedly here in the West it's become a very blurry line to try to even find. Education as it should be should teach people how to think critically, how to gather their own information, how to distinguish reliable sources from non-reliable, or how to view a topic from various viewpoints so that you can at least attempt to sort the actual facts from the hyperbole and insanity surrounding the facts. A lot of schools now skip over all of that
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't seem to work, given how many American collegiate faculty members are very left-wing.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends how the money is used (Score:2)
Does it strike anyone else that there might be a misunderstanding surrounding this article and the concept of "divesting" from fossil fuels?
Universities should modify their curricula to offer courses aligned with a sustainable future, allocate funds for research on alternative solutions, and enhance the environmental friendliness of their campuses.
Funding for these initiatives could come from fossil fuel companies, and I don't perceive an issue with that. Money that these companies make will be utilized; it
More Interested in Headlines than the Environment (Score:3)
Does it strike anyone else that there might be a misunderstanding surrounding this article
Might? I'd go further and say there very much is. I'm no longer in the UK but at the Canadian university where I work my geophysics colleagues get oil industry funding for things like developing geothermal energy, carbon capture and storage in deep rock formations, studying fracking-induced earthquakes to prevent them from causing damage to existing infrastructure etc.
The fossil fuel industry is a valid business and remains critical to our economy. Yes, we clearly need to reduce our environmental impact
The energy industry is no cakewalk (Score:2)
It matters what it's being spent on. (Score:5, Interesting)
While companies like BP and Shell make most of their money from fossil fuels, they see the writing on the wall and most oil companies are investing heavily in renewables and alternative fuels. So the key question is what sort of university research are they spending this money on? If they were spending it on finding new was to frack or suck more oil out of the ground then they would be shameful hypocrites. If, as I suspect, they are spending it on finding better ways to capture renewable energy or synthesise alternatives to fossil fuels then it could be hugely beneficial to the planet.
From a climate point of view, the problem we have is not the use of hydrocarbons as fuels but the extraction of more and more carbon from the ground. Getting people in rich countries to buy new electric cars is fine, but there are nearly 1.5 billion cars in the world already. If we want to accelerate the move away from fossil fuels then we need to find a way to power most of these vehicles with compatible fuels that come from non-fossil sources. Banning new internal combustion engines will take a very long time to have an impact. Telling oil companies that you're going to progressively stop them from pumping oil out of the ground, so they better put their thousands of highly skilled chemical engineers to work on switching their refineries to fuel synthesis would have more of an impact more quickly. It would also provide a path for these politically influential companies to be allies in the effort rather than enemies. If they want to pump money into universities to do that then I'm all for it.
More shite from the Guardian (Score:2)
Scottish Power are a electricity and gas retailer and come from the old Central Scotland Electricity generator and supplier. They had tie-ups with Universities for Electrical Engineering as they also run a distribution network.
no problem (Score:1)
Fossil fuel is the main source of energy in this world, and it drove the creation of modern civilization. UK gets 78 percent of its overall energy from it. We'll build solar panels, wind turbines, storage and EV with mostly fossil fuel for 2 decades or more, deal with it.
Generalities anyone? Reality anyone? (Score:2)