In 2015, the U.S. exported fewer than half a million barrels of crude oil per day. By 2019, that number had grown to almost 3 million. The reason for such a dramatic increase? A former US Senator, Richard Shelby of Alabama, pressed Congress to lift the Crude Oil Export Ban during a congressional hearing. Though he argued that this decision would decrease U.S. gas prices, gas prices remained high even after the ban was revoked. To convince his fellow senators, Shelby had cited what should be a credible source—a report published by none other than Columbia’s Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP).
A deeper investigation into the research team behind this report reveals a stark conflict of interest. Charif Souki, executive chairman of Tellurian Inc., was listed as part of the research team. Tellurian is responsible for producing roughly 79% of U.S. liquefied natural gas, so lifting the Crude Oil Export ban likely represented a significant economic opportunity for Souki. What’s more, the connection goes even further—a 2023 archived version of the CGEP website showed Tellurian donated more than $1 million to be a part of the “Visionary Annual Circle.”
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. In our report, titled “Complicit Columbia: The Influence of Fossil Fuel Funding on Climate Research,” Sunrise Columbia discovered a consistent pattern: First, CGEP and Columbia accept research funding from and maintain close ties to the fossil fuel industry. Then, we show these ties correlate to a systemic bias in research findings that favor fossil fuels. Lastly, fossil fuel companies take advantage of these favorable results and Columbia’s prestige and credibility to lobby for beneficial government policies, downplay the severity of the climate crisis, and gain public support.
The climate crisis is unquestionably a globally recognized catastrophe; while the impact of fossil fuel companies on climate change is evident, the impacts of support from large universities are often overlooked. When universities, such as Columbia, receive funding from fossil fuel companies, they allow the companies a certain extent of influence over research outputs. The implications of giving companies such as ExxonMobil, who have histories of manipulating climate change research and advocacy to their own monetary benefit, a stake in the university's research are extensive and dangerous. Due to Columbia University’s presumed esteem, research published by Columbia or its peers has an influence on a national scale.
By looking at financial disclosures and publicly available databases on the fossil fuel industry, our investigation found that Columbia University has accepted at least $43,712,333 from 42 corporations associated with the industry between 2005 and 2024. To determine whether a company was a part of the fossil fuel industry, we looked only at corporations listed in Urgewald's Global Oil and Gas Exit List (GOGEL) and Global Coal Exit List (GCEL), as well as the Charles Koch Foundation. Given that we only used the most conservative funding counts available, our reported total is likely a drastic underestimate.
Of the $43 million in fossil fuel funding we know of, at least $15.7 million went to CGEP. According to the findings of a 2022 peer-reviewed Nature study conducted by Columbia researchers on the influence of fossil fuel funding in academia, CGEP is a “fossil-funded centre.” The study reveals that CGEP research exhibits a discernible sentiment bias by having a “more positive” stance toward natural gas over renewable energy sources, such as solar or hydroelectric energy. This tendency was not observed in non-fossil-funded research centers.
Checks and balances to prevent such a breach of academic integrity are evidently not in place. Eight CGEP reports have been written by experts working concurrently for companies that are using and promoting natural gas. In a statement to the Columbia Daily Spectator, Doug Almond, the lead author of the Nature study, wrote that: “Unlike some other prominent energy centers (cf. the University of Chicago’s EPIC), Columbia energy center reports do not typically face peer review by independent, scholarly journals … This removes a natural check on any pro-funder slant.”
This lack of oversight is, in turn, exploited by the fossil fuel industry. Industry memos specifically cite CGEP or Columbia as a means for oil companies to influence the public and policymakers. In May of 2017, for example, a Shell memo titled the “Global Methane Communications Plan” listed Columbia University economics professor Jeffrey Sachs and CGEP founder Jason Bordoff as contacts who “publicly recognize the GHG benefits of gas,” a blatant example of fossil fuel companies using the prestige of the name Columbia University to affirm the integrity of research that would otherwise be under great contention. In another instance, the oil company BP’s 2018 “Communications Strategy and Tactical Plan” lists both CGEP and Jason Bordoff as “opinion leaders” that “demonstrate that BP is a ‘trusted voice’” and “illustrate BP’s energy transition narrative.”
Industries often seek to delay regulation by using the “tobacco strategy.” Throughout the 20th century, tobacco corporations funded research at prestigious universities and medical centers to divert attention away from the carcinogenic qualities of tobacco.
Fossil fuel companies are using a similar strategy. A 1998 memo from the American Petroleum Institute describes a program for “undercutting the ‘prevailing scientific wisdom’” by “funding for research contracts” for work that would introduce uncertainty about climate change. ExxonMobil funded such research for decades. At Columbia, “the French fossil fuel industry began funding studies on carbon uptake by oceans at Columbia University in the early 1990s, research that could make climate change seem less alarming.”
In forming relationships with prominent research universities, fossil fuel companies are cementing their influence in government and policy-making. A 2019 BP email makes note of this strategy, explaining their partnerships with Harvard, Tufts, and Columbia are “key parts of [BP’s] long-term relationship building and outreach to policy makers and influencers in the US and globally and enable BP to “tell the story of what we are doing and why in a more personal and compelling way.”
The ties run deeper than just funding. Several of CGEP’s influential program researchers and directors actively maintain close relationships within the fossil fuel industry. Many serve on corporate boards or directly advise energy executives. For example, David Banks filled the position of “international climate policy expert” in 2018 despite his work for the Trump administration, his adamant support of the fossil fuel industry, and his defense of President Trump’s controversial tweet that “climate change is a Chinese hoax.” He further seems inexplicably intertwined with the fossil fuel industry, as he was formerly the executive vice president of the American Council for Capital Formation, which receives direct funding from ExxonMobil, the Koch family foundations, and the American Petroleum Institute. While Banks no longer works with CGEP, it is important to note that Banks is part of a larger pattern of CGEP hiring researchers and scholars who are entangled in the fossil fuel industry. Another example is Tatiana Mitrova, a Research Fellow at CGEP, being on the board of Schlumberger, the world’s largest offshore drilling company.
This pattern extends into CGEP’s advisory board, which includes multiple members directly involved with fossil fuel companies. Arjun Murti is a director for ConocoPhillips; Jessica Uhl is a former Chief Financial Officer of Shell; and Cynthia Warner currently serves on the Board of Directors for Chevron—along with her former titles of President and CEO of Chevron-owned Renewable Energy Group, Group Vice President of BP, and Executive Vice President at Tesoro Corporation. The involvement of prominent fossil fuel industry researchers in CGEP can also be correlated with the Center’s regular hosting of speakers from the fossil fuel industry: a plethora of student roundtables, summits, and panels center speakers like Gretchen Watkins (the president of Shell USA), Binaya Srikanta Pradhan (the former Chief of Staff to the Indian Government’s Minister of Petroleum & Natural Gas), and Scott Sheffield (former CEO of the now-Chevron-owned Pioneer Valley Natural Resources) have been hosted since the founding of CGEP. This contentious history leads to the indisputable conclusion that CGEP is devoting considerable effort to the promoting of fossil fuel industry voices rather than the environmental advocates they should be centering.
While researchers who worked for or received funding from the fossil fuel industry do not inherently cause pro-industry research bias, funding contributes to sponsorship bias and opens up the possibility that Columbia researchers contributed to the efforts of fossil fuel companies to obfuscate the truth on climate change. A 2018 study published in the American Journal of Public Health concluded that “sponsorship may also influence the research agenda, namely the initial step in conducting research, during which the purpose of the research is defined, and the research questions are chosen and framed. A bias in the research agenda can affect all the subsequent stages of the research process and has the potential to affect policy making by limiting the type of evidence that is available.”
Columbia University has a strong reputation as a beacon of academic excellence and innovation. As Columbia continues to violate academic integrity by accepting fossil fuel industry funding, it actively undermines the University’s reputation. Polling from Data for Progress found that Columbia University’s net favorability dropped by 17 percentage points when survey respondents were informed about Columbia’s fossil fuel ties.
In light of these findings, it’s imperative that Columbia takes decisive steps to restore trust in its research, eliminate corporate influence, and champion genuine solutions to the climate crisis. A strong precedent for dissociation exists: similar to the fossil fuel industry, the tobacco industry has historically funded research meant to purposely confuse the public and aggressively market cigarettes. With this knowledge, 19 schools of public health in the U.S. and Canada signed a joint statement rejecting funding from an organization created by a prominent tobacco company, Philip Morris International. Peer institutions, like Princeton University, have already implemented a dissociation policy that applies to the sorts of unrestricted corporate gifts that fund CGEP. Brown University has set parameters around accepting funding from organizations that engage in disinformation around climate change, whereas Cambridge University does not accept funding from fossil fuel companies whose business models are not aligned with net zero 2050 targets unless there are exceptional circumstances. The University of Toronto’s environmental school recently announced it would cut ties with all fossil fuel companies for research, sponsorships, scholarships, or infrastructure such as buildings.
Columbia must choose to adapt along with its peer institutions by upholding its reputation and exemplifying values of academic integrity and unbiased research. The University Trustees have already determined the endowment should not be invested in fossil fuel companies due to their role in the climate crisis. The same logic should be applied when considering the money flowing into the University.
Firstly, we propose that the University implement comprehensive transparency measures regarding all sources of climate research funding. This should include public disclosure of donors (the names, affiliations, and contributions of all donors to climate research programs) and donor disclaimers on research (for any research output, including in public communications).
Secondly, we propose the University cease accepting funding from fossil fuel companies. . We recommend the University formalize this by establishing strict criteria for acceptance of funds from fossil fuel companies:
- The company must not financially benefit from the extraction, production, or mass consumption of fossil fuels.
- The company must not have a history of or currently engage in the spread of climate disinformation. This includes public statements, funding organizations that deny climate change, obstructing climate policy through lobbying efforts, or participation in trade groups such as the American Petroleum Institute, which consistently lobbies the US government to delay climate progress.
Finally, in addition to setting a strict timeline for fossil-free research, we recommend greater inclusion of affiliates in dialogue and decision-making to ensure that diverse perspectives from all relevant stakeholders are considered.
Sunrise Columbia is a group of Columbia and Barnard students focused on institutional environmental issues at Columbia University. We invite you to read our complete report and sign our petition.