University Of Toronto School Of Environment Says No To Fossil Fuel Money

Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!

You might think this is a no-brainer, but the School of Environment at the University of Toronto has decided it will no longer accept funding from fossil fuel companies. According to a report by The Guardian, it has committed to stop taking funds from the fossil fuel sector for research, sponsorships, scholarships, or infrastructure such as buildings. It will also halt collaborations with the industry on events and school initiatives and cease to host fossil fuel recruitment events, while working to “increase transparency about the our funding, donations, and partnerships.”

“We can’t have corporations on campus if we want our universities and colleges to contribute, unimpeded, to the many existential challenges we face today,” Michael Classens, undergraduate associate director for the University of Toronto School of the Environment, said in a statement. The decision makes University of Toronto’s School of the Environment the only academic institution in North America with a commitment to fossil fuel dissociation.

The school’s decision came after months of pressure from climate advocates on and off campus. “Faculty, researchers, and students stood together at the University of Toronto to ensure that their School of the Environment will be a place for just climate research, not an avenue for corporate influence,” said Alicia Colomer, the managing director for Campus Climate Network, a student-led advocacy group focused on eliminating oil and gas funding in academia. School officials have been deliberating the specifics of the commitment for “well over a year,” said Steve Easterbrook, director of the school of environment. “We heard a range of different opinions on exactly where you draw the line,” he said. The pledge will apply to all companies that extract fossil fuels and all lobbying organizations for coal, oil or gas. Funding from utility companies will be permitted.

In October 2021, the University of Toronto committed to divesting its investments from fossil fuels by 2030. Campus activists applauded the commitment as a good step, but one that left something to be desired. In 2022, they launched a fossil fuel dissociation campaign at University of Toronto, and in February, the group Climate Justice UofT released a report finding that the university had accepted over $64 million from the industry for research between 2008 and 2018. “The report shows why we needed this commitment,” said Erin Mackey, a recent graduate of University of Toronto’s environment school who worked on the report. “Putting these new safeguards in place will help ensure that the school is not beholden to polluting industries.”

A September peer-reviewed analysis found that fossil fuel company funding to universities is delaying the transition away from coal, oil, and gas. The authors reviewed 14,000 peer-reviewed articles about conflicts of interest, bias, and research funding across all industries from 2003 to 2023 and found that only seven mentioned fossil fuels, even though coal, oil, and gas are the key drivers of the climate crisis. Separate student-led research in September found that top US universities are raking in millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests, raising concerns about conflicts of interest.

Individuals or institutions accepting oil and gas funding may have the best intentions, said Mackey, but there is increasing evidence that funding from oil and gas companies is associated with a more positive view of fossil fuels. “Ultimately, accepting that that money changes the nature of the relationship,” making it less likely that research will be critical of fossil fuels, she said.

Easterbrook said he had seen the negative impacts of fossil fuel funding firsthand. “I’ve got many colleagues across the world whose work has been directly attacked and who’ve had their work undermined by the actions of fossil fuel companies, by the actions of politicians who are taking money from those fossil fuel companies,” he said. Even if funding does not directly influence research outcomes, it can “affect what questions researchers are asking” and also create the appearance of a conflict of interest. “Even the perception is a problem for researchers,” he said.

The institution’s commitment will not apply to the University of Toronto at large, a “limitation” that the school acknowledged. The University is discussing a broader policy that would apply the entire school, but it is “very hard to to know how fast that may play out or where we might land,” Easterbrook said.

Fossil Fuel Money In Higher Education

The announcement comes amid mounting pressure on academic institutions to cut ties with fossil fuel companies. Public scrutiny of the fossil fuel sector’s relationship with universities is also on the rise, including in an April report from Congressional Democrats. Some so-called universities are proud to be shills for the fossil fuel industry. As we reported recently, Louisiana State University openly solicits financial contributions from oil and gas companies with the promise that if they give enough, they can choose which research areas get funded.

According to The Guardian, after Shell donated $25 million in 2022 to LSU to create the Institute for Energy Innovation, the university gave Shell license to influence research and coursework for the university’s new concentration in carbon capture, use, and storage. The LSU Foundation then used this partnership as a model to shop around to members of the Louisiana Chemical Association, such as ExxonMobil, Air Products, and CF Industries, all of which have proposed carbon capture projects in Louisiana.

A prominent Ivy League school has also crawled back in bed with fossil fuel companies after a brief divorce. According to a story by the Daily Princetonian on October 3, 2024, Princeton’s landmark policy on fossil fuel dissociation, which once barred certain fossil fuel companies from funding University research, has been “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.”

The piece claims that 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?”

The Takeaway

I happen to be a graduate of another Ivy League college, one located in New Hampshire next to the Connecticut River. This school prides itself on encouraging critical thinking by its students as part of what is commonly known as a liberal arts education. It also is host to the Irving Institute for Energy and Society, funded and founded by John Irving. On its website it touts the energy efficiency of its building prominently located on campus and says it has helped create a multi-disciplinary Master of Energy Transition degree “that offers early-career professionals the skills and networks needed to help power a more sustainable, climate stable future.”

That all sounds quite wonderful until you realize that Irving Oil, from which the money to establish the Irving Institute was derived, is an oil company. The restrooms at its many gas stations throughout New England and eastern Canada are among the cleanest to be found anywhere, but its primary business is oil. Maybe it is somewhat more socially responsible than Shell or Exxon, but it was, is, and always will be, an oil company. What that suggests is an “all of the above” philosophy similar to the one all fossil fuel companies say they support — a little oil, a little methane, some forest products, a touch of nuclear, and a smidgen of renewables. It’s a way of slow-walking a process that needs to move forward with all deliberate speed.

A classmate of mine at this prestigious institution asks, “When will solving the climate problem become job #1? If Dartmouth waits to long, it will go the way of VW, Polaroid, Digital Equipment, etc. Too little, too late is a fatal error.” That’s an excellent question. I tell him that colleges and universities are just business corporations. Their job is to bring money in the door. Their chief executives — given glorified titles like President, Chancellor, or Dean — are not selected for their academic prowess, but for their ability to raise money — money the fossil fuel industry is only too happy to supply, just like drug pushers who hang around street corners handing out samples of Maui Zowie or China White.

“Until the college can admit that we brought climate transformation upon ourselves, self inflicted — nothing much will change. Too many wealthy alumni reject the idea of climate change. The college is always jonesing around for the big donation dollar. It cannot offend the wealthy grads by admitting the truth of the situation,” he told me in an email. He’s right. You cannot have peace if you are still waging war. There have to be sharp cut-off points — that was then, this is now. “All of the above” is a ruse — snake oil to smooth the ruffled feathers of rich donors who want nothing to do with substantive change.

Princeton was unable to resist the lure of easy money, and my alma mater cannot find it in its soul to do so either. The action taken by the University of Toronto School of Environment is laudable. It may even influence other schools to do so as well. But the pace of progress is much too slow. We reported recently that many young people want to know why the destruction of the environment is never mentioned by political candidates. That’s a good question. The answer, I suggest, is this: “If the people will lead, their leaders will follow.” In other words, it’s up to us. We need to do everything we can to push the clean energy transition forward every single day. Let’s get started!