A story on the effects of carbon corruption in the climate change movement, a movement that has begun the shift away from fossil fuels and other carbon-heavy energy sources. Big Carbon companies, such as ExxonMobil and Chevron, are constantly fighting to find a way to stay relevant given the recent societal shift toward sustainability. This piece aims to better understand carbon corruption practices from the fossil fuel industry by analyzing carbon sequestration and storage as well as co-optation.
“Carbon corruption is present when the fossil fuel industry is able to influence or alter the shape of scientific research, academic research, and knowledge around climate change. Both what causes climate change, what the solutions are, how urgent it is.” - Ben Franta Ph.D, J.D.
Fossil fuels contribute about 70% of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, can you imagine how different the climate crisis would be without their contributions? In the field of sustainable energy and the green energy transition, there is no longer a place for big fossil fuel companies. In an act of self-preservation, many notable companies have begun investments in new strategies of sustainability, notably carbon sequestration and storage. To remain relevant fossil fuel companies have also used a tactic known as co-optation to survive the green revolution. In an interview, Ben Franta Ph.D, J.D, a climate litigation scholar, explained how “industries could control the regulatory process” through what they call “co-opt(ing) the experts. How they do that is through giving grants for academic research among other things”. Franta says this co-opt of experts works to “weaponize a few academic articles” which can be powerful in shaping public perception for any industry that uses this method.
False Solution
In an interview with Holmes Hummel, a scholar on energy and the clean energy sector for Stanford University, they note how Chevron and ExxonMobil use media as well as their influence to attempt to educate the public in a way that shapes their understandings, specifically by publishing their “environmentally” friendly achievements. In terms of sequestration and storage, Chevron publicized that they, “aim to capture 25 million metric tons of CO2 each year by decade’s end.” In 2019, Chevron’s disclosed emissions were 697 million metric tons of CO2, amounting to about 25x more carbon emissions than they sequester annually.
ExxonMobil, another major player in fossil fuels, recently released information on its steps toward carbon sequestration and storage. ExxonMobil claims they “have cumulatively captured more CO2 than any other company – 120 million metric tons”. ExxonMobil reported at least 650 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2020 through their petroleum product sales, which make up roughly 85% of their company-wide emissions. Again, even the greatest carbon sequestration efforts of ExxonMobil do not equate to their annual emissions totals. This trend continues through other large fossil fuel companies.
The idea of carbon sequestration and storage seemingly enables the continued production, selling, and use of fossil fuels. This is a form of carbon corruption by it’s efforts to shift public perception by being a “false solution”. Ben Franta explains false solutions in carbon corruption efforts, “the end goal was to delay fossil fuel controls and the complete fossil fuel replacement, one of the ways to do that was through these false solutions”. Franta candidly puts, “I don’t see any viable future for carbon capture, it’s sort of used as a delay tactic in the industry and a way to make fossil fuel companies look like they are still relevant and useful in some way”.
Co-optation
Co-optation is a common practice across industries that has had a lot of success, specifically in the tobacco, sugar, and opioid industries. In the climate crisis, this strategy of co-optation has been used by fossil fuel industry leaders to control the fields of research and academia around climate change issues. Specifically, Franta explains that co-optation is used by, “giving academic funding and grants to certain researchers or for certain topics and not to other researchers or not for other topics. This is a standard approach because they(industry leaders) know that academic research informs public policy, regulation, litigation, and that those expert voices can be dangerous to those industries if they aren’t made dependent on the industry for their careers”.
This co-optation can be seen in Universities and in research centers to boast a certain industry wants and needs starting in the late 1990s. These investments, grants, and donations are dangerous for three main reasons. First, they affect how students are taught about climate change. Second, they affect how students view the industry as a whole. Lastly, these investments impede the overall academic freedom of students. Here’s an example of this given by Ben Franta, ‘Companies such as ExxonMobil can say “We fund research at Stanford, therefore, we didn’t and don’t deceive the public and thus we are a good actor in the climate change movement”’.
A notable case study of co-optation can be done by analyzing Stanford University. The deployment of the “Doerr School of Sustainability” in 2020 brought a spotlight to the University’s tricky past and current relations with Big Carbon.
In 2019, the Stanford Precourt Institute of Energy took a 20 million donation from Shell to fund the research and development of their department. In 2014, Stanford deployed the Center for Carbon Storage, this center claims to be working to achieve net-zero emissions for California by 2050 using carbon sequestration tactics. A “flagship entity of the fossil fuel industry,” Franta says, was The Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford which was largely funded by ExxonMobil.
A large student-run group, Fossil Free Stanford, has been fighting against Stanford, requesting they refuse funding and support from Big Oil and Big Carbon companies and to remove any investments that Stanford has in those companies as well. Fossil Free Stanford notes the relationship between Stanford and Big Carbon as a conflict of interest given Stanford’s commitment to benefiting climate change.
Stanford claims there needs to be a cohesive response between the fossil fuel industry and climate actors to create solutions. President of the Doerr School, Arun Majumdar, sent an email to the community of the Doerr school highlighting two key “benefits” of accepting Big Oil funding. First, he said that they are only accepting money from companies that are making “measurable efforts to be a part of the solution”. Secondly, he notes that having the extra donor money will better fund the research into the climate crisis which in theory would provide better results from said research.
This cohesive action is impossible as the interest of the funder, fossil fuel companies, is financially opposed to the goals of the research, which would be to stop climate change. This opposition is because putting a stop to climate change would mean doing away with the products of the fossil fuel funder, in its entirety.
Since Fossil Free Stanford’s efforts began, Stanford has reduced active fossil fuel investments by 90%. This divestment leaves only 1.5% of their portfolio invested in Big Carbon. This was a great step toward transparency for their mission but many still question why it took them so long to divest. Fossil-free Stanford took this divestment as a little victory in their efforts, but they are still actively pushing for more to be done to push Stanford to follow up on their promises.
Combating Corruption
Ben Franta, who became interested in these topics during his PhD at Stanford, explained the best way to push back against co-optation corruption is through exposure. Groups like Fossil Free Stanford can bring to light the internal corruption of their institution and making a big deal out of it can bring societal pressure to push for real change. Similar to how Fossil Free Stanford led to the divestment at the University. Being on the inside of a corrupt University can even have its benefits. The benefit of access, the insider knowledge, the ability to expose what you know.
The easiest way to combat false solution corruption is through educating everyday people on what really works to reach climate goals. Pushing the goals and the basis of the Paris Agreement by focusing on the switch over to renewable energy sources to lower CO2 emission levels across the globe. Unfortunately, with many cumulative decades of false solutions, there is a lot of ground to make up to reach the global temperature goals by 2050. The turn from fossil fuel energy to that of renewables is more necessary than ever.
“(Fossil fuels) aren’t a part of the solution. They haven’t been a part of the solution. They’ve actually been a major part of the problem, and in fact they are what made this problem so bad in the first place. So, to let them continue to impede the solution process or give them the opportunity to impede that process is irresponsible and naive” - Ben Franta Ph.D, J.D.
---
Haley Craig is an undergraduate senior majoring in Public Policy and Politics while minoring in English Creative Writing. She focused her studies on environmental policy and justice. She is also a member of the Stanford Women's Soccer team.
Comments