Skip to content
Fossil Fuel Industry Influence; Or, Gen Z Requests Help
(ICE, 1991)
Glossary
AGW: anthropogenic global warming
API: American Petroleum Institute
BP: British Petroleum
CO2: carbon dioxide
COP: Conference of Parties
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
Fossil Fuel Industry: any business whose core operations or mode of profit is based on the exploration, trade, storage, extraction, refinement, distribution, production, energy generation, combustion for chemical processes (such as the production of Hydrogen), or transportation of coal, natural gas, or any other petroleum-based fuel – including secondary refined or process products (e.g. diesel fuel, gasoline, kerosene).
GCC: Global Climate Coalition
IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
PR: public relations
UN: United Nations
UNFCCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UW: University of Washington
Fossil Fuel Industry Influence; Or, Gen Z Requests Help
The Fossil Fuel Industry has known about climate change as early as the 1950s and has manipulated public perceptions, government policy, and academic research to prevent climate action. Executives of the Fossil Fuel Industry have benefited from systemic racism, environmental destruction, and endangering public health. Some leaders of the industry are currently laying the groundwork to profit from the destruction they caused. According to the most recent report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2023), "approximately 3.3-3.6 billion people live in contexts that are highly vulnerable to climate change” (p. 5). With continued greenhouse gas emissions, “every increment of global warming will intensify multiple and concurrent hazards” (IPCC, 2023, p. 12). The following paper is meant as a backgrounder for the governing board of the University of Washington as they continue to make positive decisions for the future of the institution, the student body, the broader community, and the world.
They Knew
On November 8th, 1965, Frank Ikard addressed a room. Ikard was the president of the American Petroleum Institute (API) (Climate Files, 2018), the largest US trade association for the oil and natural gas industry (About api., n.d.). It was the 45th Annual Meeting of the American Petroleum Institute and the room was made up of people who represented the oil industry.
Three days before, on November 5th, 1965, a 300-page environmental study written by the President’s Science Advisory Committee and commissioned by the Lyndon B. Johnson White House was released. The report covers soil contamination, health effects of environmental pollution, solid waste, sewers, agricultural wastes, pest control practices, aquatic blooms, and perhaps most notably, atmospheric carbon dioxide (President’s Science Advisory Committee Environmental Pollution Panel, 1965). The report is considered the first-time scientists officially warned the US government that increasing greenhouse gasses from the burning of fossil fuels could cause climate change. Yet, it remained widely ignored at the time of publication by all but a few (Staub, 2023).
Frank Ikard spoke of the challenges the oil industry would face in the coming year, referencing the increase in legislative activity and the industry’s “close watch on no fewer than 200 pieces of proposed federal legislation”. He said, “It takes no crystal ball to see that our involvement in government matters will intensify in the year ahead” (Climate Files, 2018).
Ikard then, in a room full of people who represented the oil industry, three days after the White House was warned of the dangers of burning fossil fuels, referred to the 300-page report; “This report unquestionably will fan emotions, raise fears, and bring demands for action. The substance of the report is that there is still time to save the world’s people from the catastrophic consequences of pollution, but time is running out” (Climate Files, 2018).
In July 1977, James F. Black, a senior company scientist at Exxon, warned the members of Exxon’s Management Committee that carbon dioxide from the use of fossil fuels would warm the planet and endanger humanity (Banerjee et al., 2015).
In 1978, a broader audience of Exxon scientists and managers were warned by Black that an estimated doubling of carbon dioxide would increase average global temperatures, and that “some countries would benefit but others would have their agricultural output reduced or destroyed” (Banerjee et al., 2015). According to Exxon: The Road Not Taken, he estimated that “man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical” (Banerjee et al., 2015).
In the years that followed, scientists continued to study and refine the claims made in the years prior. Between 1977 and 2003, scientists working for Exxon and Exxonmobil Corp “predicted global warming correctly and skillfully” (Supran et al., 2023). Their projections were consistent with independent academic and government models, accurately predicted when anthropogenic global warming would be detected, and estimated the amount of carbon dioxide that could be released to keep warming below 2° C (Supran et al., 2023). The American Petroleum Institute, in conjunction with nearly every major U.S. and multinational oil and gas company, ran a task force focused on monitoring and sharing climate research between 1979 and 1983 (Banerjee et al., 2015).
Researchers continue to find evidence that executives in the Fossil Fuel Industry and other industries were aware of the consequences of continuing to burn fossil fuels long before the general public knew about them, with scientific studies dating as far back as 1954 (Franta, 2018).
A Turning Point
By the late 80s, the science that the burning of fossil fuels was driving global warming was certain.
On June 24, 1988, the title “Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate” adorned the front page of The New York Times (Shabecoff, 1998). Dr. James Hansen told a congressional committee that NASA was 99% certain that carbon dioxide and other artificial gasses were driving the warming trend in the atmosphere. Multiple contemporary researchers identify this testimony and The New York Times article as a turning point (Banerjee et al., 2015; Brulle, 2022). The public became aware of the threat of climate change. The article and the hearing itself are regarded as the moment when politicians realized they needed to act, as Senator Tim Wirth declared during the hearing that “Congress must begin to consider how we are going to slow or halt that warming trend” (Banerjee et al., 2015; Brulle, 2022).
The testimony was also a turning point for the Fossil Fuel Industry. The Industry moved from scientific research on CO2 and climate change into a full-fledged attack to defend their business. They used strategies they had perfected over the past 100 years: spreading denial and disinformation, political lobbying, infiltrating academia, and funding massive PR campaigns.
As the international community was preparing to address climate change with the establishment and endorsement by the UN General Assembly in 1988 of The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), (IPCC, n.d.) the Fossil Fuel Industry was actively planning how to create a culture of debate around climate science and stop climate policies, so they could continue to sell fossil fuels, while knowing the dangers and realities of what burning more fossil fuels would do to the world.
They Lied
Starting in the 1990s, The Fossil Fuel Industry launched PR campaigns to make it seem to the public that there was a debate on the science of climate change. Internal documents outlining this strategy have been released or discovered over the years, including one from 1991 for the Informed Citizens for the Environment (a coal and coal-based utility front group) that strategized to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact)” (ICE, 1991; Wald, 1991).
A 1998 document from the API, called “The Global Climate Science Communications Team Action Plan,” developed by representatives from the oil and gas industry as well as representatives from conservative and libertarian organizations, takes the strategy a few steps further. It declares “Victory Will Be Achieved When…” [1] “Average citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science”, [2] “recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom’”, [3] “Media ‘understands’ (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science”, [4] “Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of the viewpoints that challenge the current ‘conventional wisdom’”, [5] “Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy”, and [6] “Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extant science appear to be out of touch with reality” (API, 1998).
The tactics outlined include recruiting scientists for media outreach, creating information kits for media and public communication, briefings for science writers, disseminating radio news releases, producing a steady stream of op-ed columns and letters authored by scientists, convincing a major national news TV journalist to examine the science behind the Kyoto Treaty, organizing campus and community workshops and debates on climate science through grassroots organizations, and advertising scientific uncertainties in select markets (API, 1998).
Empirical evidence concludes that although fossil fuel companies publicly disseminated doubt about climate science, the companies internally agreed that the science was certain. In “Assessing ExxonMobil’s climate change communications (1977-2014)” by Supran and Oreskes (2017), the authors found that ExxonMobil ‘advertorials’ in The New York Times expressed doubt about climate change as anthropogenic, serious, and solvable. Advertorials are paid, editorial-style advertisements and a public form of communication used to affect public and official opinion (Supran and Oreskes, 2017). Supran and Oreskes (2017) found that there was a discrepancy between what ExxonMobil’s scientists and executives knew and what they promoted; They overwhelmingly emphasized uncertainties and doubt in advertorials in The New York Times, yet in their private communications broadly acknowledged the dangers and realities of climate change.
They Infiltrated Government
Before negotiations had even begun, Fossil Fuel lobbyists and those opposed to emissions regulations had already infiltrated global and domestic climate decision-making. The Global Climate Coalition (GCC), founded in 1989, was one such lobbying group, made up of companies and trade associations from the utility and coal/steel/rail sectors, as well as all major oil companies represented through the API (Brulle, 2022). The GCC took a proactive stance against any binding reductions in carbon emissions at a global and domestic scale (Brulle, 2022). Moreover, the GCC established that any climate change conversations needed to have the voice of industry, and appointed itself as that voice (Brulle, 2022).
Between 1989 and 1991, the GCC testified before Congress four times, spreading doubt on climate science, suggesting that action should not be taken, opposing legislation mandating carbon emission reductions, advocating that scientific research on climate change should involve industry scientists and representatives, and arguing that climate responses must be evaluated for “their economic, competitive, energy, and technical impacts” (Brulle, 2022).
By the time international conversations were underway, the GCC had its rhetorical strategy well developed, consistently focusing on the high cost of action, the alleged uncertainty of the science, and the need for a voluntary approach focused on technological innovation (Brulle, 2022). These arguments, meant to dissuade action, are proven to be full of inaccuracies and bias (Franta, 2022). The idea that climate policy would be uneconomic was a rhetorical strategy that deployed biased economic analysis funded by the Fossil Fuel Industry (Franta, 2022). The idea that any conversation around environmental concerns must be balanced with conversation around the economy and energy supply was created by a PR expert hired to counter the environmental movements of the 70s and 80s (Brulle, 2022). The strategy was then reused for climate change (Brulle, 2022).
In their effort to avoid emission limitations, the Fossil Fuel Industry was shaping exactly how to frame the discussion of climate action, before emission reduction policy could even be discussed.
International level
International agreements on climate change, such as the 2016 Paris Agreement, come from the United Nations’ (UN’s) annual Conference of Parties (COP) (Hirst, 2020). The COP is the decision-making body of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and is made up of representatives from almost every country on Earth (Hirst, 2020). The UNFCCC was launched by the UN General Assembly, following the increasing concern about climate change following the publication of the first IPCC assessment report in 1990 (Hirst, 2020).
However, international efforts did not go unopposed. The Global Climate Coalition (GCC) made a tactical push in 1992, publicly emphasizing the need for developing countries to engage in carbon emissions reductions at the same time as industrialized countries (Brulle, 2022). The GCC knew the representatives of developing countries would not and could not make that concession, which would prevent the possibility of any binding emissions reductions in the UNFCCC treaty (Brulle, 2022). The GCC continued to actively prevent climate policy during the Clinton Administration, and at subsequent COPs (Brulle, 2022). They launched an attack on the IPCC report and one of the report's lead authors (Brulle, 2022).
Even one of the earliest international moves to curb global fossil fuel emissions, the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, faced extreme opposition. Exxon’s chairman and CEO, Lee Raymond, argued to stop the Kyoto Protocol. Raymond gave a speech in Beijing in October 1997 at the World Petroleum conference where he said “Let’s agree there’s a lot we really don’t know about how climate will change in the 21st century and beyond”; “We need to understand the issue better, and fortunately, we have time”; and “It is highly unlikely that the temperature in the middle of the next century will be significantly affected whether policies are enacted now or 20 years from now” (Banerjee et al., 2015).
In March 2001, the Bush Administration formally withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol. This move was credited in part to the Global Climate Coalition (Brulle 2022; US Department of State, 2001).
The GCC disbanded in 2002, but the influence of fossil fuel lobbyists is ongoing (Brulle, 2022). At the 2nd most recent Conference of Parties (COP27), the number of lobbyists from oil and gas industries registered to attend outnumbered any singular frontline community impacted by the climate crisis (Michaelson, 2022). At the most recent Conference of Parties (COP28), the number of fossil fuel lobbyists in attendance surpassed the number of delegates from the 10 nations most vulnerable to climate change combined (Kulger, 2023).
Federal level
Oil and gas companies contributed more than $84 million to candidates running for US Congress in 2018, more than double the amount donated in 2010 (Goldberg et al., 2020). A study, done by Goldberg et al. (2020), focused on whether campaign contributions from oil and gas companies influenced legislators to vote against the environment, or whether companies invest in legislators with a proven anti-environmental voting record. In an analysis of 28 years of campaign contribution data, they found that the latter hypothesis is supported–the more a legislator votes against environmental policies, the more money they receive from oil and gas companies (Goldberg et al., 2020).
Between 2000 and 2016, over $2 billion was spent on lobbying expenditures related to climate change legislation in the US Congress (Brulle, 2018). Lobbying expenditures of the sectors involved in fossil fuel use and supply dwarfed the lobbying expenditures of environmental organizations and renewable energy corporations by a ratio of 10:1 (Brulle, 2018).
In 2022, the Supreme Court case West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency was decided (West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 2022). The decision, written by Chief Justice Roberts and joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett (West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 2022), limits the EPA’s power, including their ability to cut carbon emissions, and will make it significantly harder for the US to meet a 50% reduction in net greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 (Kizer et al., 2022).
The West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency decision has been directly tied back to the Fossil Fuel Industry by investigative journalist Sharon Lerner in a piece published in The Intercept in June of 2022 (Lerner, 2022). Lerner points to how Koch Industries, the second biggest privately held company in the US, makes over half of its money from fossil fuels and has a long, documented history of spending money on lobbying, think tanks, and activist networks seeking to limit climate action. Lerner also identifies how Charles Koch, the 22nd richest person in the world (Chapatta et al., n.d.) and the CEO of Koch Industries, personally contributed to the election of Justices Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh through the astroturfing group Americans for Prosperity. Finally, Lerner notes how West Virginia v. EPA ties back to Koch, as the challengers were made up of 27 Republican attorneys general, supported by the Koch-funded Republican Attorneys General Association. Additionally, amicus briefs filed came from Koch-funded entities such as the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the New Civil Liberties Alliance, and the aforementioned Americans for Prosperity (Lerner, 2022).
The Build Back Better Act, one of the most significant federal climate bills passed in the House, was dramatically cut down, largely due to senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona (Burga, 2022). Both Manchin and Sinema are well known for their ties to fossil fuels (Flavelle and Tate, 2022; Stone, 2022; Milman, 2022).
By the end of the 1980s, the people who were running many of the largest industries in America knew that the burning of fossil fuels was resulting in global warming, and that global warming would have massive consequences for the lives of people on Earth. They decided to not only continue causing that warming, but to increase production, and actively prevent anyone from stopping them. They are continuing to impact climate and environmental legislation to this day.
Infiltrating Academia
In the same way that tobacco companies demanded more science, not less, and influenced science to counter research showing smoking is harmful, fossil fuel companies have influenced climate science and solution research (Thacker, 2022). At the turn of the century, after governments began to take steps toward regulating oil and gas companies to prevent global warming, research centers specializing in climate solutions launched at prestigious universities all over the country (Thacker, 2022). The origins of many climate solutions focused programs are rooted in fossil fuel funding (Thacker, 2022).
Institutions all over the nation, including Princeton, MIT, Columbia, Harvard, and Stanford had or have climate focused programs with fossil fuel funding behind them (Gilchrist and Kaufman, 2022; Levine and Franco, 2023; Milman, 2023; Thacker, 2022).
Studies have shown that the funding source of research can influence research agendas and all aspects of the research process including design, conduct, and publication (Fabbri et al., 2018). Corporations can, and do, shape research agendas to advance their interests, including influencing research to favor policy and legal positions that benefit them (Fabbri et al., 2018). Data also shows that studies sponsored by industry tend to be biased, favoring the sponsor’s products (Fabbri et al., 2018). Fossil fuel involvement in climate and energy research allows for fossil fuel interests to shape what solutions are considered, and Fossil fuel funding of anything climate related creates the opportunity for an industry that has historically intentionally prevented climate action to continue to intervene.
Fossil fuel influence can also impact academic personnel. For example, the founding director of Harvard’s environmental and energy law program, Jody Freeman, was a paid board member of ConocoPhillips, one of the largest oil and gas companies in the world. She recently stepped down following public scrutiny, but during her time on the board she used her position at Harvard to lobby the US Securities and Exchange Commission on behalf of the company (Noor, 2023).
The Fossil Fuel Industry has “colonized” academia and poses a hazard (Supran and Franta, 2017). The interests of the Fossil Fuel industry distort and threaten the credibility and integrity of academic research.
Climate Solutions and Future Plans
One of the main tactics the Fossil Fuel industry uses to keep their social license to operate is to portray themselves as the solution to a problem, rather than the cause of it. This paradoxical strategy has been used by the industry far beyond climate change (Conway and Robertson, 2021; Dalhber, 2023; Doyle, 2011; Straub, 2023). Fossil Fuel companies continue to promote themselves this way (Supran and Oreskes, 2021). Other strategies include pushing individual responsibility (Supran and Oreskes, 2021), climate delay discourse (Lamb et al., 2020), greenwashing (Friedman and Campbell, 2023), and technological optimism (Lamb et al., 2020), among others.
Despite the detrimental impacts of fossil fuels to the environment, the Fossil Fuel Industry has historically used PR to present themselves as stewards of nature (Conway and Robertson, 2021; Straub, 2023). The Fossil Fuel industry continues to paint the industry as “green” despite the reality of industry practices (Li et al., 2022). In a study looking at the extent of decarbonization and clean energy transition activity between 2009 and 2020 for Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, and Shell, Li et al., (2022) found a strong increase in language and strategies related to decarbonization and clean energy, but only in pledges and not concrete actions. They also found continuing business model dependence on fossil fuels, with no evidence to suggest any entering of the renewables market at a scale that would indicate a shift away from fossil fuels. They conclude that the transition to clean energy business models is not happening and that no company studied is on the way to a clean energy transition (Li et al., 2022). The study notes that green discourse and pledges alleviate pressure from society, generate a positive image for the company, and prolong the social license operate (Li et al., 2022).
Currently, Fossil Fuel companies are leveraging themselves to profit from the very destruction they caused, while also depicting themselves as the solution to the problem. The Inflation Reduction Act increased government subsidies for the carbon capture industry significantly (Garza, 2022).
A recent UN report found that the world’s fossil fuel producers are planning huge expansion of fossil fuels, leading to an increase in global coal production until 2030, and global oil and gas production until at least 2050 (SEI et al., 2023).
Oil and gas majors are planning and starting to execute projects to expand global oil and gas production that will result in the surpassing of the world’s climate budget (Carrington and Taylor, 2022).
Racism and Public Health
The greenhouse gas emissions that are the driving cause of climate change are only one section of the harm caused by fossil fuels. Every stage of the fossil fuel life cycle creates air and water pollution (Donaghy et al., 2023). In the United States, the public health hazards from the pollution, and the impacts of the climate crisis disproportionately fall onto Black, Brown, Indigenous, and low-income communities (Donaghy et al., 2023). The creation of the fossil fuel economy was built off violence, genocide, and colonialism (Donaghy et al., 2023).
Colonialism was identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a driver of why “vulnerability of ecosystems and people to climate change differs substantially among and within regions” (IPCC, 2022).
The development of the fossil fuel economy has led to the creation of “sacrifice zones,” or sites of concentrated harm (Donaghy et al., 2023). In the US, the locations of “sacrifice zones” are directly related to historic racism (Donaghy et al., 2023).
Close proximity to oil and gas activity has been connected to increased mortality rates, respiratory illnesses and respiratory-related hospitalization, elevated cancer risks, adverse birth outcomes, and cardiovascular disease (Donaghy et al., 2023). Air pollution from fossil fuels was found to be responsible for about 1 in 5 deaths worldwide and 355,000 premature deaths in the US in 2018 (Vohra et al., 2021). In the US, Black, Asian, Hispanic or Latino, and low-income populations are disproportionately impacted and burdened by air pollution (Jbaily et al., 2022). In the same way the Fossil Fuel Industry knew about climate change and lobbied against emissions reductions, they also knew exactly how serious the impacts of fossil fuel usage are to human health and the environment and chose to spend decades lobbying against clean air regulations (Milman, 2021).
Indigenous peoples’ lives and livelihoods have been threatened for a very long time, and climate change exacerbates and amplifies that threat. Indigenous peoples contribute the least to greenhouse gas emissions, and yet, remain some of the demographics most threatened by climate change (United Nations, n.d.). Even when not being threatened by climate change directly, Indigenous cultures, lands, and rights are being continually eroded by the expansion of the Fossil Fuel Industry through the construction of fossil fuel pipelines through Indigenous lands. These pipelines, which include the Dakota Access Pipeline (Pevar, 2017), the Willow Project (Farah, 2023), the Keystone XL Pipeline (Presnall, 2021), the Line 3 Pipeline (Regan, 2021), and the Pacific Northwest’s own Trans-Mountain Pipeline (Coletta, 2019), not only disrupt Indigenous sovereignty, but increase the risk of environmental and health risks on overburdened communities through pollution, explosion risks, spills, and land destruction. Yet, the Fossil Fuel Industry continues to pursue profits rather than respect human rights and are contributing directly to cultural genocide.
Human wellbeing and the vitality of ecosystems are interconnected (Polishchuk and Rauschmayer, 2012) and biodiversity supports ecosystem services that are critical for human life (Sandifer et al., 2015). Around the world, ecosystems “have been systematically degraded due to human-induced stresses” (Hernández-Blanco et al., 2022). The mining and drilling, transport and refining, and disposal of waste byproducts of the three main forms of fossil fuels (coal, petroleum, and natural gas) create negative environmental impacts and damage ecosystems (Karunathilake and Witharana, 2023).
Indigenous Peoples stewardship is critical for biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation (Kennedy et al., 2023). Additionally, Indigenous communities all over the world have knowledge systems and philosophies that are essential to climate solutions and survival (United Nations, n.d.). Therefore, threatening and harming indigenous communities and the lives of indigenous peoples is not just a massive injustice, it is also a threat to the lives and health of everyone on Earth. The endangerment of the environment and of Indigenous lives by the Fossil Fuel Industry threatens the health and safety of all people, directly or indirectly.
The Fossil Fuel Industry has endangered public health, destroyed the environment, contributed to and benefited from racism and classism, and committed undeniable harm to human lives. They are responsible for serious environmental harm and pollution–and have intentionally meddled with governments in order to avoid regulation that might restrict their ability to pollute.
Conclusion
The Fossil Fuel Industry has actively and intentionally prevented climate action for decades while knowing their actions would result in death and damage to nature and people. The choices made by executives of the Fossil Fuel Industry have threatened billions of lives, and many climate impacts are now unavoidable and irreversible. To limit these impacts and to secure a livable future for all, deep and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions this decade are required (IPCC, 2023). Members of the Fossil Fuel industry are continuing to prevent emissions reductions and intervene in climate action, and many are taking steps to increase emissions dramatically. By doing so, they will increase the severity and speed of climate disaster. A livable future is possible, but every decision made now counts.
We, the members of Institutional Climate Action, are formally demanding that the University of Washington (UW) cut all ties with the Fossil Fuel Industry very publicly and loudly by the beginning of June 2024.
We demand that the University of Washington refuse fossil fuel money, stop building fossil fuel infrastructure, transition away from fossil fuel use, and stop promoting fossil fuels.
● By “refuse fossil fuel money,” UW will stop taking funding from fossil fuel companies for research or otherwise. UW will also become transparent with all funding in order to retain its status as a credible institution.
● By “stop building,” UW will end new fossil fuel infrastructure on campus.
● By “transition away from fossil fuel use,” existing fossil fuel infrastructure will be phased out (UW Purchasing & Operations will be decarbonized).
● By “stop promoting,” the UW will eliminate promotional advertising and end career fairs or other events which promote and funnel prospective employees into the Fossil Fuel Industry. The Fossil Fuel Industry will not be able to post job listings on handshake, nor attend career center events.
We are angry about the greed that has caused the climate crisis. We are angry, not just that the leaders of the Fossil Fuel Industry made the choice to harm, but that they ever reached a position of power where they were given that choice.
We are angry that we have been continually taught by public relation firms and the media that excessive consumerism will make us happy and give us great lives, when the same consumerism is driving the collapse of ecosystems and killing people.
We do not want endless wealth and infinite power–we want the right to sustainable and equitable access to food, water, and clean air, and we want everyone else on Earth, present and future, to have that right as well.
We are tired of violence, aggression, and a willingness to exploit or kill others being regarded as powerful–we believe it is the very opposite.
We are grieving for ecosystems, ecological features, species, lives, languages, and cultures that have been lost and will be lost due to climate change, unsustainable development, exploitation, ignorance, and greed.
We are angry that communities of color have been disproportionately affected by fossil fuel pollution and considered “sacrificable,” and now will disproportionately bear the worst climate impacts.
We also recognize that climate change is not the first existential threat that people on Earth have faced. We are angry that communities of color, and especially Black and Indigenous communities, have had to learn to survive continuous existential threats. We are strongly advocating for action by the University of Washington that addresses and reparates systemic racism and racialized violence and harm.
We are advocating for action taken by the University of Washington that recognizes, benefits, and uplifts marginalized voices, especially Black and Indigenous voices. Many communities that have been forced to face continuous existential threats have developed systems and traditions of resilience. A threat to these communities and their knowledge is a threat to all communities.
We are advocating that the University of Washington, as the landowner of over 7,400 acres as of 2013 (Stiles, 2013), restitute a portion of that land to the Tribes in which UW sits on their traditional territory, this includes the Muckleshoot, Tulalip, Suquamish, and Duwamish Tribes.
We are advocating that the University of Washington invests 2.5% of endowments into equitable climate solutions.
We are advocating for greater physical accessibility on campus in conjunction with decarbonization.
We are advocating for the adoption of a “sustainability credit requirement” school wide.
We recognize that what we are asking for is not without consequences. We are advocating that to offset some of the harm that may come from the banning of fossil fuels, the University of Washington creates scholarships for blue-collar Americans who have previously worked/currently work in fossil fuels and would like to learn a new trade in order to leave the industry and to aid in their own community’s adaptation to climate change. We know that many people who work in jobs that allow for fossil fuel executives to continue their business are doing it because they do not have another choice.
We demand a better world for everyone.
(Esso Standard Oil Company (New Jersey) Print Ad, 1971)
References
API. 1998 american petroleum institute global climate science communications team action plan. (1998, April 3). Climate Files.
Banerjee, N., Cushman Jr., J.H., Hasemyer, D., Song, L., Horn, P., Sassoon, D. (2015). Exxon: The road not taken. InsideClimate News.
Brulle, R. J. (2018). The climate lobby: A sectoral analysis of lobbying spending on climate change in the USA, 2000 to 2016. Climatic Change, 149(3–4), 289–303.
Brulle, R. J. (2022). Advocating inaction: A historical analysis of the Global Climate Coalition. Environmental Politics, 32(2), 185–206.
Burga, S. (2022, August 8). What you need to know about the inflation reduction act. Time.
Carrington, D., & Taylor, M. (2022, May 11). Revealed: The “carbon bombs” set to trigger catastrophic climate breakdown. The Guardian.
Chapatta, B., Maloney, T., Witzig, J., Mak, P. Y., & Heathcoate, A. (Eds.). (n.d.). Bloomberg Billionaires Index. Bloomberg.com.
Climate Files. (2018, December 14). 1965 API President “Meeting the Challenges of 1966.”
Coletta, A. (2019, September 15). An oil pipeline expansion is dividing Canada’s Indigenous Peoples. The Washington Post.
Conway, K., & Robertson, M. E. (2021). Oil as solution to the problems of oil. The american petroleum institution and the petromodern paradox Environmental Humanities, 13(1), 45–65.
Donaghy, T. Q., Healy, N., Jiang, C. Y., & Battle, C. P. (2023). Fossil fuel racism in the United States: How phasing out coal, oil, and gas can protect communities. Energy Research & Social Science, 100, 103104.
Fabbri, A., Lai, A., Grundy, Q., & Bero, L. A. (2018). The Influence of Industry Sponsorship on the Research Agenda: A Scoping Review. American journal of public health, 108(11), e9–e16.
Farah, N. H. (2023, March 15). Environmental and indigenous groups sue over Willow Oil-Drilling Project. Scientific American.
Flavelle, C., & Tate, J. (2022, March 27). How Joe Manchin aided coal, and earned millions. The New York Times.
Franta, B. (2018). Early oil industry knowledge of CO2 and global warming. Nature Climate Change, 8(12), 1024–1025.
Franta, B. (2022). Weaponizing economics: Big Oil, economic consultants, and climate policy delay. Environmental Politics, 31(4), 555–575.
Friedman, R. S., & Campbell, D. S. (2023). An experimental study of the impact of greenwashing on attitudes toward fossil fuel corporations’ sustainability initiatives. Environmental Communication, 17(5), 486–501.
Garza, A. de la. (2022, August 11). The inflation reduction act is a carbon capture Bonanza. Time. https://time.com/6205570/inflation-reduction-act-carbon-capture/
Gilchrist, C., & Kaufman, C. (2022, October 6). Princeton activists just won a historic victory for climate research. The Nation.
Goldberg, M. H., Marlon, J. R., Wang, X., Van Der Linden, S., & Leiserowitz, A. (2020). Oil and gas companies invest in legislators that vote against the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(10), 5111–5112.
Hirst, D. (2020, June 24). The history of Global Climate Change Negotiations. UK Parliament.
ICE (1991, May 1). 1991 information council for the environment climate denial ad campaign. Climate Files.
IPCC. (n.d.). History of the IPCC.
IPCC, 2022: Summary for Policymakers [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, M. Tignor, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3-33, doi:10.1017/9781009325844.001.
IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 35-115, doi: 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647
Jbaily, A., Zhou, X., Liu, J. et al. Air pollution exposure disparities across US population and income groups. Nature 601, 228–233 (2022).
Karunathilake, H., & Witharana, S. (2023). Fossil fuels and global energy economics. In Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences (p. B9780323939409000505). Elsevier.
Kennedy, C. M., Fariss, B., Oakleaf, J. R., Garnett, S. T., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Fa, J. E., Baruch-Mordo, S., & Kiesecker, J. (2023). Indigenous Peoples’ lands are threatened by industrial development; conversion risk assessment reveals need to support Indigenous stewardship. One Earth, 6(8), 1032–1049.
Kizer, K. W., Perera, F. P., & Nadeau, K. C. (2022). Health implications of the west virginia v environmental protection agency us supreme court decision. The Lancet Planetary Health, 6(11), e847–e848.
Kluger, J. (2023, December 5). There are more fossil fuel lobbyists than ever at COP28. Time.
Lamb, W., Mattioli, G., Levi, S., Roberts, J., Capstick, S., Creutzig, F., Steinberger, J. (2020). Discourses of climate delay. Global Sustainability, 3, E17. doi:10.1017/sus.2020.13
Lerner, S. (2022, June 30). How charles koch purchased the supreme court’s epa decision. The Intercept.
Levine, J., & Franco, I. (2023, October 9). Columbia has received funding from fossil fuel companies for decades. That money keeps flowing. Columbia Daily Spectator.
Li, M., Trencher, G., & Asuka, J. (2022). The clean energy claims of BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell: A mismatch between discourse, actions and investments. PLOS ONE, 17(2), e0263596.
Michaelson, R. (2022, November 10). ‘Explosion’ in number of fossil fuel lobbyists at Cop27 climate summit. The Guardian.
Milman, O. (2021, March 18). Oil firms knew decades ago fossil fuels posed grave health risks, files reveal. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/18/oil-industry-fossil-fuels-air-pollution-documents
Milman, O. (2022, August 2). Biden’s climate agenda faces yet another obstacle: Kyrsten Sinema. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/02/biden-agenda-climate-kyrsten-sinema
Milman, O. (2023, March 27). Exxon in the classroom: How big oil money influences US universities. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/mar/27/fossil-fuel-firms-us-universities-colonize-academia
Noor, D. (2023, August 4). Harvard environmental law professor resigns from ConocoPhillips after months of scrutiny. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/04/harvard-professor-resigns-conocophillips-board
Pevar, S. (2017, January 25). President Trump says the Dakota Access Pipeline “serves the National Interest,” yet it threatens Indian rights and the drinking water of 18 million people: ACLU. American Civil Liberties Union.
Polishchuk, Y., & Rauschmayer, F. (2012). Beyond “benefits”? Looking at ecosystem services through the capability approach. Ecological Economics, 81, 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.06.010
President’s Science Advisory Committee Environmental Pollution Panel. (1965). (rep.). Restoring the Quality of Our Environment. Washington, DC: The White House. Retrieved 2023.
Presnall, A. A. (2021, February 15). The Keystone XL Pipeline and America’s history of indigenous suppression. UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog.
Regan, S. (2021, February 19). “it’s cultural genocide”: Inside the fight to stop a pipeline on Tribal Lands. The Guardian.
Sandifer, P. A., Sutton-Grier, A. E., & Ward, B. P. (2015). Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosystem Services, 12, 1–15.
SEI, Climate Analytics, E3G, IISD, and UNEP. (2023). The Production Gap: Phasing down or phasing up? Top fossil fuel producers plan even more extraction despite climate promises. Stockholm Environment Institute, Climate Analytics, E3G, International Institute for Sustainable Development and United Nations Environment Programme.
Shabecoff, P. (1998, June 24). Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate. The New York Times.
Staub, M. E. (2023). Snake oil and gaslight. Environmental Humanities, 15(2), 85–104.
Stiles, M. (2013, November 22). University of Washington’s land in Anchorage, Eatonville and beyond. Puget Sound Business Journal.
Stone, P. (2022, February 1). Kyrsten Sinema courted Republican fossil fuel donors with filibuster stance. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/feb/01/kyrsten-sinema-courted-republican-fossil-fuel-donors-filibuster-stance
Supran, G., & Franta, B. (2017, March 13). The fossil fuel industry’s invisible colonization of academia. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/mar/13/the-fossil-fuel-industrys-invisible-colonization-of-academia
Supran, G., & Oreskes, N. (2017). Assessing ExxonMobil’s climate change communications (1977–2014). Environmental Research Letters, 12(8), 084019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f
Supran, G., & Oreskes, N. (2021). Rhetoric and frame analysis of ExxonMobil’s climate change communications. One Earth, 4(5), 696–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.04.014
Supran, G., Rahmstorf, S., & Oreskes, N. (2023). Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections. Science, 379(6628), eabk0063. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abk0063
Thacker, P. D. (2022). Stealing from the tobacco playbook, fossil fuel companies pour money into elite American universities. BMJ, o2095.
United Nations. (n.d.). Climate change for indigenous peoples. United Nations. https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/climate-change.html
United States Department of State; Brill, Ken; Mills, John L; Global Climate Coalition; GCC; Kelly, Glenn. [Memorandum from Ken Brill to Dobriansky Regarding Meeting with Members of the Global Climate Coalition, June 21, 2001]. 2001 June 20. Climate Investigations Center Collection. Climate Investigations Center.
Vohra, K., Vodonos, A., Schwartz, J., Marais, E. A., Sulprizio, M. P., & Mickley, L. J. (2021). Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem. Environmental Research, 195, 110754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.110754
Wald, M. L. (1991, July 8). Pro-coal ad campaign disputes warming idea. The New York Times.
West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (The Supreme Court of the United States June 30, 2022).
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ··· in the right corner or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.