Back-to-School Special: Critical Thinking Toolkit (Part I)
Aug 31st, 2023
It’s that time of year again!
If you are a student, happy registration!
As we enter the new academic year, we encourage you to talk with peers, mentors, and students about fossil funding. If this was forwarded to you, you can sign up for our twice-a-month newsletters here. You can access an archive of our past newsletters here.
To students: remember, your professors do not know everything. They are trying their best, but they are human and they have their blind spots.
It can be scary and uncomfortable to challenge a mentor or teacher. We hope to make this task slightly easier by giving you some tools. To that end, we are sharing common “oily perspectives” common at Stanford and sharing and debunking the most common pro-fossil-funding talking points we have heard, so you are prepared to have respectful, challenging, and potentially transformative conversations with peers and mentors.
As you prepare for the schoolyear, know how to identify oily thinking in yourself and others!
Because of successful efforts by oil and gas companies, many of us at Stanford have come to view climate and sustainability at least partially from the perspective of oil and gas companies. We call this “oily thinking.”
Common Manifestations of Oily Thinking
1) Believing that our energy system is dependent on fossil fuels
Example from Natural Gas Initiative Report: “Nigeria and Ghana have both seen gas demand growth fall short of projections, and both are working to diversify their end uses of gas. A common pitfall in gas development is overreliance on the power sector as a source of demand.” Seeing lower-than-expected demand for gas as a “pitfall” is a sign of oily thinking.
2) Framing problems in narrow terms assuming the energy system will remain mostly unchanged. Framing regulations as passive forces to which one must adapt.
Example from intro to Stanford-led, peer-reviewed paper partially funded by BASF, which earned a “D” grade from InfluenceMap due to its anti-climate lobbying, and by Saudi Aramco: “The adverse effects of incomplete hydrocarbon combustion and tighter environmental regulations dictate the need for more efficient combustion catalysts in automobile exhausts.” Oily thinking assumes it is all about fossil fuels and frames reducing emissions as necessary because of regulation, not because it saves lives. A clean energy perspective would be, for example, "The adverse effects of incomplete hydrocarbon combustion, which include millions of premature deaths due to air pollution, dictate the need to rapidly phase out fossil fuels in automobiles."
3) Being unaware of or dismissive of current trends in renewables deployment and prices, electrification, and changes in mobility patterns.
Example: “You see a lot of Teslas around here, sure, but what about the rest of the world? For things to scale, they must be applicable beyond the wealthy Silicon Valley bubble. Be reasonable.” A good follow-up question if this sign is encountered: “What was the global-average battery-electric and plugin hybrid vehicle marketshare in June 2023? (Answer: 19%)” “What was it in 2020? (Answer: 5%)”
4) Framing emissions reductions in terms of sacrifice, especially when it comes to the Global South. Gesturing at "rationality” and “moderation.”
Example from an episode of the Shell-sponsored podcast “The Rational Middle,” which also featured Doerr School Dean Arun Majumdar: “The challenge globally right now is how do we balance this need for development and higher incomes and higher energy use with a greener world?” Some good follow-ups if this sign is encountered:
“Name the countries in which renewables are not cheaper than fossil fuels, excluding subsidies for renewables and including subsidies for fossil fuels (Answer, according to Bloomberg NEF: S Korea, Indonesia, Russia, Ghana, Togo)”
“What percentage of Vietnam’s electricity comes from distributed solar today? (Answer: 11%). And in 2018? (Answer: Essentially zero)”
Are you ready to talk about fossil fuel funding with peers and mentors? Here are common pro-fossil-funding arguments you may hear:
You may hear:
“We need the vast resources of fossil fuel companies to match the magnitude of the climate problem.”
The facts: We don’t need them.
The energy transition would be aided by true collaboration with fossil fuel companies. However, these companies have lied about climate science and about their sustainability ambitions and fought climate progress at every turn.
We can rapidly decarbonize without their help (for instance, 8 of the 10 largest renewable energy companies in the world have no connection to fossil fuels). Fossil fuel companies can help by backing pro-climate legislation and investing in renewables.
You may hear:
“It is wrong to paint the entire fossil fuel industry with a single brush. For instance, BP just invested in electrical vehicle charging infrastructure.”
The facts: None of them are anywhere near the right track.
As fossil fuel companies reap trillions in profits from fossil fuels, they invest a tiny fraction of this money into renewable energy and electrification. This buys them positive publicity.
You may hear:
“Fossil fuels are currently necessary for society, but tobacco is not. Thus arguments making parallels with tobacco funding of public health research do not apply. [Argument also made regarding coal vs. oil & gas].”
The facts: They are sowing disinformation, like the tobacco companies.
The tobacco industry sowed doubt and confusion about the link between cancer and smoking by funding academic research, successfully delaying regulation. Fossil fuel companies are copying their playbook. The techniques are the same, even though the products are different.
You may hear:
“I take fossil fuel money to do climate research. My work has never been impacted by my funders. I’ve always pushed back on them if they questioned my results. How dare you suggest I’m being manipulated?”
The facts: They influence research.
Peer-reviewed meta-analyses of many studies have concluded that industry funding influences the outcomes of individual studies and can shift the overall research agenda even if researchers believe they are being objective. For instance, fossil-funded research centers (such as at Stanford) were found to be systematically more favorable to gas than independent centers.
You may hear:
“By partnering with fossil fuel companies, Stanford researchers have a seat at the decision-making table and can help companies change their business models.”
The facts: University partnerships haven’t changed them.
After decades of collaboration with Stanford and other universities, oil and gas companies continue to obstruct climate progress and sink the lion’s share of profits into oil and gas development and stock buybacks.
You may hear:
“We will be using fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, so in the meantime we should research how to use them more cleanly and more efficiently.”
The facts: A fossil-free future is necessary and almost fully possible with today’s technology.
To avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change, we must rapidly cut greenhouse gas emissions, at least in half by 2030 and to zero in 2050. We have the technology to do almost all of this today.
