A New, Greener Leaf for MIT Committees on Climate?
An Open Letter to Prof. Richard Lester and the Ad Hoc Committee on Climate-Related Industry Engagements
On Friday, September 13th, 2024, Professor Richard Lester announced the formation of the Ad Hoc Committee on Climate-Related Industry Engagements, charged with examining the question of whether or not President Kornbluth’s new Climate Project – an initiative to address the challenges of climate change—should accept funding from the fossil fuel (FF) industry. The Committee will deliver recommendations on this question by next summer.
This is not the first time MIT has appointed a committee to review FF divestment. Nearly 10 years ago, the 2015 Committee on the MIT Climate Change Conversation, consisting of faculty, students, and staff, delivered recommendations on divestment. In its report, the committee shared that it “rejected the idea of a blanket divestment from all FF companies.” It did, however, express “support by a (three‑quarter) majority of the committee for targeted divestment from companies whose operations are heavily focused on the exploration for and/or extraction of the fossil fuels that are least compatible with mitigating climate change.” Further, the committee agreed that “MIT should exercise more ethical oversight of its investments and do so in a transparent and community-backed manner,” citing divestment of particular businesses as a potential outcome of this practice.
In 2020, MIT convened the Ad Hoc Faculty Committee on Guidelines for Outside Engagement. In their Tools for “Focus and Counsel”, the committee identified organizations whose policies result in “gross violations of political, civil, or human rights” as posing a red light for engagement. Additionally, organizations whose partnership could “damage MIT’s reputation for excellence in research and teaching” pose a yellow light for engagement under these guidelines.
Disappointingly, MIT has failed to address the concerns raised by these past committees. The Institute remains deeply tied to the FF industry, with noteworthy channels including investment of the endowment and engagement through departments, labs, and offices on campus. The MIT Investment Company’s ESG framework remains a lukewarm statement on their inability to control which securities they are invested in, indicating no evidence of “transparent and community-backed” oversight of investments. Funding ties between Institute research centers and the FF industry exemplify a disregard for the devastating destruction of homelands and political strife coupled to human rights violations—to give only a couple of examples—spawned by the industry’s practices, a clear red light for engagement.
There is also ample evidence demonstrating that FF funding compromises research integrity on energy and climate, with ramifications on MIT and the world at large that cannot be overlooked. A 2022 Nature study conducted a semantic analysis of reports from energy research centers and found that fossil-funded universities were significantly more favorable towards natural gas than those without fossil funding. The MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) had the most favorable views towards natural gas of all the groups studied, including the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), Columbia’s Center on Global Energy Policy, and even the American Gas Foundation, a natural gas special interest group. More broadly, a 2024 literature review highlights the danger of FF funding of university research due to its legacy of producing biased research and conflicts of interest as well as a widespread lack of transparency on the extent of funding ties.
A notable example of this influence at work involves MITEI’s “The Future of Natural Gas” report from 2011. The report made unbacked, pro-industry claims that supported natural gas extraction, characterizing environmental impacts as “challenging but manageable” without evidence. There were also numerous undisclosed conflicts of interest among co-authors of the report, including Ernest Moniz’s seats on boards of oil and gas consulting and investment firms and Anthony Meggs’ former role as a BP executive. This report was the central focus of a congressional hearing presented by Moniz in 2011, which went on to influence the Obama administration’s energy policy on long-term natural gas infrastructure in 2012. Given the far-reaching policy impacts of energy research—especially at MIT—it is imperative that this research is held to a high standard of integrity.
In his announcement of the ad hoc committee, Prof. Lester portrays the question of FF funding in the Climate Project as uncertain. However, the campus community has repeatedly made it clear that they overwhelmingly support no fossil fuel funding in the Climate Project. An open letter written by MIT Divest urging against FF industry influence in the Climate Project has received over 520 signatures from students, faculty, and community members as well as an endorsement by the Cambridge City Council. A similar resolution urging the rejection of FF influence in the Climate Project was adopted by the MIT Graduate Student Union on September 24th, 2024, with 78.7% of voters responding in favor.
In light of this history, we make two key asks of Prof. Lester regarding the ad hoc committee. First, the committee’s recommendations must be binding on the industry engagements pursued via the Climate Project. Since MIT has failed to heed the recommendations of similar committees in the past, it is essential that the ad hoc committee and campus community at large hold MIT accountable for this decision. Otherwise, the committee serves as a device to feign ethical decision-making while the initiatives pursued through the Project remain vulnerable to bad-faith actors willing to pay top dollar to realize their agendas. As we know all too well, MIT can ignore committees that only deliver recommendations. If the Climate Project intends to finally provide due scrutiny to fossil fuel industry engagements in research, then the committee must hold power commensurate with this question.
Second, the committee meetings must openly invite the MIT community into dialogue by publicizing meeting proceedings. This should be paired with regular forums for the MIT community to provide comment on the committee’s findings. The only way to foster productive, honest, and transparent discussion on the question of FF industry relations is by engaging our community at large. A question of this magnitude requires the attention and consideration of our community, so we must invite diverse input to best inform these key decisions.
MIT Divest urges Prof. Lester and the MIT administration to avoid repeating past mistakes and ensure that the Climate Project can effectively respond to the increasingly urgent climate crisis.
MIT Divest is an environmental justice group on campus that advocates for cutting institutional ties to the fossil fuel industry. Members of Divest are brought together by a desire to have a tangible impact on mitigating the global climate crisis.