06-20-07 by Simpson
More Big Oil Money is greasing the wheels of academe making the nation’s big name universities little more than extension campuses of “Big Oil U.”
Stanford University’s Program on Energy and Sustainable Development is getting a $7.5 million grant over five years from the BP Foundation for research on modern energy markets.
Another energy research program on campus, Stanford’s Global Climate and Energy Project, has a grant for $100 million from ExxonMobil. I’ve been critical of the way that program is controlled by the donors and the way ExxonMobil exploited Stanford’s name to greenwash its image.
We’re worried about companies using ”Big Oil U” to set research agendas and control discoveries. The biggest deal is BP’s $500 million pending proposal at UC Berkeley, which just might end up known as UCBP. UC Davis already has a $25 million arrangement with Chevron.
Maybe the folks in the ivory towers have heard some of the concerns. The news release announcing the gift to the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development makes a point of saying:
“The gift from the BP Foundation, as well as all similar gifts to support the program’s research, includes special provisions that assure the research program’s independence in setting its research agenda.”
It doesn’t list those provisions, but don’t worry. I’ll ask.
The release doesn’t note that that back in April, 2005, in Energy Policy Magazine’s online edition and in October, 2006 in the print version, the program’s director, David Victor, published a laudatory article titled “BP’s emissions trading system.”
Here’s a description of the article:
“The stellar performance of BP’s emission control program has led many observers, inside and outside BP, to ascribe success to the firm’s emissions trading system. As countries and other firms have considered the adoption of trading systems they often point to BP’s pioneering experience as a guiding star. Yet no study has ever explained the operation and impact of BP’s trading system. Which factors truly drove the leaders of BP’s business units to cut emissions? What lessons should be learned from BP’s experience to guide other trading systems? We focus on these questions, drawing heavily on interviews with key corporate policymakers at BP as well as managers in key business units (BUs) that were actually involved in trading.”
The release notes that BP has upped the ante from $1.8 million over three years that was pledged back in 2004 to the new gift of $7.5 million.
Anybody see any connections?