When the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was established in the 1990s, negotiators focused on greenhouse gas emissions, or GHGs. They discussed mitigation actions; ways to reduce GHGs. The landmark Kyoto Protocol of 1997 (at COP 3) emphasized mitigation, with commitments from developed countries to reduce their production of and reliance on fossil fuels. The 2015 Paris Agreement set the goal of a global temperature rise of no more than 1.5 degrees centigrade by 2050. This goal would be achieved only if developed countries - the major GHG emitters - transitioned significantly to renewable energy sources. This has not happened. Countries are expanding their use of renewables but not fast enough th meet the 1.5 degree goal. Consequently, negotiators now devote considerable time to discussing adaptation - how to deal with a warming world and its consequencxes, such as wildfires, drought, intense hurricanes and typhoons... These articles relate to the imp...
I think this article really highlights the ability for people to maintain friendships while also engaging in civil discourse, as while we might not be able to fully understand the perspective of of another we should be able to see the benefit of having different perspectives and the benefits to our policies that these give. Overall, I understand the perspective of both of the friends, for one I will always be reasonably skeptical of fossil fuel companies and their "altruism" towards climate solutions, for I know that their main goal is good public relations and profits. On the other hand I understand the sentiment that one might as well take the money from the fossil fuel industry as long as it does not compromise their research, as they money would go to more nefarious causes otherwise. Overall, I see it as a balance between the will of the fossil fuel industry and the researchers.
ReplyDeleteThe statement that stuck with me the most from the article is "Should universities accept climate funding from the very companies whose products are heating up the planet?" I think its an ignorant motion to think that we can afford to deny help on fighting problems as gargantuan such as the climate crises, especially from fossil fuel companies. Most steps toward a less wasteful have been taken by companies with profits in mind as not taking those steps would result in boycotts by their consumers. If steps made by Shell and Exon, even while motivated by profit, are steps in the right direction then they should be treated as such. Mr. Kashtan brings up good points with Exons electrofuels programs being red hearings and that not all progress is necessarily good or even relevant with current problems.
ReplyDeleteBesides that, I find it admirable that both Rebecca Grekin and Yannai Kashtan remain friends even when sharing disagreements in their work and studies. I think its an attribute that more should adapt to.
This article really makes us think whether climate change research should be funded by oil companies. I think I am on the side that it is okay. The researchers just need to make sure that the funding does not compromise the integrity of the research. Ultimately, the priority should be on advancing our understanding of climate change and developing solutions to mitigate its impact, regardless of the funding source. I also agree with what she said in the article, that each dollar spent on helpful research is one dollar not spent on making new oil drills.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that we should be accepting help to fight climate change from wherever possible, and if that's fossil fuel companies then that's fine. I think the attitude that we can't work with people that disagree with us contributes to unnecessary polarization and doesn't help us advance our issue at all, which seems to be what this article is getting at when talking about how Rebecca and Yannai can be friends even though they disagree on some important topics.
DeleteThis article showcases two interesting points of view on research funding from oil companies. On one side, oil companies are mainly trying to profit. Their profit comes from fossil fuel, so they have an established interest in non-sustainable fuel. This is a point of conflict for some researchers. On the other side, these companies have funds and can be encouraged to use those funds in constructive ways to further sustainability. I've often seen companies like Exxon held up as opponents of progress in the realm of climate change policy, so it's interesting to see them as possible aids in research. I think the idea of using money from oil companies to fund climate research seems like a nice way to lessen the separation between oil companies and climate change advocates, leading to more resources and more potential for progress. I'm interested to see what changes can be made from 'inside' the companies.
ReplyDeleteThis article was really interesting. The issue that stuck out to me the most was whether or not climate change research should be funded by oil companies. I think that honestly, fossil fuel companies are doing so much damage to the environment that helping fund some research would be a really good change. However, it is extremely important that the research isn't done in a biased way. If a fossil fuel company were to fund research that was meant to say fossil fuels aren't bad for the environment, that would be extremely unethical. I think that as a reader viewing that research, its important to look into the actual study that was performed to make sure you trust it.
ReplyDeleteI think this article highlights how fossil fuel companies can actually be a helpful force in fighting climate change. These fossil fuel companies do not extract fossil fuels for the sole purpose of damaging our planet. By funding climate change research and clean energy research, fossil fuel companies can help. This research can also show these companies how profitable green energy can be. By accepting this funding, researchers have the ability to actually provide a researched reason to fossil fuel companies put money into green energy R&D. I think that this climate crisis is too severe to be turning our noses up based on where funding comes from as long as it doesn't impact the integrity of the research.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article, I am inclined to agree with Yannai Kashtan about the roles that oil corporations play in finding climate solutions. At the end of the day, these are still corporations that have succeeded by exploiting resources to every extent of the law (and occasionally past it), without any moral principles. Profit has and always will come first for these corporations, and right now their best bet is to make themselves look good. The pressure is on these corporations to show that they have some regard for the future of our civilization, and they are doing that by throwing money towards flashy initiatives like e-fuels and hydrogen powered cars. I believe that these corporations deserve to be held accountable for their actions, in a way that forces them to change. When it becomes clear to them that developing sustainable and efficient energy technology is the only way forward, when they are desperate for the innovations and breakthroughs that smart young minds are capable of, then their money should be accepted for funding these scientific explorations.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article, specifically regarding whether schools should accept funding for research from the companies contributing the most to climate change while allowing new findings and resources, I realized that it is taking one step forward and simultaneously taking two steps back. Ms. Grekin makes an essential point that while oil companies such as ExxonMobil funded the research, it is not essentially responsible for her findings. In a perfect world, we would not have to rely on companies like these, which causes researchers to take one step forward and two steps back. However, without this research or research in similar situations, the "open letter" that both Mr. Kashtan and Ms. Grekin signed would not have been able to become a reality. Small progress, such as that of Ms. Grekin and other researchers, allows for an eventual much more significant step, like implementing guidelines when using fossil fuel companies like the Open letter used. Changing things from the inside is a great way to pursue effective change. Although it takes time, which we don't have when referring to the climate crisis, I am conflicted and believe that Mr. Kashtan made some evident points about taking action now. For immediate change to be made, oil corporations must be held accountable.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article, I learned more about climate change that I didn't know, but I also learned and was surprised that with their differences they stay friends. I think that is the true point of the article. I believe that they both made impactful statements of their plans to stop climate change. I think I agree more with Mr. Kashtan, oil cooperations do play a role when finding climate solutions. However, money is always going to come first. So if there is a profit decrease, personally I don't think it would happen. I also agree with Ms. Grekin, putting funding into finding solutions would be great however when cooperate companies see money going down I think they would deny the idea immediately. Here is an article, talking about the benefits of providing money to these big coorperate companies to help stop climate change: https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/sustainability-and-reports/advancing-climate-solutions?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=1ECX_GAD_TRAF_OT_Non-Brand_ACS&utm_content=OT_Non-Brand_ACS&utm_term=climate+change&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw17qvBhBrEiwA1rU9w9m7ZA85T-N06p0liKlFQa2FaizyT78A90a6LDhNQBSO6ntNDm27zBoCdFsQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting how Mr. Kashtan mentioned how certain projects such as e-fuels were "red herrings" to distract from the fact they need to be burning less fossil fuels. This concept of energy being required for everything is a very serious concern, because things like recycling plastics is actually very environmentally unfriendly. Plastics are easy to create and manufacture because the chemical reactions that create them are energetically favorable, meaning it produces energy. In order to undo these reactions, you have to put that energy back in. Very costly, and the same goes for melting plastic to make it into something else.
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing this article. While it's not the main focus of the article, I do believe it warrants attention to where universities get their donations from. There have been numerous examples of other universities besides Stanford that have also received donations towards research from controversial figures to say the least. Is it justifiable to do great and useful research to better the world using ill-gotten money? Should we expect donors to the university to have contributed significantly against climate change? This could be a great discussion in future arguments throughout OSU as well as ASOSU deliberations.
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting hearing about two people who are dedicated to essentially one cause but disagree with the means to achieve their goals. Personally, I feel that funding from fossil fuel companies with regard to climate research is a tricky slope. Due to the fact that there is often an agenda that the companies have with allocating their resources towards research that could possibly hurt their economy, I feel that it could be challenging if that opportunity is offered from one of the companies. If the money is given without any caveats, I think that it is super helpful towards a better future because the companies are a big contributor to climate change, and they make a lot of money.
ReplyDeleteI found this article to be a very interesting read. Grekin and Kashtan’s responses to fight climate change are different and offer interesting insights into how they operate. Grekin believes that working with Exxon Mobile and fighting for change from the inside is the best solution, she also sees the fossil fuel companies as the ones with the power, so she’d rather be at the table than outside of the room. Kashtan sees working with a fossil fuel company as getting his hands dirty and immoral. I can see both perspectives as valid, but overall, I agree with Grekin more as I feel like getting the most change regardless of the means is superior, especially when it is something as grave as climate change. I really like that they remain friends even with their differing perspectives, I think it is something we need more of.
ReplyDelete