Beyond PR

Big Oil + Big Red Climate Doublespeak: Congressional Report Speaks Directly to Cornell.

An independent report by Cornell on Fire

Summary for Changemakers

This month (May 2024) saw landmark hearings addressing a Congressional Report on the efforts of fossil fuel industry giants to deny climate accountability by “spreading disinformation and perpetuating doublespeak about the safety of natural gas and its commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” This report outlines, point by point, how the Cornell administration’s climate messaging and emissions reporting reproduces key points from the Big Oil disinformation book. Findings underscore that it is time for a course correction: Cornell University must fundamentally realign its emissions reporting, climate action plan commitments, and messaging to take full climate accountability and demonstrate radical climate leadership now.

1. Introduction

This month (May 2024) saw US Senate Committee hearings on Denial, Disinformation, and Doublespeak: Big Oil’s Evolving Efforts to Avoid Accountability for Climate Change, a landmark Congressional Investigation into the decades-long efforts of fossil fuel industry giants to cover up their responsibility for climate change. The report presents internal documents from Big Oil companies showing that their strategy evolved from climate denial “to spreading disinformation and perpetuating doublespeak about the safety of natural gas and its commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” 

It is a critical moment for climate accountability. The fossil fuel industry is coming under fire because of its outsized contribution to carbon emissions. Addressing the climate and ecological crises requires scrutinizing the environmental impact of every industry, including higher education. The report on Big Oil is a reminder that communication is a vital playing field in the battle between claimed climate commitments and actual climate accountability. As universities compete to showcase their sustainability efforts, can we rely on them to take full accountability through their emissions reporting, climate action plans, actions, and messaging?

Unsettlingly, at Cornell University, the answer appears to be no. This report outlines how “Big Red” (Cornell’s informal title) echoes major talking points from the Big Oil disinformation book. Five striking parallels are drawn between Big Oil and Big Red climate emissions reporting, plans, messaging, and actions, based on comparative analysis of the findings from the April 2024 Joint Staff Report Denial, Disinformation, and Doublespeak, Cornell’s own public messaging and internal documents, and Cornell on Fire’s January 2024 report What the climate cares about: The concerning state of Cornell’s Climate Action Plan. With factual precision, we present findings that Cornell University mirrors key doublespeak strategies of the fossil fuel industry.

The findings call for a major course correction: Cornell University must fundamentally realign its emissions reporting, climate action plan commitments, actions, and public messaging to take full climate accountability and demonstrate radical climate leadership now.

2. Analysis of Doublespeak: Point by Point

The Congressional Report’s executive summary of Denial, Disinformation, and Doublespeak highlights key elements of the deception campaign waged by fossil fuel companies. Below, we quote five of those six strategies and analyze how Cornell replicates each one. (The sixth summary point concerning carbon capture technologies is currently outside our area of investigation.) All page numbers cited below refer to the Congressional Report unless otherwise noted.

2.1. Positioning “natural” methane gas as a bridge fuel

The executive summary of the Congressional Report states that Big Oil companies: “Seek to position natural gas as a “bridge fuel” between coal and cleaner, renewable energy.” 

Likewise, Cornell claims that natural gas is a "lower-carbon energy source" and a “bridge fuel” that has enabled them to slash emissions by 50%, putting Cornell well on its way to carbon neutrality. “Natural” methane gas (also called fossil gas) is a fossil fuel extracted from the ground through a process popularly known as “fracking.” Methane is responsible for approximately a third of the global warming we experience today, and methane-targeted mitigation measures are essential to remain within safe habitable limits on earth. For these reasons, methane gas is no longer considered a “bridge fuel” as once hoped. Yet the Sustainable Campus webpage on Campus Energy Systems describes their own campus transition to methane gas as follows:

“When Cornell committed to carbon neutrality in 2007, the campus chose to transition quickly from coal to natural gas, a lower-carbon energy source for campus heat and power.  Cogeneration (the combined heat and power plant) was selected due to the lowest life cycle cost, fuel flexibility, reliability, and greenhouse gas emissions reduction. At the time, the Cornell administration knew that this step would act as a "bridge" to a renewable energy future and committed to a renewable-energy and carbon-neutral future as soon as possible.” 

While Cornell acknowledges the need to provide “fossil-fuel free energy” to campus, their public messaging presents a confusing portrait of their Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Plant, which burns methane gas to power campus and sell electricity to the grid. Cornell’s Sustainability pages present the following descriptions of the CHP plant: “LEED Gold-certified,” one of “the outstanding systems in the district energy industry,” a plant whose “efficiencies have led to a substantial reduction in the carbon dioxide footprint of the campus” (immediately followed by the caveat that “some” of those benefits are counteracted by upstream methane emissions “on the 20-30 year timescale”), and that its efficiencies “even help the environment.” We hear echoes of Big Oil, whose disinformation is highlighted the Congressional Report with statements such as methane gas “is cleaner than other fossil fuels when burnt in power generation or used in industrial processes and offers numerous health, climate and economic benefits" (p. 23). 

It is hard to reconcile Cornell’s glowing portrayal of the CHP Plant with the fact that it is burning climate-change causing methane gas at a rate that emits roughly 400,000 mtCO2e every year (using a GWP 20 year timescale, as of 2019, the most recent pre-Covid emissions data; see Figure 4 in CoF Climate Action Report). For perspective, this figure is 140% larger than 60 days of intense military conflict (generating an estimated 281,000 mtCO2e), a sum that researchers point out is “greater than the annual carbon footprint of more than 20 of the world’s most climate-vulnerable nations.” Cornell proudly boasts the environmental benefits of a CHP Plant whose emissions far exceed that level of carbon pollution with each year of ordinary operations.

When it comes to the CHP plant, Cornell’s public communications strategy could reasonably be compared to Big Oil’s strategy of “highlighting ‘hero projects’ to demonstrate the benefits of gas and offer anecdotal evidence of methane management,” while deflecting attention from the internally-acknowledged brute fact that “gas doesn’t support climate goals when you take methane emissions into account” (pp. 22-23). More appropriate public messaging around Cornell’s CHP plant would broadcast an entirely different set of points: it is burning huge volumes of climate-change causing methane gas; locking us into dangerous levels of global warming on a near-term time horizon; and needs to be phased out as quickly as possible, warranting exceptional measures at exceptional speed that are commensurate with its exceptional climate dangers.

2.2. Claiming emissions reductions from methane gas while internally acknowledging that the lifecycle emissions from gas are as bad as coal

The executive summary of the Congressional Report states that Big Oil companies: “Seek to portray natural gas as a green, climate-friendly fuel, while internally acknowledging that there is significant scientific evidence that the lifecycle emissions from gas are as bad as coal and are incompatible with scientific emissions reduction targets.”

For years, Cornell has insisted upon publicly reporting their emissions in a way that portrays natural gas as a “lower-carbon” option driving huge emissions reductions on campus. Against the sustained advice of their own climate scientists, Cornell’s leadership omits the true scope of natural gas emissions from their Baseline Inventory used to track progress toward carbon neutrality, claiming that “meaningfully accounting for methane is complicated” and tucking those emissions in a separate graph on a separate page. 

Internal documents show that Cornell staff have actively objected to Cornell climate scientists’ recommendations on upstream methane emissions reporting for years, submitting dissenting opinions to the Carbon Neutral Campus Committee to argue against the scientists’ emissions reporting recommendations. (All members of Cornell and the community can submit anonymous reports to Cornell on Fire.) In a 2020 decision, the Cornell Carbon Neutral Campus Committee (CNCC) decided not to report upstream methane emissions in the Baseline Inventory, on the basis that “natural gas produces much less carbon dioxide than coal, per unit of energy produced.” Big Oil’s disinformation to a T – including focusing on carbon dioxide “without acknowledging the environmental effect of methane” (p. 22). Note that the relevant unit of analysis is carbon dioxide equivalent (mtCO2e), which includes methane and other greenhouse gasses.

If Cornell leadership’s misunderstanding were defensible given scientific uncertainty in 2008, when Cornell transitioned from coal to natural gas, it is no longer defensible today. Years of research on alarming natural gas emissions culminated in a recent Nature article confirming that official estimates have underestimated natural gas emissions by a colossal factor of three. If the science were not convincing enough, the 2019 New York State Climate Act also requires methane emissions reporting to include upstream emissions on a global warming potential 20-year timescale. (Ithaca and Tompkins County have already updated their emissions reporting to meet these standards.) Now, the Congressional Report confirms that Big Oil companies know natural gas is as bad as coal but are lying about it – and Cornell is reproducing their lies. 

In meetings with Cornell leadership, Cornell on Fire has raised questions about upstream methane emissions (UME) reporting. One leader said they were “loath to revisit the debate” on upstream methane emissions. Another one of Cornell’s leaders noted in an email: “The UME is of course of interest, but unless there is something new, I worry we've covered this ground before in the CNCC and there appears to be no clear path forward.” Big Oil executives feel similarly. When a cluster of scientific studies came out highlighting large upstream emissions from methane gas in 2019, a BP official shared an internal email with colleagues worrying that “this is an issue that will not go away” (p. 23-24). In fact, there is a clear path forward on this point: Cornell could report the full scope of methane gas emissions on their Baseline Inventory, and revise their narrative of progress towards carbon neutrality accordingly.  That may not make for glossy coverage, but it makes for something much better: uncompromising clarity on the most important question of our time.

Like Big Oil, Cornell presents contradictory stances on methane gas. On the one hand, Cornell leaders appropriately affirm the need to transition away from methane gas and strive to do so with the Earth Source Heat project (see section 2.5). Cornell has never sought to portray natural gas as a “destination fuel” (as some Big Oil companies have attempted). And yet Cornell simultaneously claims (falsely) that transitioning to methane gas has helped to halve campus emissions, extols their Combined Heat and Power Plant as “helping the environment,” and refuses to report the full scope of methane gas emissions on their Baseline Inventory. This is doublespeak. Cornell leaders know that methane gas is perilous. They acknowledge the need to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Why not report Cornell’s emissions accordingly and act with the urgency required, including compliance with the Ithaca Green Building Code’s fossil-fuel phaseout (see section 2.4)? 

2.3. Publicly pledging to support international climate targets, while internally acknowledging that those goals are outside their scope of intended action

The executive summary of the Congressional Report states that Big Oil companies: “Make public pledges to support the Paris Agreement and to achieve net zero emissions while internally recognizing that they could not achieve those goals or referring to them as outside of their business plans.”

Like Big Oil, Cornell publicly projects support for ambitious international climate goals while designing a climate action plan that falls far short of those targets. Additionally, Cornell publicly claims they are “on track for carbon neutrality by 2035” while the numbers show they are not (see Figure 5 in CoF’s Climate Action report). Even if they were, Cornell’s carbon neutrality goals are grossly inadequate (and note that Cornell carefully deploys the phrase “goals” rather than “commitments”). For one, they expressly omit the largest sectors of the campus footprint (including student travel, investments, and procurement). For another, their carbon neutrality goals apply only to the Ithaca campus and exclude campuses like Cornell AgriTech. Furthermore, they make no attempt to reduce emissions in half by 2030 as required by science-based targets for a 1.5 or 2-degree pathway (a target that Columbia University has embraced). 

The scale of Big Oil + Big Red climate inaction is well illustrated by considering the following pair of data points. Point one: even if Chevron met the goals in its "net zero" plan, it would ignore over 90% of its emissions (see Congressional Report, p. 16). Point two: Cornell’s goals for carbon neutrality outlined in their Baseline Inventory ignore 70% of the university’s own reported emissions and an even greater percentage of total emissions including unreported categories, like student travel and investments.

When Cornell on Fire raises these points to Cornell leadership, they say they personally agree with climate goals, but professionally those goals are not feasible. While Cornell publicly declares its intention to “lead by example on campus and exercise climate leadership beyond campus,” its leaders tactfully de-emphasize Big Red’s responsibility in conversations with Cornell on Fire, by pointing to perceived inaction of other universities and society. Evidently, they believe that delay by others legitimizes delay by Cornell. This might sound like a familiar argument, because it is exactly what Big Oil argues. The Congressional Report summarizes the stance of Big Oil companies including Exxon and Chevron as follows: the company “does not see any need to act since it does not believe that the world is on track to meet climate goals” (p. 19). One Exxon official absolved the company of responsibility for action by “writ[ing] off the possibility of the world reaching 2°C” and stating that “[b]oth 2 deg C and 1.5 deg C would require unprecedented changes to the global energy system and economy, at a rate and scale never before demonstrated” (p. 18).

Likewise, it would require unprecedented changes to the campus system and culture for Cornell University to meet international climate goals. But like Big Oil, Cornell has no intention of undertaking exceptional measures to implement systemic changes in line with a 1.5° or 2°C world. That would require a shift in orientation away from harmful and flatly unsustainable practices like constant campus expansion, hyperconsumption, and hypermobility, towards degrowth, reduced energy and resource use, and climate-adapted mobility. None of those changes are on the table at Cornell – to the contrary, they are excluded from Cornell’s tailored goals for carbon neutrality. A comprehensive effort to bring Cornell’s emissions into alignment with international climate goals is “outside their business plan.” Yet Cornell extols international climate goals with such initiatives as the 2030 Project, which is built on the premise that “this is the decade of action” for the world to halve emissions by 2030 (a science-based target that Columbia University pursues). Evidently, Cornell leadership does not consider the 2030 Project relevant to their own carbon footprint.

There is a lack of maturity in Cornell leadership’s stance. They are aware that by perpetuating business as usual, they participate in a likely policy trajectory for catastrophic 3°C warming by 2100. Yet they cannot acknowledge this reality. Instead of calling for urgent and adequate climate action, Cornell continues to boast its green credentials by citing awards such as its self-reported STARS ratings (Sustainability Tracking, Assessment, & Rating System). Cornell’s overall score is “platinum” but they actually receive failing grades on operational measures of greenhouse gas emissions (or what the climate cares about). Cornell President Martha Pollack herself appeared to misinterpret the STARS ratings in her May 9, 2024 announcement of stepping down from the presidency by applauding “our continued progress on operational sustainability, for which we have been awarded a STARS Platinum rating five years in a row.” In fact, operational sustainability measures through STARS are uniformly low. Cornell’s high rating is due to non-operational measures. 

Cornell’s doublespeak in claiming to uphold ambitious climate goals but being unwilling to undertake the actions needed to meet those goals, or to acknowledge that fact, is symptomatic of both Big Oil’s denial and the broader culture of denial popular among those who temporarily benefit from a destructive system: “We miscalculate the gap between where we are at and where we would like to be, and what we would need to relinquish to get there.” (Vanessa Machado de Oliveira, Hospicing Modernity, 2021). This failure to reckon honestly with the scope of the problem and our responsibility to address it has been aptly declared a “planetary accounting emergency.”

2.4. Privately lobbying against pro-climate initiatives they publicly claim to support

The executive summary of the Congressional Report states that Big Oil companies: “Privately lobby—either directly or through their trade associations—against pro-climate legislation and regulations that they publicly claimed to support.” 

While publicly boasting that it is a “living laboratory of sustainability” with “aggressive goals” for building standards, Cornell is quietly fighting Ithaca’s progressive Green Building Code (the Ithaca Energy Code Supplement). Cornell has submitted amendments designed to water down the code and to make themselves exempt from the fossil-fuel phaseout on new construction. Cornell has offered no evidence to show how these amendments would serve climate goals, except to imply that the Earth Source Heat experiment would somehow address all the issues (an experimental project with uncertain success, as noted in section 2.5). Ironically, these amendments to the Green Building Code have been submitted by none other than Cornell’s Sustainability Office. 

At the same time, Cornell submits disinformation in support of massive plans for petroleum-based artificial turf fields, harmful on every level from land use to waste disposal; lobbies for anti-climate policies such as airport expansion; keeps the local private airport in business with private flight traffic; declines to include its students’ travel emissions in their carbon footprint or climate goals; and celebrates fossil fuel dynasties as “generous” intergenerational donors while honoring them with new buildings. Research shows that political representatives who get more money from fossil fuel companies are more likely to fight climate policy – what are we to conclude about elite universities who get more money from fossil fuel donors?

2.5. Publicly promoting innovative low-carbon solutions that are low-confidence and lack adequate investment 

The executive summary of the Congressional Report states that Big Oil companies: “Publicly promoted algae-based biofuels as an innovative low-carbon technology while investing little in its research and development and then cancelling the programs entirely.”

There is a resemblance here with Cornell’s long-promised Earth Source Heat Project (ESH) project designed to heat campus with renewable energy. Cornell publicly promotes Earth Source Heat as a “game-changing” climate solution and uses this as the basis to continue installing new buildings that rely on methane gas for heating. Yet the project is several years delayed and according to Anthony Ingraffea, Professor Emeritus and expert consultant to Earth Source Heat, its chances of success are “at best 50/50.” 

ESH is a worthy experimental project and, if feasible, would offer a powerful climate solution. But it is not a catch-all solution and it should not prevent the rapid phaseout of fossil-fuel use in new construction. Yet Cornell continues to use ESH as a delay tactic to avoid undertaking necessary actions now on other critical fronts (e.g., Green Building Code amendments noted in section 2.4). 


The good news is that, unlike Big Oil, Cornell is investing in Earth Source Heat. Much of the funding for the second experimental phase has come from internal university sources, according to Dr. Ingraffea. On the other hand, much of the infrastructure for the renewable energy transition (which would be necessary with or without ESH) remains to be funded and implemented. Instead of undertaking those renewable-energy transformations, Cornell plans to spend $55 million on a new athletic fieldhouse with artificial turf named after an Oil Baron. (The cost of ESH is estimated by Dr. Ingraffea to cost anywhere from $35-40 million or more.) Will Earth Source Heat be better funded and more successful than Big Oil’s algae – an effort that was supported by Cornell researchers?

2.6. Lack of transparency in data sharing

Finally, the Congressional Report notes that Big Oil engaged in obstruction of the Congressional Investigation. They did not share the data requested and redacted substantial portions of what was shared, among other techniques. Many actors at Cornell have also found it difficult to receive data from Cornell, including data that should be publicly available, despite the fact that Cornell has access to those datasets and should have no reason not to share them. Data sources requested by academics or students (including those with or without involvement in Cornell on Fire) that have so far been ignored or rejected by Cornell staff include the dataset behind the public Baseline Inventory for Greenhouse Gas Emissions; records relating to student travel emissions or private jet emissions; and records relating to methane leaks associated with the Combined Heat and Power Plant (Cornell staff acknowledge that these numbers are tracked, but refuse to share them), among others.

4. Conclusion

There is striking symmetry between Big Oil and Big Red emissions reporting, climate messaging, actions, and plans. Ultimately, the question of why Cornell propagates Big Oil doublespeak is a question for Cornell leadership to answer. Perhaps Cornell is acting in good faith but has been duped by Big Oil. Perhaps Cornell is simply participating in a larger culture of doublespeak endemic among elite universities and other major emitters. 

Of course, there are two sides to every story. Cornell must not take the Big Oil side. What matters now is correcting mistakes and steadfastly orienting the University campus and community, collaboratively and courageously, toward a livable future. Now that Big Oil’s lies are exposed for what they are, Cornell’s leadership must take action.

It is time for a course correction. We ask Cornell to follow the example of the United Nations, Microsoft, Google, Columbia University, Ithaca, Tompkins County, and other institutions who demonstrate key dimensions of climate accountability. (1) Point out that Cornell’s emissions pledges fall far short of what is needed and that current goals embed significant blind spots that must be addressed. (2) Report the full, true scope of campus emissions accurately, in one place (the Baseline Inventory), and point out the alarming fact that Cornell’s emissions have not reduced since tracking began in 2008. (3) Use this honest reporting to rally the whole community around ambitious, comprehensive climate goals in line with science-based targets, and collectively spark systemic transformation in the ways we use and demand energy and resources in line with restoring relationship with earth. (4) Implement powerful policies to meet those goals and consistently track progress towards them, foregrounding leadership from climate justice communities. (5) Stop lobbying for anti-climate policies like airport expansion, artificial turf, or Ithaca Green Building code exemptions. 

This month’s Senate Budget Committee’s hearing on Big Oil’s disinformation and doublespeak brings us one step closer to holding Big Oil accountable. Cornell University must also hold itself accountable for propagating Big Oil’s doublespeak, and use this moment of reckoning to pivot towards uncompromising clarity and action on its own promise that “Cornell is uniquely positioned to operate at the speed, scale, and scope needed to confront climate change." 

Exactly.



This report was published May 25, 2024, on the date of Cornell’s 156th commencement. Final copy May 28, 2024.

TAKE ACTION ON THIS REPORT

Tell Cornell you want it to do better.