Methane is 28 to 86 times more potent as a driver of global warming than CO2. Global methane concentrations have increased at an accelerating rate since 2004, yet the role of fossil fuels and revitalized natural gas extraction and distribution in accelerating methane concentrations is poorly recognized. Here we examine the policy positioning of university-based energy centres towards natural gas, given their growing influence on climate discourse. We conducted sentiment analysis using a lexicon- and rule-based sentiment scoring tool on 1,168,194 sentences in 1,706 reports from 26 universities, some of which receive their primary funding from the natural gas industry. We found that fossil-funded centres are more favourable in their reports towards natural gas than towards renewable energy, and tweets are more favourable when they mention funders by name. Centres less dependent on fossil funding show a reversed pattern with more neutral sentiment towards gas, and favour solar and hydro power.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
All datasets generated during and/or analysed during the study are available in the openICPSR repository, DOI:openicpsr-14944134.
The code used to generate all figures and tables is available in the openICPSR repository, DOI:openicpsr-14944134.
Global Assessment: Urgent Steps Must Be Taken to Reduce Methane Emissions this Decade (United Nations, May 2021); https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/global-assessment-urgent-steps-must-be-taken-reduce-methane
Global Methane Assessment: Benefits and Costs of Mitigating Methane Emissions (United Nations Environment Programme and Climate and Clean Air Coalition, 2021); https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/35917/GMA_ES.pdf
Jackson, R. B. et al. Increasing anthropogenic methane emissions arise equally from agricultural and fossil fuel sources. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 071002 (2020).
Tricks, H. The future of oil. The Economist https://www.economist.com/special-report/2016/11/24/the-future-of-oil (24 November 2016).
The Future of Natural Gas MIT Multidisciplinary Report (MIT Energy Initiative, 2011). https://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/MITEI-The-Future-of-Natural-Gas.pdf
Bordoff, J. & Houser, T. Navigating the U.S. Oil Export Debate Report (Center on Global Energy Policy, January 2015). https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/Navigating%20the%20US%20Oil%20Export%20Debate_January%202015.pdf
To Adapt To Changing Crude Oil Market Conditions House Report 114–267 – Part 1 (US Congress, 20 September 2022). http://www.congress.gov/
Gibbons, M. T. Higher Education R&D Funding from All Sources Increased for the Third Straight Year in FY 2018 Report (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, November 2019). https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2020/nsf20302/nsf20302.pdf
Bertrand, M., Bombardini, M., Fisman, R., Hackinen, B. & Trebbi, F. Hall of mirrors: corporate philanthropy and strategic advocacy. Q. J. Econ. 136, 2413–2465 (2021).
Hall, Z. W. & Scott, C. University-industry partnership. Science 291, 553 (2001).
Is the university-industrial complex out of control? Nature 409, 119 https://doi.org/10.1038/35051750 (2001).
Washburn, J. Big Oil Goes to College: An Analysis of 10 Research Collaboration Contracts Between Leading Energy Companies and Major U.S. Universities Technical Report (Center for American Progress, October 2010).
Franta, B. & Supran, G. The fossil fuel industry’s invisible colonization of academia. The Guardian (13 March 2017). https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/mar/13/the-fossil-fuel-industrys-invisible-colonization-of-academia
Shelar, A. & Huang, C.-Y. Sentiment analysis of Twitter data. In 2018 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI) 1301–1302 https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCI46756.2018.00252 (IEEE, 2018).
Fan, R. et al. The minute-scale dynamics of online emotions reveal the effects of affect labeling. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3, 92–100 (2019).
Moore, F. C., Obradovich, N., Lehner, F. & Baylis, P. Rapidly declining remarkability of temperature anomalies may obscure public perception of climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 4905–4910 (2019).
González-Bailón, S. & De Domenico, M. Bots are less central than verified accounts during contentious political events. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2013443118 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/11/e2013443118 (2021).
Thurber, M. C. Why Isn’t Natural Gas in India’s Climate Strategy? Report (Stanford Natural Gas Initiative, September 2016). https://fsi-live.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/ngi_brief_no1_sep_2016.pdf
Washburn, J. University, Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education (Basic Books, 2005).
Rothman, D. J. Academic medical centers and financial conflicts of interest. JAMA 299, 695–697 (2008).
Farrell, J., McConnell, K. & Brulle, R. Evidence-based strategies to combat scientific misinformation. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 191–195 (2019).
Lamb, W. F. et al. Discourses of climate delay. Glob. Sustain. 3, e17 (2020).
Friedmann, J., Fan, Z. & Tang, K. Low-carbon Heat Solutions for Heavy Industry: Sources, Options, and Costs Today Technical Report (Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy, 2019).
Gireesh, S. & Boness, N. The Hydrogen Opportunity Technical Report (Stanford University Natural Gas Initiative, 2021).
Howarth, R. & Jacobson, M. How green is blue hydrogen. Energy Sci. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.956 (2021).
Longden, T., Beck, F. J., Jotzo, F., Andrews, R. & Prasad, M. ‘Clean’ hydrogen? Comparing the emissions and costs of fossil fuel versus renewable electricity based hydrogen. Appl. Energy https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261921014215 (2022).
Angrist, J. D. & Pischke, J.-S. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion (Princeton Univ. Press, 2009).
Meinshausen, M. et al. Historical greenhouse gas concentrations for climate modelling (cmip6). Geosci. Model Dev. 10, 2057–2116 (2017).
Hutto, C. & Gilbert, E. Vader: a parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. Proc. Int. AAAI Conf. Web Soc. Media 8, 216–225 https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/14550 (2014).
Reynard, D. & Shirgaokar, M. Harnessing the power of machine learning: can Twitter data be useful in guiding resource allocation decisions during a natural disaster? Transp. Res. D 77, 449–463 (2019).
Tsai, M. H. & Wang, Y. Analyzing Twitter data to evaluate people’s attitudes towards public health policies and events in the era of covid-19. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18, 6272 https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/12/6272 (2021).
Box-Steffensmeier, J. M. & Moses, L. Meaningful messaging: sentiment in elite social media communication with the public on the covid-19 pandemic. Sci. Adv. 7, eabg2898 (2021). https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/29/eabg2898
Kalemli-Ozcan, S., Sorensen, B., Villegas-Sanchez, C., Volosovych, V. & Yesiltas, S. How to Construct Nationally Representative Firm Level Data from the Orbis Global Database: New Facts and Aggregate Implications Working Paper 21558 (National Bureau of Economic Research, September 2015). http://www.nber.org/papers/w21558
Almond, D., Du, X. & Papp, A. Data and Code For “Natural Gas Policy Position of University Energy Centers Relates to Their Funders” (Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, 2022). https://doi.org/10.3886/E149441V1
This project did not receive any dedicated research funding. The authors’ research effort is supported by ‘hard money’ positions at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs through masters programme tuition revenue. We thank V. Li and X. Zhang (Columbia University) for research assistance; M. Cane, S. Naidu and J. Washburn for helpful discussions; E. Dlugokencky at NOAA for assistance with methane concentration data; and S. Asplund for proofreading. K. Winograd (Russell Sage Foundation) conducted library and media searches related to academic energy centres. The working title of this manuscript was: ‘Greenwashing methane? The role of university-based energy centres’. All errors are our own.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information
Nature Climate Change thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Almond, D., Du, X. & Papp, A. Favourability towards natural gas relates to funding source of university energy centres. Nat. Clim. Chang. 12, 1122–1128 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01521-3
This article is cited by
Nature Climate Change (2022)