In June 2020, thanks to the hard work of relentless student advocates, George Washington administration committed to full divestment from fossil fuels, carbon neutrality by 2030, and reversing GW’s entire 200 year carbon footprint. In doing so, you aligned with science and acknowledged the need for our society to transition off of fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Why, then, has the university continued to lend its name and credibility to climate deniers and efforts to deregulate the fossil fuel industry by harboring the Koch and ExxonMobil funded Regulatory Studies Center?
The Regulatory Studies Center (RSC) has repeatedly acted as a front for fossil fuel interests with a history of using GW’s name to provide credibility to climate deniers, fossil fuel cronies, and other discredited backers of pseudoscience. The RSC also has extensive ties to the fossil fuel industry and the climate denial movement. In particular, the RSC has received over one million dollars from both ExxonMobil and the Koch Foundation— part of a fossil fuel empire that profits from the deregulation of the industry. Notably, the Kochs and ExxonMobil are prominent architects of the decades long disinformation campaign fueling climate denial.
The RSC appears to have a very clear understanding of what their role is in the regulatory ecosystem. The President of FreedomWorks, a right-wing advocacy group, described the Regulatory Studies Center as “the brains of the conservative regulatory fight.” In the modern conservative movement, that means ignoring the threat of climate change and taking action on behalf of the architects of climate denialism: the fossil fuel industry.
Even if you decide it is acceptable to house a center that uses GW’s name and credibility to elevate climate deniers and promote fossil fuel interests at the expense of your students’ futures, there are serious ethical concerns that the Regulatory Studies Center must answer for. GW lacks an institutional conflict of interest policy and does not mandate its centers and departments to disclose funding or terms of funding agreements. This must change.
With its historic commitments to divest from fossil fuels in June, GW has the opportunity to be one of the nation’s leaders in combating climate change. Unfortunately, when you look the other way as climate deniers, fossil fuel cronies, and discredited backers of pseudoscience trade on GW’s name and credibility, you undermine your positive actions at every turn. Today, George Washington University is still complicit in the climate crisis. Time is running out before the planet blows past the warming targets set in the Paris Agreement, to which GW claims to be committed. The fossil fuel industry is fighting tooth and nail to delay any action that hurts their bottom line, even right here at GW. Which side are you on?