Saudi oil official’s role in climate science report raises conflict of interest concerns

A longtime Saudi Aramco employee’s nomination to help lead a major United Nations climate report has sparked fresh questions about fossil fuel influence inside the world’s top climate science body.

Karl Mathiesen reports for POLITICO.

In short:

Mustafa Babiker, an economist and 18-year veteran of the Saudi Aramco oil company, was proposed as a coordinating lead author for a chapter of the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report focused on reducing fossil fuel emissions.
Scientists and watchdog groups warn the nomination could harm the IPCC's credibility, citing Babiker’s close ties to the world’s largest oil producer and the growing political pressure on the body from fossil fuel nations.
The United States, under President Trump, has scaled back its involvement in the IPCC, cutting staff and blocking a senior American scientist from participating in key meetings.

Key quote:

The nomination is “one of the most blatant examples of political capture by the oil industry of climate policy that I have ever seen.”

— Tzeporah Berman, founder of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty NGO

Why this matters:

The IPCC plays a central role in shaping global understanding of climate science and guiding policy decisions on reducing emissions. When individuals with deep ties to fossil fuel interests help lead the body’s reports, it raises serious concerns about objectivity and integrity. Oil-rich countries like Saudi Arabia have long pushed to downplay or redirect climate science findings that could threaten their economic model. With the U.S. stepping back and fossil fuel exporters gaining influence, the balance of power within the IPCC is shifting.

www.politico.eu

Coal mining operation featuring yellow rock trucks and excavators as well as one orange excavator in the center.

Credit: Dominik Vanyi/Unsplash

As Trump boosts coal, opponents warn of higher costs and more pollution

The Trump administration is using emergency powers and subsidies to keep U.S. coal plants running. Market analysts believe no coal plant closures are likely during President Donald Trump's term.

Read the Full Article on

apnews.com

Saudi oil official’s role in climate science report raises conflict of interest concerns

Stung by Iran war, countries are turning against U.S. fossil fuels

EPA sets ‘no surprises’ science policy, reassigns researchers

As Trump boosts coal, opponents warn of higher costs and more pollution

Federal delay of silica dust rule leaves coal miners at risk of black lung

There’s hope for the offshore wind industry — yes, really

California’s ambitious floating offshore wind plan faces engineering hurdles and local opposition

Is the Keystone XL pipeline back?

Multiple Houston-area oil and gas facilities that have violated pollution laws are seeking permit renewals

One facility has emitted cancer-causing chemicals into waterways at levels up to 520% higher than legal limits.

Pennsylvania health advocates say Trump’s first 100 days in office have caused “100 harms” to local communities

“They're terrorizing these scientists because they want to keep them silent.”

Regulators are underestimating health impacts from air pollution: Study

"The reality is, we are not exposed to one chemical at a time.”

Two years into his term, has Gov. Shapiro kept his promises to regulate Pennsylvania’s fracking industry?

A new report assesses the administration’s progress and makes new recommendations

An open letter from EPA staff to the American public

“We cannot stand by and allow this to happen. We need to hold this administration accountable.”

New evidence links heavy metal pollution with wildfire retardants

“The chemical black box” that blankets wildfire-impacted areas is increasingly under scrutiny.