There’s no easy way to say this: Princeton University has an “owning a fossil fuel company” problem.
And yes, it’s called PetroTiger.
In 2021, Divest Princeton, the group that Sunrise Princeton spun off of, uncovered the unscrupulous ties between Princeton University and PetroTiger. Between 2013 and 2023, the University made $68.6 million in investment income and around $69 million in gifts from PetroTiger. In addition, between 2018 and 2020, the University gave PetroTiger nearly $750,000 in “gifts, grants, or capital contributions.”
But PetroTiger isn’t just an ordinary investment: The University, which has never owned less than 84 percent share in the company, commands a controlling stake in it. The fact of the matter is that Princeton is profiting from and enabling the continuation of the climate crisis through a fossil fuel enterprise it owns and operates. The University claims to care about divestment — they even have a website advertising its achievements, and divested from a large majority of fossil fuel companies in 2022. So it might as well divest from the company, which was never that big of a revenue source in the first place.
So during this week’s USG election, undergraduates must vote “yes” on Referendum 1 to declare that Princeton must cut ties with PetroTiger and not profit from the climate crisis.
Princeton established PetroTiger in 1987, and the company originally did its own drilling for oil. Since then, it has undergone several evolutions, and what remains of the company does not drill for oil itself. Instead, PetroTiger owns “royalty interests in the mineral rights of dozens of properties,” as Princeton Alumni Weekly reported in February. In essence, Princeton’s fossil fuel company takes a share of the profit when other companies drill the oil on the land it owns.
In a moment when temperatures are rising faster than ever before, the University’s commitment to sustainability matters more than ever. With Princeton still profiting from the climate crisis, Referendum 1 is an opportunity to reaffirm that we, the student body, believe in the University’s core value of sustainability and demand that Princeton adhere to that value.
Many people we spoke to during the campaign process were genuinely (and rightfully) appalled at the fact that the University owns a fossil fuel company. This makes perfect sense: It is hard for students to square the Princeton that pledges to be net-zero by 2046 with the Princeton that profits from oil drilling in Texas.
To follow through with its commitment to sustainability, Princeton must cut ties with PetroTiger and its other fossil fuel holdings.
This referendum, though, is just the first step.
Concurrently to this referendum, Sunrise Princeton is pursuing divestment from PetroTiger through the process outlined by the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC) Resources Committee. The Resources Committee considers three factors during the divestment process: “considerable, thoughtful, and sustained campus interest” on an issue, a clear implication of a “central University value,” and the existence of “campus consensus” on the question of divestment.
PetroTiger is a clear violation of the University’s core value of sustainability. There has been considerable and sustained interest from the University community beyond members of Sunrise Princeton since PetroTiger’s existence was first uncovered in 2021. And this referendum will be an important part of proving that there exists campus consensus on the PetroTiger question.
Some may say that the University owning PetroTiger is profitable, or that it would be irresponsible to cut ties with a revenue stream during extreme budgetary uncertainty. To this, we say that, although they don’t give us direct knowledge of PetroTiger’s performance, fossil fuel stocks have been underperforming the rest of the financial market for more than a decade. Other, more ethical investments may also provide both higher returns and long-term stability, given fossil fuels’ eventual volatility. For the long term financial sustainability of the University, cutting ties with PetroTiger and moving money away from fossil fuels is also the right move.
Moreover, it would be easy for Princeton to cut ties with PetroTiger because it is a relatively small revenue stream for the University — for reference, Annual Giving generated $68.4 million last year. Princeton’s investment in PetroTiger generated a similar amount of money, but it took PetroTiger a decade.
A vote for Referendum 1 is a vote for sustainability, in every sense of the word. And cutting ties with PetroTiger is a win-win-win for climate action, students, and the University. We know from our conversations that Princeton students oppose the University’s affiliation with PetroTiger. In this winter election, we must collectively speak to demand better from Princeton. Princeton, vote “yes” on Referendum 1 — let’s fight for our futures, together.
Isaac Barsoum is a sophomore Opinion columnist and co-coordinator of Sunrise Princeton, and when not at Princeton, he splits his time between Charlotte, N.C. and an oil well in Glasscock County, Texas. He can be reached at itbarsoum[at]princeton.edu.
Charlie Yale is a sophomore co-coordinator of Sunrise Princeton, from Omaha, Neb. He is also an assistant Opinion editor. He’d prefer that his tuition money didn’t go to PetroTiger. He can be reached at cyale[at]princeton.edu.
Read More
The University wants a compliant USG. Recently, it’s gotten what it wants.
Daily Princetonian Editorial BoardIt is not acceptable for our representatives to simply give up, even — and especially — when obstacles to student interests feel formidable.
It is not acceptable for our representatives to simply give up, even — and especially — when obstacles to student interests feel formidable.
Searching for a partner? Swipe left on intolerance
Vitalia SpatolaYour partner’s political choices say something about their values, and their values say something about your values as the person who chose them. Opting for non-confrontation to preserve a relationship that doesn’t align with your values is dismissing the increasingly salient political future ahead of us.
Your partner’s political choices say something about their values, and their values say something about your values as the person who chose them. Opting for non-confrontation to preserve a relationship that doesn’t align with your values is dismissing the increasingly salient political future ahead of us.
Elected CPUC members must answer for their egregious dereliction of duty
Jerry ZhuWhile many University members have a legitimate interest in a policy like this one, it is a dereliction of duty to allow administrators to propose an excessively vague and general policy, and then give them extremely wide latitude to interpret it.
While many University members have a legitimate interest in a policy like this one, it is a dereliction of duty to allow administrators to propose an excessively vague and general policy, and then give them extremely wide latitude to interpret it.