Twenty-two years ago, Princeton University researchers Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala published a paper that reshaped global thinking on climate change. Titled “Wedges,” it argued that the world already had the tools to tackle global warming—no need to wait for breakthrough innovations. The solution, it claimed, lay in a portfolio of modest steps: renewable energy, nuclear power, conservation, and, crucially, continued use of oil, gas, and coal, offset by carbon capture and storage (CCS).
The paper became a phenomenon. Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore featured it in his Oscar-winning documentary. Presidents George W. Bush and Joe Biden wove its ideas into policy. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cited it in at least three major reports. It was taught at Harvard, MIT, and cited over 3,000 times in scientific literature. It even spawned a board game.
What the paper’s many admirers did not know, however, is that its creation was heavily influenced by BP—one of the companies most responsible for the carbon emissions driving climate change. A joint investigation by ProPublica and Drilled reveals that BP abandoned outright climate denial in 1997 and instead embarked on a sophisticated campaign to shape climate science in ways that protected its business model.
BP’s $15 Million Investment in Princeton
In 1998, BP donated $15 million to Princeton University to establish the Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI). The program’s explicit goal was to find solutions to climate change that did not require replacing fossil fuels. Socolow and Pacala, who co-directed CMI, were already thinking along these lines. BP’s funding amplified their work.
Internal documents and interviews show that BP executives were deeply involved in the creation of the “Wedges” paper. They reviewed drafts, suggested language changes, and even attempted to rewrite sections. Chris Mottershead, BP’s climate adviser, wrote to the researchers: “Chaps, I have had a go at rewriting the paper.” BP CEO John Browne himself proposed wording that became part of the paper’s title.
“BP took academic freedom seriously,” said Gardiner Hill, a former BP vice president who worked with the Princeton program. “It did not oversee any of the publications.” A BP spokesperson declined to respond to detailed questions from ProPublica and Drilled.
Socolow and Pacala maintain that BP had no control over the scientific content. They say they genuinely believed CCS was a viable path to making fossil fuels “climate safe,” as Pacala put it. At the time, wind and solar were far less competitive than they are today.
Yet the paper oversold CCS, describing it as “already deployed” industrially. In reality, the technology remains financially and technically problematic, with few commercial-scale projects operating today. A recent investigation by ProPublica and Drilled found that CCS faces hurdles that make it unlikely to ever work at the scale needed.
While the paper was being prepared for publication, BP aggressively promoted its ideas. Browne touted the “Wedges” framework in speeches as evidence that oil and gas had “sustainable futures.” He published an endorsement in Foreign Affairs. BP integrated the paper’s concepts into its sustainability reports, arguing that natural gas offered a low-carbon alternative to coal.
The result was a self-reinforcing cycle: BP’s marketing gave “Wedges” a platform few academic papers ever receive, and the paper’s credibility lent legitimacy to BP’s claims. The company continued to pour millions into Princeton each year, explicitly to advance CCS and, as internal documents show, to turn it into a government-backed solution.
The story of “Wedges” is a cautionary tale about how corporate influence can shape scientific narratives. It also highlights a broader pattern: as Asian economies like China, India, and Indonesia grapple with their own energy transitions, they must be wary of solutions that promise to solve climate change without disrupting existing industries. The lessons from Princeton and BP are as relevant in Jakarta, New Delhi, and Beijing as they are in Washington and London.
For more on how corporate interests shape global policy, see our analysis of Asia's calm embrace of Japan's defense buildup and Indonesia's rupiah crisis.
