Why Scientists from the Oil Kingdom Are at the Heart of Climate Reports

We often take the neutrality and independence of climate science for granted. However, the recent involvement of scientists linked to Saudi Aramco as lead authors of the UN's IPCC 7th Assessment Report raises questions about how free science truly is from political and economic interests. Why have they taken center stage in climate reports, and what impact might this have on the credibility and independence of climate science?

The participation of scientists linked to Saudi Aramco as lead authors in the IPCC's 7th Assessment Report is no coincidence. According to an investigation by The Guardian, at least 12 out of 223 authors in Working Group III, which deals with mitigation strategies, were associated with Aramco or Saudi government research institutions. Among these, there were 20 cases flagged for potential conflicts of interest, with more than half linked to Saudi Arabia.S1

Notably, Dr. Mustafa Babiker, who has been with Aramco for 20 years, was appointed as a coordinating lead author for the IPCC, sparking controversy. Another Aramco researcher, Dr. Diego Moya Pinto, serves as an author for the energy systems chapter, but his affiliation is listed only as Imperial College London in the IPCC, raising concerns about transparency.S1

The concentration of Saudi-linked authors is rooted in Saudi Arabia's strategic climate diplomacy. Political scientist Kari De Pryck notes that while Saudi Arabia has traditionally opposed fossil fuel reduction in UN climate negotiations, it has recently shifted its strategy to emphasize technology-based solutions like carbon capture and storage (CCS). This is seen as an attempt to minimize the impact on its fossil fuel economy while securing an international foothold.S1

The issue is that the IPCC's conflict of interest policy is criticized as being ineffective. In March 2026, the IPCC's conflict of interest committee concluded that there were no conflicts among the authors of the 7th report, but experts argue that this judgment does not reflect reality. The declarations of conflict are not made public, and the committee's deliberation process lacks transparency.S1

The IPCC argues that no individual author or institution can dictate the report's conclusions, and that a multi-layered review process involving experts from diverse backgrounds ensures objectivity and credibility. However, critics argue that this defense relies too heavily on technical mechanisms and fails to address the 'perceived possibility' of conflicts of interest.S1

When Technology-Driven Strategies Threaten Scientific Neutrality

The Saudi case is linked to the IPCC's historical tendency to focus on technology-driven solutions. Le Monde criticizes the IPCC for favoring high-tech strategies like CCS, which align with fossil fuel industry interests. In this context, the participation of Saudi scientists may bolster the legitimacy of technology-driven strategies.S2

Technology-driven strategies are not inherently flawed. However, relying on technological fixes while maintaining a fossil fuel-dependent structure can delay fundamental transitions. Scientific neutrality requires not only technical accuracy but also distance from policy directions and vested interests.S2

This issue extends beyond Saudi Arabia or Aramco, raising questions about the overall governance structure of climate science. How can the ideal of scientists being free from vested interests be balanced with the reality of science intertwined with political and economic factors? The IPCC's lack of plans to strengthen conflict of interest policies suggests this balance remains precarious.S1

We now live in an era where the list of authors on scientific reports must be read alongside the structures and interests they represent. The participation of Saudi scientists symbolizes how climate science is enmeshed in political frameworks. For international scientific bodies like the IPCC to regain true independence and credibility, they must ensure transparent disclosure of conflicts of interest and reflect on the political implications of technology-driven strategies.