Saudi Oil Links Found in IPCC Climate Science Team

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body responsible for producing the scientific reports that underpin global climate negotiations, has faced fresh scrutiny regarding the composition of its expert teams. According to a new investigation, at least a dozen lead authors for the upcoming Seventh Assessment Report are employed by or linked to Saudi Aramco, the state oil company, or other petroleum interests. This concentration has raised concerns within the scientific community about potential conflicts of interest in a process that is meant to be independent and authoritative.

The IPCC’s reports are approved by 195 countries and serve as the primary scientific basis for national climate policies. The controversy centers specifically on Working Group III, which evaluates methods for reducing or removing emissions from the atmosphere. Because this work directly assesses policies and technologies relevant to the fossil fuel industry, the presence of authors with deep ties to the sector is viewed by some critics as a significant breach of the panel’s neutrality.

Hidden affiliations in expert selection

The Guardian reported that while individual scientists have declared their ties to Aramco on conflict of interest forms, the policy itself may not be robust enough to handle such deep industrial connections. For instance, Dr. Diego Armando Moya Pinta, an energy and sustainability scientist at Aramco since 2022, is listed by the IPCC primarily as a fellow at Imperial College London. He is one of several authors tasked with assessing options for reducing emissions in the energy sector, a domain with direct implications for his employer’s business model.

Experts in research ethics have noted that such arrangements create a difficult dynamic. While the IPCC’s conflict of interest committee reported in March 2026 that it found no conflicts among the selected authors, academics argue that the current framework is not fit for purpose. The disconnect between the committee’s conclusion and the visible presence of senior oil industry employees suggests that the application of the rules may be inconsistent or insufficiently strict.

Concentration of Saudi influence

The investigation identified twenty cases with strong conflict of interest concerns, with more than half involving authors linked to Saudi institutions. This pattern indicates a broader trend rather than isolated incidents. One IPCC vice-chair, who is part of the body’s leadership, also serves as a government employee representing the kingdom at global climate negotiations. This dual role underscores the complexity of separating scientific assessment from geopolitical and economic interests.

Julia Steinberger, a professor at the University of Lausanne and an expert author on the reports, recalled meeting Mustafa Babiker, an Aramco employee with twenty years of service, at a working group session. When she questioned the potential conflict, Babiker cited his conflict of interest declaration. While the interaction was cordial, the episode highlights the tension between personal relationships and the institutional need for impartiality in a body that shapes international policy.

Questions for future reporting cycles

As the IPCC moves forward with the Seventh Assessment Report, the focus will shift to how the panel addresses these structural issues. The involvement of authors from the world’s largest petroleum company in chapters assessing energy transition options is a specific point of contention. Stakeholders are watching to see if the organization will revise its conflict of interest policies or provide more transparent explanations for its selection processes.

The outcome of these internal reviews will be critical for maintaining the credibility of the IPCC. If the current standards are deemed inadequate, it could lead to broader calls for reform in how scientific expertise is managed in multilateral organizations. The next few months will likely see increased debate on whether the panel can produce reports that are both scientifically rigorous and free from undue industrial influence.