Robert Bryce

Credentials

• B.F.A., University of Texas at Austin (1986). [1]

Background

Robert Bryce is an American author and journalist based in Austin, Texas. [17] He has regularly been cited as an “expert” on energy issues in the media, but has been under increased scrutiny after writing numerous articles in media outlets that did not disclose his ties to the fossil fuel industry. [16]

Many of Bryce's articles have been on the energy business. He spent 12 years writing for The Austin Chronicle. From 2006 to September 2010 he worked as the managing editor of the online publication Energy Tribune. [17]

From October 2007 to February 2008 he was a fellow at the Institute for Energy Research (IER). In April, 2010 he joined the Manhattan Institute as a senior fellow in its Center for Energy Policy and the Environment. [2], [17]

The Manhattan Institute is a policy think tank that has received significant funding from both ExxonMobil and Koch Industries. According to media transparency, the Manhattan Institute has been known to “obscure” science supporting man-made climate change. [3]

Bryce has been unwilling to answer questions about the funding the Manhattan Institute receives from the fossil fuel industry. [15]

Stance on Climate Change

“The science is not settled, not by a long shot. […] If serious scientists can question Einstein’s theory of relativity, then there must be room for debate about the workings and complexities of the Earth’s atmosphere. Furthermore, even if we accept that carbon dioxide is bad, it’s not clear exactly what we should do about it.” [4]

“On the science of global climate change, I'm an agnostic. I've seen Al Gore's movie, and I've read reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I've also listened to the 'skeptics.' I don't know who's right.” [5]

Key Quotes

“[W]e should be cheering the news that coal use is rising. For it means that more people are escaping the darkness and joining the modern world.” [25]

”[…] the job [at the Manhattan Institute] gives me a platform where I can focus on the themes that I explored in both Gusher of Lies and Power Hungry: that the myths about “green” energy are largely just that, myths; that hydrocarbons are here to stay; and that if we are going to pursue the best “no regrets” policy with regard to energy, then we should be avidly promoting natural gas and nuclear energy.” [6]

“It’s time to move the debate past the dogmatic view that carbon dioxide is evil and toward a world view that accepts the need for energy that is cheap, abundant and reliable.” [4]

Key Deeds

May 15, 2016

Robert Bryce published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled “An Ill Wind: Open Season on Bald Eagles“ criticizing new regulations put in place by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) governing the accidental harming of bald and golden eagles. According to Bryce, the FWS is “trying to make it easier for the wind industry to kill” eagles. [19]

On May 6, the blog Daily Kos predicted Bryce's piece, saying Bryce and the Journal would likely contribute a “fresh round of fossil fuel-penned pieces crying crocodile tears for birds” shortly after the FWS regulations were announced: [20]

“Bryce wrote op-eds attacking wind power in February, October and November 2013, which are all similar to one he wrote in 2009, and just like what he wrote in 2015. Since he already attacked wind power back in February of this year, one might think the WSJ editors wouldn’t want to go back to him for essentially a rerun of the same op-ed. But the WSJ has published over twenty of his pieces since 2009, all of which are either explicitly anti-wind or pro-fossil fuels,” Daily Kos writes.

Media Matters notes that Bryce's Op-Ed piece is “misleading”: [21]

“Bryce complained that the new rules would allow wind energy producers to kill or injure up to 4,200 eagles per year and hyped data showing that wind turbines were responsible for about 573,000 total bird deaths (not just eagles) in 2012. But as the Daily Kos piece explained, it is misleading to cite these figures without explaining that wind turbines are responsible for only 'about 3 percent of human-caused eagle deaths' and that other factors – including the oil and gas industry and climate change – are a much greater threat to birds than wind energy.”

May 4, 2016

Robert Bryce authored a Manhattan Institute report titled “What Happens to an Economy When Forced to Use Renewable Energy?” (PDF). [28]

Bonner R. Cohen promoted the new study at the Heartland Institute. He writes that policies to combat climate change in Europe “have led to soaring electricity costs for residential and commercial customers, leading the authors to recommend the United States reject similar policies.” [29]

“To avoid the kinds of results seen in Europe, U.S. policymakers at the federal and state levels should be required to do rigorous cost-benefit analyses before imposing renewable-energy mandates,” Robert Bryce said. “U.S. policymakers must also consider the impact higher energy costs will have on overall employment and industrial competitiveness.” [29]

February 7, 2016

Robert Bryce published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal “attacking [Bernie] sanders' renewable energy plan,” reports Media Matters. [23]

In the op-ed, Bryce claimed that Sanders “better check with his Vermont constituents about the popularity of wind energy.” He adds, “Nowhere is the backlash [against wind energy] stronger than in Mr. Sanders's state.” [24]

According to Media Matters, Bryce's statement is not accurate: “ despite the presence of a vocal minority who oppose large-scale wind projects, support for wind energy development is actually very strong in the Green Mountain State.” They cite a 2014 poll by Fairbank, Maslin, Maulin, Metz & Associates for the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) that found 71 percent of Vermonters support building wind turbines along the state's ridgelines, while only 23 percent oppose wind energy development.  [23]

June 22, 2015

“But if developing countries are going to prepare for possible changes in the climate, they will have to get richer so they can afford to deal with any calamities that may occur. And how will they get richer? The answer is obvious: by consuming more energy. And for countries throughout the developing world, the lowest-cost energy is still coal,” Bryce writes. [14]

February 25, 2014

Robert Bryce testified before the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works where he contends that “federally subsidized efforts that are being undertaken to, in theory, address climate change, are damaging America’s wildlife.” [26]

Bryce focused his attacks the wind industry: 

“Given the studies already done on wind energy’s deleterious impact on wildlife, combined with the 'energy sprawl' that will come with the industry’s continuing expansion, it is virtually certain that as the wind sector adds more turbines, more federally protected wildlife – including more bald eagles, an animal that has been on the Great Seal of the United States since 1782 – will be killed.[xl] And thanks to the production tax credit, taxpayers will be subsidizing the slaughter.

The question at hand is obvious: why are policymakers implementing an energy policy that is a known killer of wildlife in exchange for what are infinitesimally small reductions in carbon dioxide emissions?” [26]

October, 2011

An October 2011 Petition submitted by the Checks and Balances Project complained about Bryce, pointing to “a disturbing trend of special interests surreptitiously funding “experts” to push industry talking points in the nation’s major media outlets.” [7]

DeSmogBlog reported on this issue here, and here.

According to the letter, “pundits like Mr. Bryce have the right to share their views, but we believe media outlets have the responsibility to inform their readers of opinion writers’ true ties and conflicts of interest.”

It appears that an Op-Ed by Bryce titled “the Gas is Greener” which criticizes renewable energy including wind projects and reports to expose hidden costs and “deep contradictions” in the “renewable energy movement.” [8]

Signatories asked the New York Times to set the standard by revealing the ties of these “expertS” and ensuring readers get the full story.

New York Times editor Arthur S. Brisbane responded, dismissing the petition's request and saying that “I don’t think Mr. Bryce is masquerading as anything: experts generally have a point of view. And the Manhattan Institute’s dependence on this category of funding is slight — about 2.5 percent of its budget over the past 10 years. But the issue of authorial transparency is an important one, albeit one that isn't always simple.” [9]

August 11, 2011

According to SourceWatch, Bryce was a featured speaker at the 2011 American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Annual Meeting at a workshop titled “Unconventional Revolution: How Technological Advancements Have Transformed Energy Production in the United States.”

The panel advocated the process of fracking for reaching unconventional gas reserves. Bryce has also published articles in favour of fracking and in one example where he presents the often-repeated industry claim that fracking poses “minimal risk” to groundwater.  He stressed that New York “can’t afford to be left behind in the shale revolution.” [18], [10]

In a June 13, 2011 piece published in the Wall Street Journal he wrote that the “shale revolution now underway is the best news for North American energy since the discovery of the East Texas Field in 1930.” [11]

May 12, 2010

Bryce wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times revealing his opposition to the implementation of carbon capture technology. 

He was particularly critical of a senate energy bill introduced by John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman which would include incentives of $2 billion per year for carbon capture and sequestration.

Bryce wrote “That's a lot of money for a technology whose adoption faces three potentially insurmountable hurdles: it greatly reduces the output of power plants; pipeline capacity to move the newly captured carbon dioxide is woefully insufficient; and the volume of waste material is staggering. Lawmakers should stop perpetuating the hope that the technology can help make huge cuts in the United States’ carbon dioxide emissions.”

He also predicted public opposition to carbon dioxide sequestration areas, writing how “few landowners are eager to have pipelines built across their property. And because of the possibility of deadly leaks, few people will to want to live near a pipeline or an underground storage cavern. This leads to the obvious question: which members of the House and Senate are going to volunteer their states to be dumping grounds for all that carbon dioxide?” [12]

April 8, 2009

Wrote an article titled “Let Exxon Run the Energy Dept.” in The Daily Beast. The article is strongly critical of the Obama Administration which he claims is “working to marginalize America's single biggest sector, the sliver of the economy that produces our most essential commodities: gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, coal (which provides about half of the country’s electricity) and natural gas.”

Bryce writes “the U.S. has never had a secretary of Energy who has actually drilled an oil well, built a nuclear power plant, or dug coal out of the ground. Indeed, actual experience in the energy business appears to be grounds for disqualification. This is stunning.”

In conclusion, Bryce suggests that maybe we should include more people representing the energy industry in government: “Maybe—just maybe—those energy companies aren’t so villainous after all. And here’s another wacky thought: Maybe—just maybe—we should have a few people in government who really understand how the energy business works.” [13]

Affiliations

• Manhattan Institute for Policy Research— Senior Fellow with the Center for Energy Policy and the Environment. [1]

• Institute for Energy Research (IER)— Fellow, October 2007 to February 2008. [2]

Publications

Many of Robert Bryce's recent articles can be viewed at RobertBryce.com. In 2011, Media Matters noted 39 times that Robert Bryce appeared in the media where sources failed to mention his ties to the oil industry. [3]

Bloomberg

Media Matters reports that Bloomberg has published several columns by Robert Bryce without disclosing that he is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute's Center for Energy Policy and the Environment, which has received significant funding from ExxonMobil. Some of Bryce's cited publications below: [22]

• “Corn Ethanol Is Worse Than Keystone,” Bloomberg, June 2, 2015
• “Biofuels Are a Bad Idea,” Bloomberg, May 8, 2014
• “Oil's Bright Future,” Bloomberg, May 7, 2014
• “Forty Years After OPEC Embargo, U.S. Is Energy Giant,” Bloomberg, October 10, 2013
• “Four Numbers Say Wind and Solar Can't Save Climate,” Bloomberg, September 20, 2013

Manhattan Institute

Some sample Manhattan Institute Publications below:

• What Happens To An Economy When Forced To Use Renewable Energy?, Manhattan Institute, May 04, 2016
• Energy Policies And Electricity Prices: Cautionary Tales From The E.U., Manhattan Institute, Mar 08, 2016
• Ethanol Is Bad For Consumers, Bad For The Environment, And Does Effectively Nothing For “Energy Independence”, Manhattan Institute, Nov 24, 2015
• Reactors Unplugged: Can The Decline Of America'S Nuclear Sector Be Stopped?, Manhattan Institute, Sep 28, 2015
• The Hidden Corn Ethanol Tax: How Much Does The Renewable Fuel Standard Cost Motorists?, Manhattan Institute, Mar 02, 2015
• Not Beyond Coal: How The Global Thirst For Low-Cost Electricity Continues Driving Coal Demand, Manhattan Institute, Oct 01, 2014

In the past, the Manhattan institute alsolisted “research” by Robert Bryce: [27]

• The High Cost of Renewable-Electricity Mandates. Energy Policy & the Environment Report 10, February 2012.
• Obama's Energy Budget: Misplaced Subsidies, Overlooked Benefits. Issues 2012 1, February 2012.
• The High Cost of Wind Energy as a Carbon-Dioxide Reduction Method. Issue Brief 11, October 2011.
• Ten Reasons Why Natural Gas Will Fuel the Future. Energy Policy & the Environment Report 8, April 2011.
• Despite Billions in Subsidies, Corn Ethanol Has Not Cut U.S. Oil Imports. Issue Brief 7, October 2010.

Books

• Smaller Faster Lighter Denser Cheaper: How Innovation Keeps Proving the Catastrophists Wrong. PublicAffairs (May 13, 2014).
• Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future. PublicAffairs (April 27, 2010).
• Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence. PublicAffairs; Reprint edition (March 2, 2009).
• Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and The Rise of Texas, America's Superstate. PublicAffairs (May 25, 2004).
• Pipe Dreams: Greed, Ego, and the Death of Enron. PublicAffairs (January 6, 2004).

Other Recent Publications

Robert Bryce has contributing hundreds of articles to multiple news sources, often attacking renewable energy sources and environmentalists while encouraging the use of fossil fuels and coal power. View the attached spreadsheet for samples of Robert Bryce's latest publications (.xlsx).

Resources

1. “Robert Bryce,” Profile at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Archived May 26, 2016.

2. “Bio,” Robertbryce.com. Archived May 26, 2016. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6hmTUbf60

3. “Who Is Robert Bryce?” Media Transparency, October 7, 2011. Archived May 26, 2016.

4. “Five Truths About Climate Change,” The Wall Street Journal, October 6, 2011. Republished by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Archived July 6, 2012. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.

5. Robert Bryce. “If More CO2 Is Bad … Then What?” The Austin Chronicle, December 7, 2007. Archived May 26, 2016.

6. Robert Bryce. “Farewell: My Final Column for Energy Tribune,” September 30, 2010. Archived May 26, 2016.

7. “Letter To The New York Times,” TrueTies, October 6, 2011. Archived May 26, 2016.

8. Robert Bryce. “The Gas Is Greener,” The New York Times, June 7, 2011. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.

9. Arthur S. Brisbane. “The Times Gives Them Space, but Who Pays Them?” The New York Times, October 29, 2011. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.

10. Robert Bryce. ”Phony Franking Fears for NY,” New York Post, December 15, 2011. Archived July 6, 2012. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.

11. Robert Bryce. ”America Needs the Shale Revolution,” Wall Street Journal, June 13, 2012. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.

12. Robert Bryce. “A Bad Bet on Carbon,” The New York Times (Opinion), May 12, 2010.

13. Robert Bryce. “Let Exxon Run the Energy Dept.” The Daily Beast, April 8, 2009.

14. Robert Bryce. “The Poor Need More Energy: What BP Knows and Pope Francis Doesn't,” National Review, June 22, 2015. Archived September 5, 2015.

15. Brendan DeMelle. “Accountability Moment: Manhattan Institute's Robert Bryce Squirms And Evades Question on Fossil Fuel Funding,” DeSmogBlog, February 9, 2012.

16. Farron Cousins. “Robert Bryce – The Media’s Industry-Funded Go-To Guy,” DeSmogBlog, October 12, 2011.

17. “About Bryce,” RobertBryce.com. Archived October 3, 2010. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.

18. Robert Bryce. “How fracking lies triumphed,” New York Daily News, January 22, 2012. Archived May 26, 2016. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6hmSizDSE

19. Robert Bryce. “An Ill Wind: Open Season on Bald Eagles,” Wall Street Journal, May 15, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.

20. “The Birds and the ‘Bines: Wind Turbine Regulations Revised,” Daily Kos, May 6, 2016. Archived May 26, 2016.

21. Andrew Seifter. “Big Oil Cheerleader Robert Bryce Predictably Misleads On Wind Energy And Eagle Deaths In WSJ,” Media Matters for America, May 16, 2016. Archived May 26, 2016. 

22. “Why Has Bloomberg Given Robert Bryce A Platform To Attack Renewables Without Disclosing That Oil Pays His Salary?” Media Matters for America, June 9, 2015. Archived May 26, 2016.

23. Andrew Seifter. “Bernie Sanders' Wind Energy Plan Falsely Attacked By Big Oil Ally, With Help From The Wall Street Journal,” Media Matters for America, February 8, 2016. Archived May 26, 2016.

24. “The Windmills of Bernie's Mind,” The Wall Street Journal. Republished by the Manhattan Institute, February 8, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.

25. Robert Bryce. “Coal use is soaring – that's good news,” The Hill, December 22, 2014. Archived May 26, 2016. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6hnZoXg9b

26. “U.S. Senate Testimony: Killing Wildlife in the Name of Climate Change,” RobertBryce.com, February 25, 2014. Archived May 26, 2016. Webcite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6hnaxQpe1

27. “Robert Bryce,” Manhattan Institute. Archived July 6, 2012. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.

28. Robert Bryce, “What Happens to an Economy When Forced to Use Renewable Energy?” (PDF), The Manhattan Institute, May 4, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.

29. Bonner R. Cohen. “Study Shows the High Economic Costs of Renewable Energy,” Heartland Institute, June 14, 2016. Archived June 25, 2016. WebCiteURL: http://www.webcitation.org/6iXTFFgPV

Other Resources

• ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Robert Bryce.

• “Robert Bryce (writer),” Wikipedia Entry.

• “Robert Bryce,” SourceWatch.

Manhattan Institute for Policy Research

Background

The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, originally known as the International Center for Economic Policy Studies, was founded in 1978 by Anthony Fisher and William Casey and in recent years has promoted climate science contrarianism while defending policies supporting the development of fossil fuels.

Anthony Fisher was influencial in the formation of several other think tanks, including the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, the Fraser Institute, and the London-based Institute of Economic Affairs. William Casey later became President Ronald Reagan's CIA director. [1] The stated mission of the New York-based Manhattan Institute “is to develop and disseminate new ideas that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility.” [2]

According to the Manhattan Institute's website, the think tank “produces ideas that are both literally and figuratively outside the Beltway. We have cultivated a staff of senior fellows and writers whose provocative books, essays, reviews, interviews, speeches, and op-ed pieces communicate our message and influence the debate.” [2]

The Manhattan Institute has contended that it is “unclear” whether human activity is causing global climate change: “Despite the certitude with which the media and politicians treat the issue, the science remains muddled.” [6]

Robert Bryce & the Manhattan Institute

Media Matters reports that Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Robert Bryce regularly authors op-eds for mainstream and conservative publications advocating against renewable energy while promoting fossil fuel use.  [47]  With reference to climate change, Bryce has said: “I don't know who's right. And I don't really care.”[50] In a Wall Street Journalop-ed titled “Five Truths About Climate Change”, Bryce claimed that the “science is not settled, not by a long shot.”[51]

Center for Energy Policy and the Environment (CEPE)

The Manhattan Institute previously maintained a section of their website titled the Center for Energy Policy and the Environment (CEPE) which “seeks to influence today’s energy policy debate by developing and advancing ideas rooted in free-market economic principles.” The Center no longer appears to be in operation. [3]
 
The Manhattan Instituted listed the following “experts” at CEPE: [3]

• Robert Bryce
• Peter W. Huber
• James Manzi
• Mark Mills

Stance on Climate Change

2015

“The United States is not running out of energy. It is time to appreciate the staggering economic and geopolitical benefits that the development of our vast hydrocarbon resources can bring. It is no overstatement to say that jobs related to extraction, transport, and export of hydrocarbons can awaken the United States from its economic doldrums and produce revenue such that key national needs can be met—including renewal of infrastructure and investment in scientific research.”[5]

2007

“To what degree are human-induced greenhouse gases responsible for warming the atmosphere? The answer is unclear. Despite the certitude with which the media and politicians treat the issue, the science remains muddled. Temperatures fluctuate: they go up in some regions, down in others, and may be affected by naturally occurring phenomena, such as El Niño.” [6]

September 6, 2000

“No-one doubts that carbon dioxide has increased in the earth's atmosphere profoundly over the last hundred years. Almost everything else, however, is in doubt. Do greenhouse gasses make the earth warmer? It's hard to say because eighty percent of the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere followed, but did not precede the increase in the surface temperature that has been measured over the last hundred years. If it caused the increase in temperature, it's an odd pattern of causality, where the cause follows the effect.” [4]

Funding

The following funding data is based on data collected from the Conservative Transparency Project and Media Matters. [7], [9]

View the attached spreadsheet for additional information on Manhattan Institute funding by year (.xlsx).  Note that not all contribution data has been verified by DeSmogBlog for accuracy. [45]

Exxon Funding

Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets reports that the Institute has received $635,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. [8]

“I asked Bryce if he had financial ties to the fossil fuel industry after his debate appearance before the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners conference on Monday. Not only did Bryce refuse to answer the question, he also launched into an angry, finger-pointing tirade saying that I’d 'made up' the amount of fossil fuel support documented by Manhattan Institute records.”

Koch Funding

According to Greenpeace, The Manhattan Institute received $2,660,062 from Koch foundations between 1999 and 2015. [10]

*Original tax forms prior to 1997 are no longer available for verification. If you include $25,000 in fundingfor each 1986 and 1987, the grand total jumps to $2,710,062 in Koch funding from 1986 to 2015. [10]

Tobacco Industry Funding

SourceWatch found that the Manhattan Institute has sought funding from tobacco companies including Brown & Williamson. The Institute received funding from R.J. Reynolds and in 1991, Lorillard, Inc. budgeted a $4,000 contribution to the Manhattan Institute and contributed the same amount in 1996. Philip Morris budgeted $25,000 for the Institute in 1995. [11]

990 IRS Tax Forms

Key People

Board of Trustees

(* denotes Former Trustee)

Actions

June, 2016

The Manhattan Institute (MI) released a report titled “Missing Benefits, Hidden Costs: The Cloudy Numbers in the EPA's Proposed Clean Power Plan” (PDF). [57]

“There are few benefits, which have been massively overestimated, and huge costs, which have been massively underestimated […] from a cost benefit perspective, there’s simply no justification for the EPA’s Clean Power Plan,” reads the report. [57]

The MI contends that the Clean Power Plan will have “will have no measurable impact on world climate. And if those emissions reductions have no measurable impact on world climate, they will not have any measurable impact on world GDP, either.” [57]

The report's author, Jonathan A. Lesser, is president of Continental Economics and “has over 30 years of experience working for regulated utilities, government, and as an economic consultant.”  [57]

May 4, 2016

The Manhattan Institute released a report titled “What Happens to an Economy When Forced to Use Renewable Energy?” (PDF) written by Robert Bryce. [58]

Bonner R. Cohen promoted the new study at the Heartland Institute. He writes that policies to combat climate change in Europe “have led to soaring electricity costs for residential and commercial customers, leading the authors to recommend the United States reject similar policies.” [59]

“To avoid the kinds of results seen in Europe, U.S. policymakers at the federal and state levels should be required to do rigorous cost-benefit analyses before imposing renewable-energy mandates,” Robert Bryce said. “U.S. policymakers must also consider the impact higher energy costs will have on overall employment and industrial competitiveness.” [59]

April, 2016

Oren Cass authored a Manhattan Institute report titled “Who Pays the Bill for the Obama Climate Agenda?” (PDF) claiming that “President Obama’s climate agenda represents an enormous tax increase on low- and middle income Americans, nearly tripling the federal tax burden on the poorest households.” [55]

“[T]he policy pays only lip service to 'action' on climate change and will not affect the trajectory of global greenhouse-gas emissions or temperatures,” Cass claims.  [55]

October 16, 2015

The Manhattan Institute's Center for Energy Policy and the Environment released a report titled “Leading Nowhere: The Futility and Farce of Global Climate Negotiations” (PDF) on the Paris COP21 Climate Change negotiations. [53] Oren Cass, MI senior fellow, suggests that “The U.S. Congress should pass a resolution preemptively rejecting any agreement that omits enforceable developing-nation commitments to emissions reductions or that transfers substantial wealth to the developing world.” [54]

“Whatever ineffectual 'deal' may emerge from the Paris talks will only underscore what has been true all along: no negotiated agreement will significantly reduce global emissions of CO2. The U.S. Congress should pass a resolution preemptively rejecting any agreement that omits enforceable developing-nation commitments to emissions reductions or that transfers substantial wealth to the developing world. Constraining the options in Paris to either a genuine and enforceable agreement, or no agreement, will have a valuable, clarifying effect on the future of international climate policy,” Cass writes. [53]

August, 2015

“The question to ask is why any of this is necessary. […] Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Everyone breathes it out every day. It even helps the growth of trees and other greenery.” [20]

July, 2015

“Do the benefits of California’s proposed GHG reductions—which, even if realized, will negligibly affect global emissions and climate—outweigh their considerable and rising cost to local businesses and households, particularly low-income Californians?”

“In short, California's renewable energy mandates and climate change policies may make wealthy coastal residents feel virtuous, but those policies are having a disproportionate economic impact on the poor,” they write. [23]

June 22, 2015

“But if developing countries are going to prepare for possible changes in the climate, they will have to get richer so they can afford to deal with any calamities that may occur. And how will they get richer? The answer is obvious: by consuming more energy. And for countries throughout the developing world, the lowest-cost energy is still coal,” Bryce writes. [24]

September 18, 2014

July 7, 2013

“After Saturday’s tragedy in Lac-Mégantic, Que., it is time to speed up the approval of new pipeline construction in North America. Pipelines are the safest way of transporting oil and natural gas, and we need more of them, without delay,” she wrote.

August, 2011

According to records on file at the Center for Media and Democracy's (CMD) SourceWatch, Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Paul Howard, spoke at the 2011 American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Annual Conference in a Workshop titled “Rationing By Any Other Name: Medicare's Independent Payment Advisory Board.” [11]

CMD offers the following description of the American Legislative Exchange Council:

“ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve 'model' bills.”

More information is available at ALECexposed.org. 

April, 2009

The Manhattan Institute has released multiple editions of its report “Energy and the Environment: Myths and Facts” by Drew Thornley. Its second edition was released in April, 2009. 

The report includes a list of “myths” including how “Humans are the main drivers of the greenhouse effect which is likely to cause global warming.” [37]

According to the Institute's press release (PDF), “Thornley concludes that policymakers should focus on energy policies based on facts that meet our needs today without creating liabilities for us tomorrow.” [38]

The executive summary for the report describes it as a “primer for educators, journalists, and public officials—for concerned citizens generally.” [39]

April 10, 2008

2005

Sponsored THEBOTTOMLESSWELL: The Twilight Of Fuel, The Virtue Of Waste, And Why We Will Never Run Out Of Energy by Manhattan Institute senior fellow Peter W. Huber and by Mark P. Mills. [41]

The book argues that the “quantity of raw fuel matters less to energy security than our ability (both technological and political) to extract the fuel. In this passage, they make the counter-intuitive point (one of many in this book) that energy consumption, rather than limit our supply of energy, actually increases it.”[42]

Manhattan Institute Contact & Location

The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research listed the following contact information in its website as of May, 2016: [56]

Manhattan Institute
52 Vanderbilt Ave.
New York, NY 10017
(212) 599-7000

Related Organizations

• State Policy Network (SPN)— Member. [43]
• Independent Task Force on Immigration and America's Future (ITFIAF) — Partner. [44]

Resources

1. “The Manhattan Institute,” Spectrum Policy: Property or Commons? Accessed May 13, 2012. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/7WQlY

2. “About the Manhattan Institute,” Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Archived September 3, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/JmaXj

3. “About the Center for Energy Policy and the Environment,” Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Archived September 3, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/kLvyE

4. “Public Policy and the Media: Do We Get the Whole Story?” (Transcript), Manhattan Institute Annual James Q. Wilson Lecture, September 6, 2000. Archived September 3, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/WaP9Z

5. “Manhattan Institute's Power & Growth Initiative,” Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Archived September 5, 2015.  Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/KoPX0

6. Max Schulz. “MYTH 9: GLOBALWARMINGHASACCELERATEDINTHEPASTFIFTYYEARS,” Energy & The Environment: Myths & Facts (manhattan-institute.org). Archived September 5, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/lOazl

7. “Manhattan Institute for Policy Research,” Conservative Transparency. Accessed September 3, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/92anm

8. ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Manhattan Institute. Accessed September, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/E0pwL

9. “Manhattan Institute for Policy Research,” Media Matters. Archived June, 2012. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/mQPz2

10. “The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research: Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group,” Greenpeace. Archived March 13, 2017.Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/cjugc

11. “Manhattan Institute for Policy Research,” SourceWatch profile. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/dHD9

12. Gabe Elsner. “Anti-Clean Energy ‘Pundit’ Unhinged By Basic Question: Are You Bankrolled By Fossil Fuels?” The Checks and Balances Project, February 9, 2012. Archived September 4, 2015.  Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/a4Pn3

13. Brendan DeMelle. “Accountability Moment: Manhattan Institute's Robert Bryce Squirms And Evades Question on Fossil Fuel Funding,” DeSmogBlog, February 9, 2012. 

14. “Manhattan Institute Board of Trustees,” Manhattan Institute. Archived September 4, 2015.  Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/Mt9Zo

15. “Manhattan Institute Staff Directory,” Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Archived September 4, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/nTuAJ

16. “Manhattan Institute Experts,” Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Archived September 4, 2015.  Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/ZiPb4

17. “Manhattan Institute Board of Trustees,” Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Archived May 10, 2012. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/oV9Bq

18. “Manhattan Institute Staff Directory,” Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Archived May 10, 2012. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/0lucL

19. “Manhattan Institute Experts,” Manhattan Institute for Public Policy. Archived May 4, 2012. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/AH9Np

20. “Obama’s ‘Clean Power Plan’ Punishes Workers, Consumers, and States That Voted for Romney,” National Review, August 10, 2015. Archived September 5, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/BKON6

21. Scott Waldman. “Obama emissions plan has roots in New York debate,” Politico New York, August 4, 2015. Archived September 5, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/c99pr

22. Jonathan A. Lesser. “Less Carbon, Higher Prices:  How California’s Climate Policies Affect Lower-Income Residents” (PDF), Manhattan Institute, July, 2015. Archived September 5, 2015. 

23. Robert Bryce and Jonathan Lesser. “Renewable energy mandates same as a tax on the poor,” The Orange County Register (Opinion Section), July 26, 2015. Archived September 5, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/pYOB7

24. Robert Bryce. “The Poor Need More Energy: What BP Knows and Pope Francis Doesn’t,” National Review, June 22, 2015. Archived September 5, 2015.  Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/1n9ds

25. Farron Cousins. “Republican Senators Push Manhattan Institute's Dirty Energy Propaganda Paper,” DeSmogBlog, September 16, 2014. 

26. Timothy Cama. “Senators tackle energy cost impacts,” The Hill, September 12, 2014. Archived September 4, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/CNtON

27. “Is Energy Insecurity on the Rise in America?” Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, September 18, 2014. Archived October 31, 2014. Video no longer available.

28. “Contact Information,” Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Archived September 5, 2015.  Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/q1tCO

29. Diana Furchtgott-Roth. “Quebec tragedy reminds us pipelines are safest way to transport oil,” The Globe and Mail, July 7, 2013. archived September 5, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/2qOd9

30. Kevin Grandia. “Shameful: Keystone XL Proponent Using Deadly Lac-Megantic, Quebec Oil Train Tragedy To Promote Pipeline,” DeSmogBlog, July 8, 2013. 

31. Robert Bryce. “The Gas Is Greener,” The New York Times (Opinion Pages), June 7, 2011. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/DP8Pu

32. Brendan DeMelle. “Manhattan Institute Op-ed Exemplifies Why NY Times Should Require Disclosure of Financial Conflicts,” DeSMogBlog, June 16, 2011.

33. Robert Bryce. “America Needs the Shale Revolution,” The Wall Street Journal (Commentary Section), June 13, 2011. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/fftqP

34. Tom Gray. “Fact check: Bryce stumbles on land use, sound, steel, benefits,” Into the Wind (The AWEA Blog), June 8, 2011. Archived June 12, 2011. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/QEN2a

35. Stephen Lacey. “'Small IS Beautiful'! Robert Bryce Pushes Nuclear Power by Quoting Famous Author Who Called It 'an Ethical, Spiritual, and Metaphysical Monstrosity',” ThinkProgress, June 10,2 011. Archived September 5, 2015.  Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/r38Dv

36. Brendan DeMelle. “Journalists Ask NYTimes To Set Disclosure of Conflicts Policy For Op-Ed Contributors,” DeSmogBlog, October 11, 2011.

37. “Myth 10,” Energy & the Environment Myths & Facts Second Edition, April, 2009. Archived September 4, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/3tteQ

38. (Press Release) “New Report! Energy and the Environment: Myths and Facts Second Edition” (PDF), Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, April 20, 2009. Archived September 4, 2015. 

39. “Executive Summary,” Energy & the Environment Myths & Facts Second Edition, April, 2009. Archived September 4, 2015.  Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/ESNQb

40. Mitchell Anderson. “Bjorn Lomborg and the Anti-Climate Crowd,” DeSmogBlog, April 10, 2008.

41. “THEBOTTOMLESSWELL: The Twilight Of Fuel, The Virtue Of Waste, And Why We Will Never Run Out Of Energy,” Manhattan Institute. Archived September 5, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/gh8rw

42. “The Bottomless Well: How Energy Consumption Creates More Energy,” JunkScience.com, November 16, 2011. Archived January 4, 2012. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/RHs2R

43. “Manhattan Institute for Policy Research,” State Policy Network. Archived September 4, 2015. Archive.is URL:  https://archive.is/s6NEc

44. “Independent Task Force on Immigration and America's Future,” Migration Policy Institute. Archived September 4, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/4v8fx

45. “Manhattan Institute,” Conservative Transparency. Search performed May 3, 2016. 

46. “About,” Manhattan Institute. Archived May 4, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/hkNsd

47. “Who Is Robert Bryce?” Media Matters for America, October 7, 2011. Archived May 3, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/t9sET

48. “About: Board of Trustees,” Manhattan Institute. Archived May 3, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/vb7FA

49. “Experts,” Manhattan Institute. Archived May 3, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/TMM4f

50. Robert Bryce. Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future. PublicAffairs; First Edition edition (April 27, 2010). Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/6BsgV

51. Robert Bryce. “Five Truths About Climate Change,” Wall Street Journal, October 6, 2011. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.

52. “About: Staff Directory,” Manhattan Institute. Archived May 3, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/H0MSg

53. Oren Cass. ”LEADINGNOWHERE: The Futility and Farce of Global Climate Negotiations” (PDF), Energy Policy & The Environment Report No. 19 (October, 2015). Manhatan Institute. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.

54. Oren Cass. “Leading Nowhere: The Futility and Frace of Global Climate Negotiations,” Manhattan Institute, October 16, 2016. Archived May 4, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/jp7tB

55. Oren Cass. “Who Pays the Bill for the Obama Climate Agenda?” (PDF), the Manhattan Institute. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.

56. “About,” Manhattan Institute. Archived May 29, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/7D7hC

57. Jonathan A. Lesser. “Missing Benefits, Hidden Costs: The Cloudy Numbers in the EPA's Proposed Clean Power Plan” (PDF), Manhattan Institute, June, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.

58. Robert Bryce,“What Happens to an Economy When Forced to Use Renewable Energy?” (PDF), The Manhattan Institute, May 4, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.

59. Bonner R. Cohen. “Study Shows the High Economic Costs of Renewable Energy,” Heartland Institute, June 14, 2016. Archived June 25, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/UPr4W

Other Resources

• “Manhattan Institute for Policy Research,” Wikipedia.

When does a study on the unconventional shale gas industry become a “shill gas study”? The quick answer: when nearly everyone writing and peer reviewing it has close ties to the industry they're purportedly doing an “objective” study on.

The newest kid on the block: a recent study published by SUNY Buffalo's Shale Resources and Society Institute, titled, ”Environmental Impacts During Shale Gas Drilling: Causes, Impacts and Remedies.”

The four co-authors of the “study” all have backgrounds, directly or indirectly, in the oil and gas industry:

• Timothy Considine and Robert Watson: A professor emeritus at University of Wyoming and a professor at Pennsylvania State University respectively, Considine and Watson co-authored a Marcellus Shale Coalition “jobs” study often cited by the industry and mainstream press titled, “The Economic Impacts of the Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Play,” published in May 2010. The Marcellus Shale Coalition is a gas industry lobbying group representing nearly all of the corporations fracking for gas in the Marcellus. That “jobs” data was used in a July 2011 New York fracking jobs “study” shown to be farcical by Food and Water Watch in a November 2011 report, as covered by DeSmogBlog.
   
• Nicholas Considine: Head of the University of Wyoming's Center for Energy Economics and Public Policy. He co-authored, along with his brother Timothy and Robert Watson, a Manhattan Institute-commissioned paper published in June 2011 titled, “The Economic Opportunities of Shale Energy Development.” The Institute is heavily funded by the oil and gas industry.
   
• John Martin: Martin is a Consultant at JPMartin Energy Strategy LLC. According to his biography appearing on the JPMartin website, he has spent decades working in various sectors of the oil and gas industry, during which he also was responsible for overseeing the research and writing of the first examination of “the natural gas potential of New York's Utica Shale that helped stimulate significant industry investment in this resource.” Martin also serves as co-director of the recently created SUNY Buffalo's Shale Resources and Society Institute, which published this “study.” 

Digging deeper, the Buffalo study also had a Peer Review panel. That panel had five reviewers, four of five of which have ties to the oil and gas industry:

• Andrew Hunter is a lecturer at Cornell University's School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering. Hunter, according to the biography appearing on the Cornell website, formerly worked in the oil and gas industry from 1958-2005. He worked for companies ranging from Caltex Petroleum Inc., Petroleum Intelligence Research Associates and Petroleum Database Services Inc.
   
• Brigham McCown is a former U.S. Department of Transportation executive and consultant with United Transportation Advisors. (The only reviewer with no obvious connections to the gas industry.)
   
• George Rusk is a regulatory specialist at Ecology and Environment, Inc. It is a “recognized global leader in environmental management,” according to its website and provides a mulplicity of services for offshore oil, oil and gas pipelines, and gas storage.
   
• Scott Anderson is the senior policy advisor with the Environmental Defense Fund's (EDF) Energy Program. As covered previously on DeSmogBlog, Anderson formerly worked in the oil and gas industry and is a former executive vice president and general counsel for the Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association. He is also a member of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, which opposes extending the federal Safe Drinking Water Act to hydraulic fracturing.
   
• Robert Jacobi is co-director (with John Martin, highlighted above) of the Shale Resources and Society Institute and longtime UB professor of geology. He has also made a career in the oil and gas industry, working as an engineer consultant for corporations ranging from EQT Corporation, Norse Energy Corp and Talisman to others.

The Shale Resources and Society Institute ”study“ concluded that between Jan. 2008-Aug. 2011, ”1,844 of the [Pennsvylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)] violations [by the gas industry], or 62 percent, were administrative and preventative in nature. The remaining 1,144 violations, or 38 percent, were environmental in nature.”

Left out of the study is the fact that, as a May 10 Cleveland Plain Dealer report shows, a majority of wells are not even inspected in the state of Pennslyvania by the DEP. In 2009, the DEP inspected 23% of its wells, 24% in 2010 and 35% in 2011, with 84 hired inspectors to examine what grew to 69,000 wells by 2011 in the state.

Underinspection and lack of inspectors is a nationwide trend that can be seen in other places such as Ohio, Colorado, Texas and Oklahoma, according to the story.

“Fact-Based, Objective Information”?

The Shale Resources and Society Institute says that it exists to provide neutral, scientific information to the mass public. “We're really trying to provide fact-based, objective information,” Martin told the Buffalo Star Gazette in an April 2012 story. “We're guided by science.”

Really?

If this most recent “shill gas” study's cast of characters shows anything at all, it makes a mockery of that claim.

Image credit: Shutterstock | Cindi Wilson

The Public Accountability Initiative (PAI) has upped the ante on DeSmogBlog's reporting on what we coined a “Shill Gas Study” recently conducted by SUNY Buffalo.

In our critique of the “study” we pointed out the fact that all of the authors and nearly the entire peer review board of the study, other than one person, was or has been connected to the oil and gas industry.

The study, published by the brand new SUNY Buffalo's Shale Resources and Society Institute and titled “Environmental Impacts During Shale Gas Drilling: Causes, Impacts and Remedies,” was also, as we pointed out, based on likely purposefully flawed methodology. We wrote:

The Shale Resources and Society Institute ”study“ concluded that between Jan. 2008-Aug. 2011, ”1,844 of the [Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)] violations [by the gas industry], or 62 percent, were administrative and preventative in nature. The remaining 1,144 violations, or 38 percent, were environmental in nature.”

Left out of the study is the fact that, as a May 10 Cleveland Plain Dealer report shows, a majority of wells are not even inspected in the state of Pennslyvania by the DEP. In 2009, the DEP inspected 23% of its wells, 24% in 2010 and 35% in 2011, with 84 hired inspectors to examine what grew to 69,000 wells by 2011 in the state.

Taking our reporting a step further, PAI published a study this week titled, “The UB Shale Play: Distorting the Facts about Fracking,” which offered additional critiques of the methodology of SUNY Buffalo's “study.” PAI explained in a press release:

[We] conducted an analysis of the report and identified a number of problems that undermine its conclusion: data in the report shows that the likelihood of major environmental events has actually gone up, contradicting the report’s central claim; entire passages were lifted from an explicitly pro-fracking Manhattan Institute report; and report’s authors and reviewers have extensive ties to the natural gas industry.

Serious flaws in the report suggest that the brand-new institute is not so much a venue for the independent study of fracking-related issues as it is a vehicle for industry-friendly propaganda, taking advantage of the University at Buffalo’s independent brand in order to advance a very particular agenda.

Some of the flawed items PAI points out, include:

• “Two of the report’s central claims are false. The report claims that the rate of major environmental violations declined from 2008 to 2011. According to the report’s own data, the rate of major environmental accidents actually increased 36% from 2008 to 2011. The report also claims that the total number of environmental events declined over the period studied. In fact, the total number of environmental events increased by 189%, and the number of major environmental events increased 900%.”
• “A copy and paste job? The report lifts entire passages, without proper attribution, from an explicitly pro-fracking report released last year by the conservative Manhattan Institute and written by three of the four authors of the UB study.”
• “Use of biased language and industry spin. For instance, the report says that 'only a fraction' of Notices of Violation (NOVs) were issued for environmental violations. That fraction turns out to be 38%, which is technically a fraction, but this kind of language is extremely misleading at best.”

These examples are but the tip of the iceberg and it'd be one thing if no media outfits were reporting on the so-called “findings” of the “independent study.”

But they are.

A case in point is an article recently published by Forbes, titled “Fracking Safety Improves Dramatically, Says Independent Study.”

“The report’s inaccurate and biased analysis and the authors’ conflicts of interest suggest that the University at Buffalo is being used as an academic front for gas industry misinformation, rather than as a venue for independent, informative analysis,” said Kevin Connor, director of PAI in a press release. “This is an unfortunate example of industry spin being given much greater weight than it is worth, and the University at Buffalo is implicated in this deception.”

PAI's report is worth reading on the whole.

A storm is brewing in Buffalo and it's not the record snow storm typically associated with upstate New York. Rather, it's taking place in the ivory tower of academia and revolves around hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” for unconventional gas in the Marcellus Shale basin. 

Public funding has been cut to the tune of over $1.4 billion over the past five years in the State University of New York (SUNY) public university system under the watch of current Democratic Party governor and 2016 presidential hopeful Andrew Cuomo and his predecessor, David Paterson.

These cuts have created new opportunities for the shale gas industry to fill a funding vacuum, with the SUNY system's coffers hollowed out and starved for cash. 

“It’s a growing problem across academia,” Mark Partridge, a professor of rural-urban policy at the Ohio State University, said in an interview with Bloomberg. “Universities are so short of money, professors are under a lot of pressure to raise research funding in any manner possible.”

The oil industry's eagerness to fill the void for its personal gain can be seen through the case study of what we at DeSmog have coined the ongoing “Shill Gas” study scandal at the State University at Buffalo (SUNY Buffalo).

Among other findings, a DeSmog investigation reveals that one of the lesser-known offshoots of the Scaife family foundations, key bankrollers of the climate change denial machine, may potentially soothe SUNY Buffalo's budget woes with funding for the university-connected Shale Resources and Society Institute.

The Prelude to the Storm

A prelude for what's now transpiring occurred in Spring 2011, when SUNY Buffalo played host to the Marcellus Shale Lecture Series. Throughout the eight-part series, not a single speaker was a university-based scholar and all speakers but one were employed by some element of the oil and gas industry. The Shale Resources and Society Institute (SRSI) arose out of the series, as Daniel Robison of WBFO in Buffalo wrote in a recent article:

The decision to greenlight SRSI came after SUNY Buffalo hosted the Marcellus Shale Lecture Series in mid-2011…Last fall, enthusiasm stemming from the lecture series grew into informal discussions among the speakers, natural gas industry representatives and members of SUNY Buffalo’s geology department.

Five people are confirmed dead and 40 people remain missing in the small hamlet of Lac-Megantic, Quebec, where a train with 73 carloads full of Bakken shale oil derailed explosively, incinerating 30 buildings on Saturday.

Local resident Henri-Paul Audette told the Huffington Post that his brother's apartment was next to the railroad tracks, very close to the spot where the train derailed.

“I haven't heard from him since the accident,” he said. “I had thought … that I would see him.”

This is by all accounts, a major tragedy, lives have been lost, loved ones remain missing and a small town has been nearly wiped off the map. There are still a lot of unknowns about this disaster, but that has not stopped supporters of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline from using the horrific events in Lac-Megantic to promote the pipeline.

In a commentary piece published in the Globe and Mail on Sunday, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a “senior fellow” at the Exxon- and Koch-funded Manhattan Institute writes, 

“After Saturday’s tragedy in Lac-Mégantic, Que., it is time to speed up the approval of new pipeline construction in North America. Pipelines are the safest way of transporting oil and natural gas, and we need more of them, without delay.”

No kidding, Furchgott-Roth wants no more delay in the Keystone XL pipeline, since she has been advocating on behalf of the oil industry in one form or another for more than 25 years, with stints as an economist at the American Petroleum Institute and the oil industry-backed American Enterprise Institute. 

Working for oil company front groups is one thing, but using the tragedy still unfolding in Quebec to argue for more oil pipelines is a whole new level of low.

Image credit: Transportation Safety Board

Two Republican members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will be releasing a white paper later this week that will allegedly make the case that “regulations” and legislation that “raises energy costs” is damaging America’s underclass. 

Senators Lisa Murkowski (AK) and Tim Scott (SC) have teamed up with the conservative Manhattan Institute for Policy Research to once again push the bogus theory that government regulations and environmental safeguards are costing American consumers too much money and destroying jobs. The paper will officially be released at a Manhattan Institute event on September 18.

According to The Hill, a representative from Murkowski’s office said that the Senators will be speaking about “the economic, political, and social consequences of allowing energy insecurity to rise in America.”

Both Murkowski and Scott have been notorious opponents of many of the Obama administration’s environmental protection initiatives and have also been on the receiving end of the dirty energy industry’s largesse. Murkowski’s two largest donor industries are electric utilities and the oil and gas industries, receiving a combined $1,490,257 over the course of her career in the Senate.  Scott, a freshman Senator, has received $411,701 from the two industries during his short time in office.

The Manhattan Institute is also heavily funded by the dirty energy industry. While the institute does its best to keep its donors secret, documents show that the group has received funding from the Koch Family Foundations, Exxon and Reliant Energy.

The white paper appears to be a response to the EPA’s new power plant emissions standards released this summer. The new standards require power plants to reduce their emissions in compliance with the Clean Air Act, and as part of an overall effort to meet guidelines to help reduce the United States’ contribution to climate change. The Washington Post lays out the economics of the plan, as well as the health savings:

The EPA estimates that the new rule would cut traditional air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and soot by 25 percent, yielding a public health benefit of between $55 billion to $93 billion when it is fully implemented, with 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths avoided and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks a year avoided. The cost, by contrast, would be $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion.

The EPA said that for every $1 invested, Americans would reap $7 in health benefits.

If the EPA rule reduces the use of coal, it also would reduce emissions of conventional pollutants that contribute to asthma, other lung diseases and heart attacks, according to a joint study by the Harvard School of Public Health and Syracuse University Center for Health and the Global Environment.

If each investment dollars yields $7 in return, as the EPA estimates, then that would mean that the new proposals will yield a 700 percent return on investment. You’d be hard pressed to find any economist or financial advisor who would tell you that such an investment is unwise.

And the health benefits will be directly observed by the very people (low-income Americans) Murkowski and Scott claim will be harmed by the rule. Statistics show that lower income families are at a greater risk of respiratory illnesses caused by fine air particulates and other forms of air pollution. This is because most factories and power plants are located in urban areas and they tend to drive down property values. Low-income citizens have little choice but to live in affordable housing in areas where corporations dump toxins into the air, land and water, making them far more prone to illness than their wealthier counterparts.

Those are two financial incentives that Murkowski and Scott did not factor into their equations and they effectively negate the main argument of the forthcoming white paper. The second point, that the new regulations will destroy jobs, is simultaneously true, false and completely irrelevant.

First of all, the claim is true. Even the EPA has admitted that the new standards could cause some power plants to close or to reduce staff. Earlier this summer, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce attempted to analyze just how many jobs would be lost, and they put that number right around 224,000 jobs. That seems pretty significant at first glance, but put in perspective, it isn't.  Think Progress explains:

First off, as Paul Krugman noted, a $50.2 billion reduction per year is only 0.2 percent of the economy. And that loss of 224,000 jobs is out of a country of 140 million workers — America is adding more than 224,000 new jobs every two or three months right now.

Beyond that, there’s a history here. EPA has been issuing regulations on everything from coal furnaces to urban air quality for four decades. Studies sponsored by the fossil fuel industry have regularly predicted major economic hits as a result, and those hits regularly fail to materialize. In fact, when EPA moved to cut sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants in 1990, the Edison Electric Institute predicted electricity rate hikes for the 10 most coal-dependent states. The Center for American Progress found that by 2009 their projection had overshot by 24 percent, and for several of those states the 2009 costs were lower than in 1990.
 

So overall, not only will the jobs lost be replaced, but the rate hike scare mongering is also untrue.

But back to the jobs issue: Murkowski and Scott are ignoring the most glaringly obvious fact — a fact that we at DeSmogBlog have been screaming for years — and that is that regulations actually create jobs. Every new standard put in place by a government organization creates jobs. There are inspectors, bookkeepers, accountants, lawyers, office workers and so on. That’s the part of the “job killing regulations” story that is very rarely told.

And then there's the fact that left unaddressed, climate change is going to cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars. According to the recent report Risky Business, damages from storms, floods and heat waves are already costing local economies billions of dollars. If we continue on our current path, by 2050 between $66 billion and $106 billion worth of existing coastal property will likely be below sea level nationwide.

Murkowski and Scott are just doing what their campaign donors in the dirty energy industry paid them to do: selling big oil and big coal’s agenda to the American public.

ExxonMobil and the climate science denial machinery that it has helped to build over the years are now under more scrutiny than ever before.

At its most recent AGM, the oil and gas giant faced a barrage of questions and resolutions over its position on climate change. Then there is the not insignificant matter of investigations by a group of attorneys general that allege the company lied about its knowledge of the risks of burning fossil fuels. ExxonMobil is retaliating.

The company has pleaded innocence, with CEO Rex Tillerson telling the company’s shareholders that his views on climate science were perfectly in line with the United Nations.

But the latest disclosures on donations by ExxonMobil, reported publicly here for the first time, show it continues to support organisations that claim greenhouse gases are not causing climate change, or that cuts to emissions are a waste of time and money.

Organisations including the American Enterprise Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council and the National Black Chamber of Commerce — all organisations with a record of misinformation on climate science — all received grants in 2015 from ExxonMobil. The 2015 tally brings the total amount of known Exxon funding to denial groups north of $33 million since 1998.

Since 1997, ExxonMobil has been releasing reports annually listing donations to public policy groups — several of which were engaged in a public misinformation campaign on climate change science.

In 2007, after years of criticism, ExxonMobil claimed to have turned a corner on the science.

In a corporate responsibility report, the company said: “In 2008, we will discontinue contributions to several public policy groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.”

ExxonMobil still funding denial

But many climate change campaigners and scientists have illustrated how the company continued to support organisations spreading climate science denial.

Now the oil giant is facing lawsuits from a team of state attorneys general after investigations by Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times showed the company’s own scientists were aware of the risks of burning fossil fuels in the 1980s.

A DeSmog investigation found evidence that Exxon’s knowledge went even further back – to the late 1970s.

In May, the world’s biggest earth sciences organization, the American Geophysical Union, was forced to reopen talks over its financial ties to ExxonMobil after a stinging letter from two members of congress.

More than 200 scientists had signed a letter asking AGU to cut sponsorship ties to ExxonMobil over its decades-long funding of organizations pushing doubt about the causes and implications of climate change.

American Enterprise Institute's ExxonMobil cash

In the latest disclosures, one of the larger single donations — $325,000 — went to the American Enterprise Institute, an organisation that has long fought regulations to cut greenhouse gases while also criticising renewable energy.

As United Nations climate talks opened in Paris in December 2015, the AEI’s energy and environment “expert” Benjamin Zycher provided his analysis of the science of climate change.

Zycher cherry-picked his way through various issues — from sea level rise to global temperatures — each time dismissing, or heavily questioning, the role of increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

“In short”, Zycher wrote, “it appears to be the case that temperatures have been increasing in fits and starts since the end of the little ice age, and the central issue — whether the dominant cause is natural or anthropogenic — is unresolved.”

Zycher’s view goes against science academies across the world and, according to several studies, the findings of more than 90 per cent of climate scientists. 

On polar ice, Zycher claimed: “The recent data do not support the assertion that the polar ice is collapsing as a result of increasing atmospheric concentrations of GHG.” 

But Zycher ignored the numerous studies pointing to rapid and accelerating melting of ice sheets — the grounded ice that is an issue of major concern to sea level rise experts, not to mention the world’s major coastal cities.

From wildfires to extreme weather, Zycher dismisses them all. Elsewhere, Zycher has explained away the recent run of record hot years as being more to do with dodgy data collection. 

The earth has been warming in fits and starts since the end of the little ice age around 1850, and so a warming trend is neither surprising nor informative. The real question is: How much of it has been caused by greenhouse gas emissions? The answer is “more than zero,” but beyond that no one knows, and anyone who claims to know is talking out of a hat.

In June 2015, AEI scholar Michael Rubin produced a series of loaded questions for the next president, where he suggested climate change might be good for societies and that models had “repeatedly delivered inaccurate predictions.”

ALEC and Exxon

Another recipient of ExxonMobil cash in 2015 was the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative think tank that produces boilerplate legislation that suits the needs of its corporate backers.

ALEC was given $25,000 to support its annual conference and further $36,500 for “general support”.

In September 2014, Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Google (now renamed Alphabet) said ALEC was “literally lying” about the science of climate change.  Google had supported ALEC— but no more.

The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research is another big recipient of ExxonMobil cash, with $100,000 in 2014 and $200,000 in 2015.

Institute fellows have repeatedly attacked Obama’s Clean Energy Plan, called the UN Paris climate agreement “useless” and dismissed the link between climate change and health impacts.

In one article, MI fellow Oren Cass argued there was no link between rising temperatures and asthma, even though there have been several studies finding just this. Other studies have also linked extreme heatwaves to deaths.

National Black Chamber of Commerce gets Exxon cash

The National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC) has long been a grateful recipient of ExxonMobil cash — with another $75,000 handed over in 2015.

In November 2015, Harry C. Alford, the NBCC president, described warnings over dangerous climate change as a “farce” and a “ghost” and claimed global warming was in a 20-year pause — not mentioning that 14 of the 16 hottest years on record have all happened since 2000.  NBCC has also been accused of spreading “misinformation” on the impacts President Obama’s clean energy plans.

Federalist Society - funded by Exxon and Google

During the ongoing turmoil of attorneys general lawsuits, one of ExxonMobil’s most vocal defenders has been the influential conservative group the Federalist Society.

The Federalist Society has published numerous essays and articles claiming the lawsuits against ExxonMobil and related requests for records from denialist groups are a threat to free speech, a “chilling campaign to establish ‘consensus’ through intimidation”, a “witch hunt” and a “fishing expedition”.

Not disclosed in the stories, is that the Federalist Society is also a recipient of ExxonMobil cash — $15,000 in 2015.

The Federalist Society does, however, declare the ExxonMobil funding on its annual report, which shows that the oil billionaire Koch brothers, Google and Microsoft are far more generous donors.

NBCC and ALEC were also amongst the array of anti-climate action organisations that had been funded by recently bankrupt coal giant Peabody Energy.

The ExxonMobil disclosures do not list other ways in which the company helps to block action on greenhouse gas emissions, such as its membership of trade groups.

In the letter to AGU, reported on DeSmog, congressmen Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative Ted Lieu, both Democrats, told the science group:

We can attest that Exxon’s purported support for a carbon tax is not real.  It is impossible to reconcile EM’s stated support for a revenue-neutral carbon tax with the lobbying activities of EM and the trade associations that claim to represent EM on the Hill.  What we see in Congress is that their lobbying efforts are 100 percent opposed to any action on climate.

According to researchers who have monitored ExxonMobil over the years, the company took longer this year to publish its disclosures than ever before.

Perhaps the reason for the delay is now apparent. 

Main image: Protestors make their views clear on ExxonMobil's record on climate change. at a shareholder meeting on May 2016. Flickr/350.org

When it comes to climate science denial, some names come easily and deservingly to mind.

There’s oil giant ExxonMobil— a company that contributed millions of dollars to organizations that told the public there was no risk from burning fossil fuels.

There are the oil billionaire Koch brothers— Charles and David — and their ideological zeal against government regulations that drove them to pour vast amounts into groups spreading doubt on the realities of human-caused global warming.

But a name that has not yet reached those heights of climate science denial infamy — but likely should — is the Mercer family.

Who Are the Mercers?

A DeSmog analysis of Federal Electoral Commission returns shows Robert Mercer, the reclusive hedge fund manager, has donated $30.1 million to politics since January 2015 (a further $2.3 million has come from daughter Rebekah and wife Diana).

Some $15 million of Robert Mercer’s money went into the Make America Number 1 super-PAC that was headed by Rebekah Mercer and that bankrolled the final months of Donald Trump’s campaign. One source told The Hill: “The Mercers basically own this campaign.”

But DeSmog has found the Mercers have also pumped at least $22 million into organizations that push climate science denial while blocking moves to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Trump too refuses to accept the evidence that climate change is caused by humans and has consistently called the issue a hoax.

Before diverting to Trump, the Mercers' cash was backing Senator Ted Cruz, who made climate science denial a main feature of his speeches.

Those positions on climate change, challenged by every major scientific institution in the world, are identical to those of the groups and individuals the Mercers have been handsomely funding through their own family foundation.

Climate science denial also fits well with Robert Mercer’s reported investment in Breitbart — the hyper partisan media outfit that calls climate change a hoax. Many see Breitbart as Trump’s very own propaganda vehicle — the Trump Pravda.

Steve Bannon, Breitbart’s former chief, was picked by Trump (or, more likely, by the Mercers) to lead his campaign. The controversial figure will be Trump’s chief strategist.

Climate Denial Funded

Very little is known about what the Mercers think about climate change or, for that matter, anything else.  Both father and daughter avoid media interviews.

But Rebekah has been described as the most powerful woman in GOP politics and is a pivotal member of the Trump team. Rebekah also runs her father’s charitable foundation.

So, the best way to get a handle on what the Mercers think, is to see where they spend their millions.

DeSmog has analyzed the Mercer Family Foundation’s tax returns since 2005 and finds some $22 million has gone to groups pushing climate science denial.

Across the board, the groups funded by the Mercers have misrepresented climate science, promoted fossil fuels, denigrated renewable energy, and pushed to strip powers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The Chicago-based Heartland Institute has received $4,988,000 from the Mercers, cashing its first $1 million check in 2008.

The Heartland Institute holds regular “international climate change conferences” where denialists, fossil fuel-funded scientists, and politicians come together to talk tactics.

In 2012, the institute famously started a billboard campaign that used a picture of terrorist Ted “Unabomber” Kaczynski next to the phrase: “I still believe in global warming. Do you?”

Despite the generosity of the Mercers, the Heartland Institute does not publicly acknowledge the funding, perhaps indicative of the Mercers' desire to stay below the radar.

The Mercer name was even left out of internal Heartland budget documents leaked in 2012. If the Mercers had asked for anonymity, then Heartland’s coyness is not unusual.

Another organization shy about getting cash from the Mercer Family Foundation is the George W. Bush Foundation, the organization set up in 2006 to look after the official archive of the George W. Bush presidency.

The George W. Bush Foundation publishes a lengthy list of its financial supporters and the Mercers are not on it. But tax records show the Mercers have given the Bush Foundation $4.1 million since 2010.

Oregon Petition

Alongside funding for Breitbart and the Heartland Institute, Robert Mercer has also spent $1.25 million supporting an obscure group known as the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, led by Art Robinson.

Robinson was behind a long-debunked “survey” of university graduates, known as the Oregon petition. First published in 1998, the petition claimed that 30,000 “scientists” had declared humans were not to blame for global warming.

Robinson also thinks climate change is a hoax.  His institute sells nuclear survival manuals, is currently stockpiling human urine for testing, and sells home schooling kits for parents worried about their children being exposed to socialism.

Robert Mercer also supported Art Robinson’s failed 2010 Republican run for Congress.

As well as Robert and his family donating to Robinson’s campaign committee, Robert Mercer personally gave $643,750 to a super-PAC that ran attack ads against Robinson’s Democratic opponent (that opponent, Peter DeFazio, has noted that he had co-sponsored legislation to tax hedge fund transactions).

The biggest beneficiary of Mercer Family Foundation cash is the Media Research Center (MRC), a group which claims credit for convincing Americans that most of the media has a “liberal” bias.

The MRC’s outlets regularly give favorable coverage to climate science denialism, while ridiculing credentialed climate scientists and others who place a priority on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

MRC alumnus Marc Morano, communications manager at the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, recruited his former employer to help him produce the climate science denial documentary Climate Hustle. Rebekah Mercer is an MRC director.

The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research is another group on the receiving end of the Mercers' generosity, to the tune of more than $1 million since 2011. 

The institute’s researchers tend to argue against renewable energy while promoting fossil fuels and underplaying or ignoring the impacts of climate change.

Rebekah Mercer recently joined the institute’s board of trustees.

The Heritage Foundation is a relative newcomer to the Mercer family’s giving, but the think tank’s positions on energy, political ideology, and climate science fit the pattern perfectly — underplay and misrepresent the science, promote fossil fuels, and push for low government regulations. 

Predictably, Rebekah Mercer is a trustee at Heritage, a think tank seen as influential in the Trump camp. The Trump team is drawing heavily from Heritage Foundation staff for its transition teams. 

On the EPA“landing team” is Heritage’s David Kreutzer, who claims the recent run of record-breaking hot years globally is nothing unusual.

Rebekah Mercer is also on the board of the Moving Picture Institute (MPI), a group that helps finance and distribute movies which, according to its website, “make an impact on people's understanding of individual rights, limited government, and free markets.” 

MPI even has a program to support stand-up comedians who promote this “freedom” ideology in their stand-up routines.

Climate Denial’s Most Powerful Ally?

Until now, the Mercer family’s funding of climate science denial groups has gone relatively unnoticed.

Most of the attention of investigative journalists had fallen on three overlapping groups that have either influenced or funded the climate science denial movement across the United States.

The first was the network of groups funded and orchestrated by the Koch brothers, who have invested millions into creating and sustaining conservative “think tanks” that take positions protecting the Koch brothers' fossil fuel interests.

Groups like the Cato Institute (which cashed a $300,000 Mercer check last year) and Americans for Prosperity have attacked the science of human-caused climate change while challenging the legitimacy of solutions, such as renewable energy and electric vehicles.

The second key funding stream for climate science denial organizations are two linked organizations called Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund.

Both Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund are “donor-advised funds” and are used by rich conservatives to funnel money to “libertarian” causes while hiding the identity of the donors.

A third major supporter of the climate science denial industry are those who stand to lose most from the public fully understanding the implications of climate change — the fossil fuel industry itself.

Companies including ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, and Koch Industries, alongside trade groups representing the fossil fuel industry, have helped fund the machinery of doubt for decades.

Now, Robert Mercer’s fortune and the political prowess of daughter Rebekah have created another wealthy and powerful ally for the climate science denial industry.

President-elect Donald Trump is the most powerful vehicle yet for those billionaires willing to spend big to misrepresent climate science and gamble on society’s future.

Oren Cass

Credentials

• JD, Harvard University (2012). [1]
• BA, Political Economy, Williams College (2005). [1]

Background

Oren Cass is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute (MI). According to his profile, Cass promotes “conservative policy approaches on poverty, climate change, environmental regulation, and international trade.” He regularly writes policy reports for MI on issues including climate change. [2]

Cass was domestic policy director for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign from 2011 to 2012, where he regularly attended debates at Harvard University and MIT on issues like health care, energy, and environmental policy. [2]

Oren has made regular presentations at conferences including those of the Manhattan Institute, the Legatum Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Adam Smith Society, the Conservative Policy Action Conference, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and the State Policy Network. [3]

Before joining MI, Cass worked for the Boston and New Delhi office of Bain & Company as a management consultant. [2]

Stance on Climate Change

January 1, 2017

Cass wrote in National Affairs: [4]

“The scientific consensus holds that the climate is warming and human activity plays a substantial role. But there is no consensus about how much warming human activity has caused or will cause.”

[…]

“[W]hile extreme climate change is a quintessentially worrying problem, it is also one that has no guarantee or even likelihood of occurring. Certainly, the 'scientific consensus' or even the 'scientific mainstream' on climate change does not extend to confidence in such scenarios.

“To compare extreme climate change with other worrying problems, it is helpful to consider the dimensions that make a problem 'worrying': that it is forecasted, irreversible, and pervasive. On all three, climate change appears less worrying than most.”

December 1, 2016

“There is a consensus among climate scientists that human activity is contributing to climate change. However, claims that rising temperatures pose an existential threat to the human race or modern civilization are not well supported by climate science or economics; to the contrary, they are every bit as far from the mainstream as claims that climate change is not occurring or that it will be beneficial. Analyses consistently show that the costs of climate change are real but manageable. For instance, the prosperity that the world might achieve in 2100 without climate change may instead be delayed until 2102,” Cass wrote in a Manhattan Institute “Issue Brief” titled “Climate Costs in Context.” [5]

October 3, 2016

Referring to a pro-carbon-tax article at the Wall Street Journal, Cass wrote at the National Review Online: [6]

“I am convinced by the scientific consensus on climate change, but I would still slam the door in the face of anyone who came to me with that offer. If an insurance salesman promises his policy is not-too-expensive but tells you nothing concrete about the benefits, walk away quickly.” [6]

March 5, 2013

Writing at The National Review, Cass agreed that there is a scientific consensus on climate change. However, he disagreed that emissions reductions are a solution: [7]

“Unless the scientific community is perpetrating an unprecedented hoax, the existence of such a widespread consensus indicates at least a significant likelihood of a real danger, which presents policymakers with an actual risk deserving of serious consideration.

Accepting the science does not, however, require one to accept the liberal policy prescriptions.  Science is only an input to any policy discussion, and nowhere is this truer than in the case of climate change, where the scientific consensus resolves remarkably little. More carbon in the atmosphere leads to warming, but how much warming? Scientists speak in terms of 'climate sensitivity — how sensitive is the climate to some increase in carbon dioxide? Here there is very little agreement.” [7]

Cass also stated that “the threat of climate change is based on a 'stock,' not a 'flow',” suggesting that “Lower U.S. emissions do not ultimately reduce the threat of climate change; they simply postpone some portion of it.” [7]

Key Quotes

February 17, 2017

Cass celebrated Scott Pruitt's nomination to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), writing in the opinion section of the U.S. News and World Report: [8]

“Scott Pruitt is the ideal person to stop the agency's overreach,” Cass wrote

“Perhaps if the nation were struggling with unprecedented pollution and seeking to implement new laws in response, an EPA Administrator who specialized in pollution control technology would be more appropriate. But that is not the case. As the EPA proclaims proudly, air pollution has declined 70 percent in the past 45 years. What the nation struggles with today is costly and unlawful overreach by its federal environmental agency. Pruitt can help to fix that.  [8]

May 2016

Speaking at the 2016 Conservative Political Action Conference, Cass said of leaders of developing countries, “no matter how seriously they take the science of climate change, are focused on economic [growth]. As long as that's the case, we in the United States are just spitting into the wind.” [9]

December 19, 2016

“Even if President Trump reverses President Obama’s efforts, the marginal effect on future climate change will be minimal because Obama’s efforts were so inconsequential,” Cass wrote at the National Review.[10]

December 17, 2015

“If the topic of conversation is climate policy, conservatives should be winning. They will need to show endless patience in the face of ever more bizarre hyperbole — a Reaganesque 'There you go again' is probably about right. And they will need to confidently describe an affirmative policy agenda, preferably emphasizing research and development that might identify new technologies so cheap and clean that developing countries will want to use them along with tools for adapting to whatever climate change does bring,” Cass wrote at the National Review. [11]

November 28, 2015

“If you actually care about global warming, you should be rooting against an agreement,” Cass said of the Paris Climate Agreement in an article at Politico. [12]

March 9, 2015

“The Clean Air Act, by virtue of decisions made and priorities chosen decades ago, is forcing Americans to accept substantial economic sacrifices that they cannot afford, in pursuit of environmental gains that they do not need and that are not worth the cost,” Cass wrote in a 2015 National Review article. 

”[…] Precisely because America has made so much environmental progress, a marginal investment in further economic growth now offers a far greater societal return than a marginal investment in further environmental quality.” [13] 

Key Deeds

May 8, 2018

A new set of documents released to the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) as part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request revealed details of Pruitt's plan to engage in a “red team, blue team” expertise on climate change. The documents showed communications between the EPA and a number of corporate-funded conservative think tanks with views that run counter to established science on climate change including the Heartland Institute, the Manhattan Institute, and the CO2 Coalition. [46]

Oren Cass was also included in EPA communications: [46]

 “We were thinking this meeting could be purely informative in nature, and not necessarily in the context of a specific EPA exercise,” Tate Bennett, associate administrator at the EPA wrote to Cass in a January 18 email. [46]

Cass later said that he believed past analysis used by the EPA regarding the economics to address climate change as flawed. “I encourage conservatives to accept mainstream climate science and focus on economic analysis and good public policy,” Cass said. [46]

March 2018

The Manhattan Institute announced a lecture and new report by Oren Cass. The lecture, titled “Overheated: How Flawed Analyses Overestimate The Costs Of Climate Change,” was originally scheduled for March 7, 2018, but was “cancelled due to anticipated inclement weather” with a new date set for March 20. [14], [15], [16]

“What kind of disruptions should Americans anticipate from climate change? According to the studies that have informed federal policy, the scenario is dire: increased deaths from extreme heat and air pollution, as well as reduced economic productivity. In a groundbreaking new report, however, MI senior fellow Oren Cass argues that the situation is not nearly so grim,” the event description read, adding “the long-term costs of climate change are being consistently overstated while too little energy is being devoted to plans for adaptation.” [16]

Cass released the report on March 11, with an accompanying article in The Wall Street Journal titled “Doomsday Climate Scenarios Are a Joke.” In the WSJ article, Cass argued that estimates of the cost of climate change come from “laughably bad economics,” and that adaptation is the answer to climate-change related deaths. [42], [43]

“If you imagine society is static and incapable of innovation, the prospect of climate change must be terrifying,” Cass wrote at WSJ. He reiterated this focus in the conclusion of the full Manhattan Institute report: [44]

“[C]orrelation-based temperature-impact studies that produce very high estimates of the economic and social costs of projected climate change—meanwhile ignoring or downplaying the possibility of adaptation and obscuring the inaccuracy of underlying estimates—are distinctly unhelpful,” Cass concluded.

Skeptical Science has noted that the cost of preventing global warming is relatively cheap when compared to the accelerating costs of climate-change-related damages. With regards to adaptation, mass species extinctions of the past have also been strongly linked to climate change.

Cass presented his report on March 20, 2018: [45]

HAPPENINGNOW: @oren_cass presents his new paper on climate research, “Overheated.” He was introduced by @BrianAcity. pic.twitter.com/I7gZL2yJCK

— Manhattan Institute (@ManhattanInst) March 20, 2018

January 18, 2018

Cass appeared at an American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Opportunity America event titled “This way up: New thinking about poverty and economic mobility.” According to the event summary, Cass argued for wage subsidies and “an 'inverse payroll' tax that would add a certain amount to low-income Americans’ paychecks.” [17]

May 1, 2017

Cass published an article in National Review titled “Climate-Change Activists Are the Real Science Deniers” which prompted a critique by John Cook, founder of Skeptical Science and research assistant professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. [18], [19]

“It’s with some degree of irony that Cass quotes figures from our survey-of-surveys to cast doubt on the consensus. He employs the very technique we warn against by using samples including non-experts,” Cook wrote at National Review. Cook looks to a paper Cass cited to get an 82 percent consensus figure as an example. According to Cook, the 2009 paper by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmermann surveyed scientists from a wide range of disciplines. However, “When Doran looked at scientists with the relevant expertise — climate scientists publishing climate research — he found 97 percent consensus.” [19]

In another article, Cass countered with his own criticism of Cook, and wrote “I fully accept mainstream science in my article.” [20]

In June, John Cook appeared with Cass in a two-part episode of the program Evidence Squared to discuss their interchange at The National Review. Audio below. [21], [22]

Part 1

Part 2

April 27, 2017

Cass wrote a MI report arguing in favor of cuts to the EPA. According to the report, “While environmental activists will always demand larger budgets and tighter standards, Americans can rest assured that they will continue to benefit from outstanding air quality in the years to come.” [23],[24]

“Clean air should be a priority for all Americans, but thankfully it has been achieved. Air pollution has declined more than 70% since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970; even this nation’s most crowded cities enjoy air quality far superior to that of European capitals. This progress has continued across Democratic and Republican administrations, EPA expansions and EPA cuts, aggressive federal action and delegation to states, and it will continue under a Trump administration as well,” Cass claimed. [24]

“[E]ven if the EPA has fewer enforcement resources, it is difficult to envision major emitters violating federal law by shifting back to outdated technologies. Perhaps the EPA will slow its development of new regulations, but those on the books already ensure continued progress through the heightened demands that they impose on new sources of pollution.” [24]

March 21, 2017

Cass wrote an article titled “The Problem With Climate Catastrophizing” in Foreign Affairs, where he argued that adaptation is an appropriate response to climate change. [25]

“The idea that humanity might prepare for and cope with climate change through adaptation is incompatible with catastrophists’ outlook,” Cass wrote. “Yet if the damage from climate damage can be managed, anticipating challenges through research and then investing in smart responses offers a more sensible path than blocking the construction of pipelines or subsidizing the construction of wind turbines. Catastrophists countenance progress only if it can be fueled without carbon-dioxide emissions. Yet given the choice, bringing electricity to those who need it better insulates them from any climate threat than does preventing the accompanying emissions.” [25]

Climate scientist Michael Mann responded to Cass's article. He wrote that “rather than assessing the legitimate range of views regarding climate change, Cass marshals a series of fallacies in an apparent effort to justify a fossil fuel-friendly agenda of inaction.” Mann noted that, while Cass portrayed mainstream climate scientists as “catastrophists,” rather “scientists have been overly conservative in their assessments, tending to understate the actual threat posed by climate change—the very opposite of catastrophism. [26] 

Cass wrote another article responding to Mann's, claiming that Mann did not refute his argument. [27]

April 2016

Cass wrote a MI report titled “Who Pays the Bill for the Obama Climate Agenda?” claiming that “President Obama’s climate agenda represents an enormous tax increase on low- and middle income Americans, nearly tripling the federal tax burden on the poorest households.” [28]

“[T]he policy pays only lip service to 'action' on climate change and will not affect the trajectory of global greenhouse-gas emissions or temperatures,” Cass wrote in the report. [29]

December 2016

Cass wrote a report outlining“Ideas for the New Administration” on energy and environment. The report listed “four steps that Congress and the new Trump administration can take” including a lessened focus on renewable energy: [30]

“Expedite permitting processes for energy infrastructure by establishing fixed timelines, assigning a single agency responsible for coordination, and deeming pipelines and export terminals as “in the national interest.”

2. Open more public lands and waters to natural-resource development and create a settled, reliable framework that encourages private investment.

3. Suspend New Source Performance Standards under the Clean Air Act, allowing industrial facilities to be built and expanded under the same standards that already apply to existing facilities.

4. Refocus climate policy away from wind and solar, toward more effective existing technologies and the development of new ones.” [30]

December 1, 2016

Cass wrote a MI report titled “Climate Costs in Context” claiming that the country is capable of adapting to climate change. While the costs “are substantial and have the potential to cause significant damage and disruption,” Cass claimed that “none are outside the range of other challenges facing society, and none support the apocalyptic rhetoric of many politicians and activists.” [5]

November 17, 2016

The Legatum Institute and Manhattan Institute partnered on a one-day conference on “the most important issues facing the next American Administration, and the related implications on the 'Special Relationship' with post-Brexit Britain.” The conference agenda listed Cass as a speaker on the topic of trade policy. [31]

July 27, 2016

Cass was a speaker at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) 2016 Annual Meeting in Indianapolis. [32]

According to the event agenda, Cass was a speaker at a workshop titled “A Balanced Discussion About Energy Policy in the Next Administration.” [33]

According to the Center for Media and Democracy, “ALEC is a pay-to-play operation where corporations buy a seat and a vote on ‘task forces’ to advance their legislative wish lists and can get a tax break for donations, effectively passing these lobbying costs on to taxpayers. [33]

December 1, 2015

Cass testified to the House Science Committee on the Paris Climate Deal: “My primary message to the committee is this: the climate policies pursued by this country under President Obama are a bad deal for the climate and a bad deal for this country,” Cass said in his testimony. [34]

November 18, 2015

Cass testified before the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, alleging that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) “no longer bear a substantial relationship to the goal of sharply reducing greenhouse gas emissions” and that the “only likely achievement of the upcoming Paris conference (COP21) is a commitment by developed nations including the United States to transfer large sums of wealth to poorer nations.” [35]

October 30, 2015

Cass was a presenter at a Cato Institute Conference titled “Preparing for Paris: What to Expect from the U.N.’s 2015 Climate Change Conference.” He appeared on Panel 3 “Realistic Expectations from Paris.”  Attendees included many noted climate change deniers with the agenda listing Judith Curry, Richard Tol, Roy Spencer, Peter Glaser, and Chip Knappenberger among others. [36]

October 16, 2015

Oren Cass wrote the MI report “Leading Nowhere: The Futility and Farce of Global Climate Negotiations” suggesting that “no negotiated agreement will significantly reduce global emissions of CO2.” [37]

August 4, 2015

Cass opposed President Obama's Clean Power Plan (CPP). In a statement, he described it as a “an illegal overreach that claims power never given to the E.P.A. and bullies both states and private businesses.” [38]

“Its primary effects will be to disrupt markets and drive up costs, handing victories to politically-favored 'green' industries and sending the bill to consumer,” Cass asserted. [38]

On August 4, 2015, Cass was a guest on the On Point radio show in Boston where he claimed that the CPP would have “no actual impact on climate change”: [39]

June 2015

Oren Cass appeared on Fox News to suggest that Liberals would use Pope Francis's encyclical on the environment to “advance their political cause” and to ignore statements that condemn abortion: [40]

Affiliations

• Manhattan Institute for Public Policy Research — Senior Fellow. [2]
• Bain & Company — Manager (2014 – 2015), Consultant (2005 – 2009 and 2012 – 2014). [1]
• Romney for President — Domestic Policy Advisor (May 2011 – November 2012). [1]

Social Media

• @Oren_cass on Twitter.
• Oren Cass on LinkedIn.

Publications

The Manhattan Institute maintains a list of Oren Cass's latest publications, testimony, and reports: [2]

Articles

• “Do States Have a Role in Making Climate Policy?,”The Wall Street Journal, Nov 14, 2017.
• “American Workers Need a New Kind of Labor Union,”The Wall Street Journal, Sep 01, 2017.
• “Teaching to the Rest,”National Review, Jul 14, 2017.
• “The 'Dubious' Claim That Obamacare Saved Zero Lives,”National Review Online, Jun 29, 2017.
• “Policy-Based Evidence Making,”National Affairs, Jun 22, 2017.
• “Adding Economic Catastrophism to Climate Catastrophism Does Not Help,”National Review Online, Jun 07, 2017.
• “The Key Charade of the Paris Agreement,”National Review Online, Jun 06, 2017.
• “Don't Apologize for Being Honest about Climate Change,”National Review Online, Jun 05, 2017.
• “The Paris Agreement Got the Logic of Climate Action All Wrong. Good Riddance.,”Los Angeles Times, Jun 02, 2017.
• “Goodbye to Paris,”Commentary, May 31, 2017.
• “Catastrophe and the Climate,”Foreign Affairs, May 21, 2017.
• “Catastrophe and the Climate,”Foreign Affairs, May 21, 2017.
• “John Cook's Leap of Faith,”Foreign Affairs, May 15, 2017.
• “Climate-Change Activists Are the Real Science Deniers,”National Review, May 01, 2017.
• “This Earth Day, Environmentalists Should Be Celebrating. But They Are Not.,”The Weekly Standard, Apr 21, 2017.
• “Who's The Denier Now?,”National Review, Apr 14, 2017.
• “Surely Climate Catastrophists Have a Better Argument Than This,”National Review Online, Apr 03, 2017.
• “The Problem With Climate Catastrophizing,”Foreign Affairs, Mar 21, 2017.
• “No, Obamacare Has Not Saved American Lives,”National Review Online, Feb 27, 2017.
• “Government Should Bear the Minimum-Wage-Hike Burden,”CFO Magazine, Feb 16, 2017.
• “Why a Carbon Tax Is Bad for the Country,”The Dallas Morning News, Feb 16, 2017.
• “An EPA That Knows Its Limits,”U.S. News and World Report, Feb 16, 2017.
• “How Can Government Help Boost Productivity?,”National Review Online, Jan 10, 2017.
• “How to Worry About Climate Change,”National Affairs, Jan 01, 2017.
• “Trump the Climate-Slayer,”National Review, Dec 05, 2016.
• “Donald Trump and Climate Change: The Earth Will Survive,”National Review Online, Nov 22, 2016.
• “Does David Brooks Think Barack Obama Is the Answer?,”National Review Online, Nov 14, 2016.
• “Resisting the Tar of Trump's Brush,”National Review Online, Nov 11, 2016.
• “Policy Pilot: Giving Puerto Rico a Wage-Subsidy Boost,”The Hill, Oct 17, 2016.
• “Don't Buy This Climate Insurance Policy,”National Review Online, Oct 03, 2016.
• “Don't Sell Obamacare as a Medicaid Expansion for Children,”National Review Online, Sep 28, 2016.
• “Trump Revises His Economic Factsheet,”National Review Online, Sep 15, 2016.
• “Clinton Argues Paid Leave Creates Wage Gap,”National Review Online, Sep 14, 2016.
• “Hiding the Fracking Boom in Obama's 'Legacy',”National Review Online, Sep 05, 2016.
• “The Opportunity Cost of Medicaid,”National Review Online, Aug 30, 2016.
• “Medicaid Doesn't Help Alleviate Poverty—So Why Do We Keep Spending More On It?,”National Review, Aug 30, 2016.
• “The 'Fight-for-$15' Fantasy,”Investor's Business Daily, Aug 01, 2016.
• “The Fight-for-$15 Fantasy,”National Review Online, Jul 28, 2016.
• “Is America's Safety Net Shrinking?,”Manhattan Institute, Jul 06, 2016.
• “Open' and 'Closed' Is the Wrong Political Frame,”National Review Online, Jul 01, 2016.
• “Why a Universal Basic Income Is a Terrible Idea,”National Review, Jun 15, 2016.
• “On Paul Ryan's Plans to Reform Antipoverty Programs,”National Review Online, Jun 07, 2016.
• “Why Shouldn't Medicaid Money Treat Poverty Too?,”Bloomberg View, Jun 07, 2016.
• “Another Obama Legacy: Americans Will Pay Billions for a Useless Climate Agreement,”National Review Online, Apr 22, 2016.
• “The New Central Planners,”National Affairs, Mar 22, 2016.
• “More Carbon-Tax Hand-Waving,”National Review Online, Mar 02, 2016.
• “Toward a Bipartisan Compromise to Rein in Executive Power,”National Review, Feb 29, 2016.
• “Trump Voters Are Angry, but Why?,”National Review Online, Feb 23, 2016.
• “Climate Play-Acting,”National Review, Dec 17, 2015.
• “Don't Let the White House Blame Congress – or You – for Its Bad Climate Deal,”FoxNews.com, Dec 17, 2015.
• “Staying Below 2 Degrees Is Hopeless (Without War),”Bloomberg View, Nov 30, 2015.
• “Paris Climate Change Meetings: Best Estimate for Progress? Zero,”FoxNews.com, Nov 30, 2015.
• “Why the Paris Climate Deal Is Meaningless,”Politico, Nov 28, 2015.
• “Social Inequality Matters as Much as - or More Than - Economic Inequality,”National Review Online, Oct 19, 2015.
• “Basic Income Won’t Fix America’s Social Divide,”Washington Post, Sep 29, 2015.
• “Emissions Standards: Watch the Cap, Not the Trade,”National Review Online, Sep 29, 2015.
• “A Smarter Way to Raise Paychecks,”The New York Times, Sep 10, 2015.
• “The Real Clinton Climate Plan,”The Morning Consult, Jul 31, 2015.
• “Nix The Nixon-Era Energy Policies,”Forbes, Jul 29, 2015.
• “What Would A U.S. Carbon Tax Accomplish?,”National Review Online, Jul 08, 2015.
• “The Carbon-Tax Shell Game,”National Affairs, Jun 21, 2015.
• “The Encyclical's Challenge Is To Climate-Change Activists, Not Skeptics,”National Review Online, Jun 19, 2015.
• “Don't Celebrate The Low Unemployment Numbers,”Washington Post, Jun 02, 2015.
• “No, IMF, The Absence Of A Carbon Tax Is Not The Same Thing As A 'Subsidy',”National Review Online, Jun 01, 2015.
• “Changing Climate, Changing Claims,”Washington Examiner, May 14, 2015.
• “Carbon Taxes In Revenue Fantasyland,”The Wall Street Journal, May 01, 2015.
• “Earth Day: Environmental Protection Shouldn't Hurt Economy,”Investor's Business Daily, Apr 21, 2015.

Books

• “Paycheck by Paycheck: Wage Subsidies,”This Way Up, Jan 25, 2018.
• “Unleashing Opportunity, Part II: Policy Reforms for an Accountable Administrative State,”National Affairs, Jan 12, 2017.

MI Reports

• “Will EPA Cuts Harm America's Air Quality?,”Manhattan Institute, Apr 27, 2017.
• “Will Repealing Obamacare Kill People?,”Manhattan Institute, Feb 22, 2017.
• “Ideas for the New Administration: Energy and Environment,”Manhattan Institute, Dec 12, 2016.
• “Climate Costs in Context,”Manhattan Institute, Dec 01, 2016.
• “Issues 2016: Is a $15 Federal Minimum Wage Appropriate?,”Manhattan Institute, Jul 28, 2016.
• “Issues 2016: Is America's Safety Net Shrinking?,”Manhattan Institute, Jun 28, 2016.
• “Over-Medicaid-ed: How Medicaid Distorts and Dilutes America's Safety Net,”Manhattan Institute, May 19, 2016.
• “Issues 2016: Who Pays the Bill for the Obama Climate Agenda?,”Manhattan Institute, Apr 21, 2016.
• “Issues 2016: Fracking, Not Solar Power, Is Reducing U.S. Carbon-Dioxide Emissions,”Manhattan Institute, Nov 04, 2015.
• “Leading Nowhere: The Futility and Farce of Global Climate Negotiations,”Manhattan Institute, Oct 16, 2015.
• “The Wage Subsidy: A Better Way to Help the Poor,”Manhattan Institute, Aug 25, 2015.
• “Step on the Gas! How to Extend America's Energy Advantage,”Manhattan Institute, Jul 09, 2015.

Statements

• “MI Responds: Trump Proposes Budget for 2018,”Manhattan Institute, May 23, 2017.
• “MI Responds: Seema Verma Confirmed to Head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,”Manhattan Institute, Mar 14, 2017.

Testimony

• “Testimony by Oren Cass Before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,”Manhattan Institute, Apr 27, 2016.
• “Testimony by Oren Cass to House Science Committee on Paris Climate Deal,”Manhattan Institute, Dec 01, 2015.
• “Testimony By Oren M. Cass to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,”Manhattan Institute, Nov 18, 2015.

Video

• “Oren Cass responds to the encyclical written by Pope Francis that addressed climate change on Fox News,”Fox News, Jun 18, 2015.

Resources

1. “Oren Cass,” LinkedIn. Accessed March 8, 2018.

2. “Oren Cass,” Manhattan Institute. Archived March 8, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/IOrBy

3. “ABOUTOREN,” Orencass.com. Archived March 8, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/fgpQW

4. Oren Case. “How to Worry about Climate Change,” National Affairs, Number 34 (Winter 2018). Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/2VLCU

5. “Climate Costs in Context” (PDF), Manhattan Institute, December 1, 2016.

6. Oren Cass. “Don't Buy This Climate Insurance Policy,” National Review Online, October 3, 2016. Archived March 8, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/OlVor

7. Oren Cass. “The Next Climate Debate,” National Review, March 5, 2013. Archived March 8, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/bJELR

8. Oren Cass. “An EPA That Knows Its Limits,” U.S. News & World Report, February 15, 2017.

9. “Okla. AG: 'We must have another Justice Scalia' to fight EPA,” E&E News, March 4, 2016. Archived March 8, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/C3Cm4

10. Oren Case. “Trump the Climate-Slayer,” National Review, December 19, 2016. Archived March 8, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/nJsUA

11. Oren Cass. “Climate Play-Acting,” National Review, December 31, 2015. Archived March 8, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/sDHlQ

12. “Why the Paris climate deal is meaningless,” Politico, November 28, 2015. Archived March 8, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/tN9fT

13. Oren Cass. “Reform the Clean Air Act,” National Review, March 9, 2015. Archived March 8, 2018.

14. “Overheated: How Flawed Analyses Overestimate The Costs Of Climate Change,” Manhattan Institute. Archived March 5, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/fwDyP

15. “Overheated: How Flawed Analyses Overestimate The Costs Of Climate Change,” Manhattan Institute. Archived March 7, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/nUDRA

16. “Overheated: How Flawed Analyses Overestimate The Costs Of Climate Change,” Manhattan Institute. Archived March 8, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/FdvYd

17. “This way up: New thinking about poverty and economic mobility,” American Enterprise Institute, January 18, 2018. Archived March 8, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/TkK9h

18. “Climate-Change Activists Are the Real Science Deniers,” National Review, May 1, 2017. Archived March 8, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/WitaO

19. John Cook. “How to Recognize ‘Science Denial’,” National Review, May 15, 2017. Archived March 8, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/wmpG6

20. Oren Cass. “John Cook’s Leap of Faith,” National Review, May 15, 2017. Archived March 8, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/XUOQ7

21. “EP 14: ORENCASSANDSCIENTIFICCONSENSUS,” Evidence Squared, June 7, 2017. Archived .mp3 on file at DeSmog.

22. “EP 15: ORENCASSONALARMISMVSDENIAL,” Evidence Squared, June 22, 2017. Archived .mp3 on file at DeSmog.

23. Oren Cass. “Will EPA Cuts Harm America's Air Quality?” Mahattan Institute, April 27, 2017. Archived March 8, 2018.

24. “Will EPA Cuts Harm America’s Air Quality?” (PDF), Manhattan Institute.

25. “The Problem With Climate Catastrophizing,” Foreign Affairs, March 21, 2017.

26. Michael E. Mann. “Climate Catastrophe Is a Choice,” Foreign Affairs, April 21, 2017. Archived March 8, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/7aDHA

27. Oren Cass. “Catastrophe and the Climate,” Foreign Affairs, May 21, 2017.

28. Oren Cass. “Who Pays the Bill for the Obama Climate Agenda?” (PDF), the Manhattan Institute. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.

29. Oren Cass. “Who Pays the Bill for the Obama Climate Agenda?” (PDF), The Manhattan Institute. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.

30. “Four Energy and Environment Initiatives” (PDF), Manhattan Institute, December 2016.

31. “New American Leadership, Brexit and What’s Next,” Legatum Institute, November 17, 2016. Archived March 8, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/3CTsA

32. “2016 ANNUALMEETING– INDIANAPOLIS, IN,” ALEC.  Archived March 8, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/r1x7q

33. “A BALANCEDDISCUSSIONABOUTENERGYPOLICYINTHENEXTADMINISTRATION– WORKSHOP,” ALEC. Archived March 8, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/7iNHb

34. “Testimony by Oren Cass to House Science Committee on Paris Climate Deal,” Manhattan Institute, Decembe 1,2 015. Archived March 9, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/uqiiS

35. “Testimony By Oren M. Cass to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,” Manhattan Institute, November 18, 2015. Archived March 9, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/8JPJn

36. “Preparing for Paris: What to Expect from the U.N.’s 2015 Climate Change Conference,” Cato Institute, Octobe 30, 2015. Archived March 8, 2018. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/4cz8c

37. Oren Cass. “Leading Nowhere: The Futility and Farce of Global Climate Negotiations” (PDF), Manhattan Institute.

38. Scott Waldman. “Obama emissions plan has roots in New York debate,” Politico, August 4, 2015. Archived March 8, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/92md7

39. “The President’s Hard Carbon Emissions Push,” WBUR 90.9, August 4, 2015. Archived .mp3 on file at DeSmog.

40. “Oren Cass responds to the encyclical written by Pope Francis that addressed climate change on Fox News,” Manhattan Institute, June 18, 2015. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.

41. Oren Cass. “Changing Climate, Changing Claims,”Washington Examiner, May 14, 2015. Archived March 8, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/ovS9y

42. “Overheated: How Flawed Analyses Overestimate the Costs of Climate Change,” Manhattan Institute, March 11, 2018. Archived March 12, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/CG65Y

43. Oren Cass. “Doomsday Climate Scenarios Are a Joke,” The Wall Street Journal, March 11, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/LdeAF

44. Oren Cass. “OVERHEATED: HOWFLAWEDANALYSESOVERESTIMATETHECOSTSOFCLIMATECHANGE” (PDF), Manhattan Institute, March 2018.

45. “HAPPENINGNOW: @oren_cass presents his new paper on climate research, 'Overheated'” He was introduced by @BrianAcity,” Twitter post by user @ManhattanInst, March 20, 2018. Archived .png on file at Desmog

46. “Pruitt’s Plan for Climate Change Debates: Ask Conservative Think Tanks,” The New York Times, May 8, 2018. Archived May 14, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/onsj5

Other Resources

A new report by Oren Cass of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research dismisses predictions of the impacts of a warming world with a simple solution: When climate change turns up the heat, people just need to turn on their air conditioners.

From his analysis, “Overheated: How Flawed Analyses Overestimate the Costs of Climate Change,” the Wall Street Journal somehow arrived at the following headline for Cass’s recent op-ed: Doomsday Climate Scenarios Are a Joke.

It should be noted that Cass is a Harvard-trained lawyer, with a background in political science, not climate science. And his employer, the Manhattan Institute, for years has promoted climate science contrarianism while pushing fossil fuel development. No surprise that the organization is bankrolled by several conservative foundations, including the billionaire Mercer family, major Trump donors and funders of climate denial. 

Cass’s Wall Street Journal op-ed, which begins with “Debates over climate change are filled with dire estimates of its cost,” was quickly trumpeted by the also Mercer-backed right-wing publication Breitbart News.

What Cass is peddling with his “just get air conditioners” argument is known as adaptation. The purveyors of this approach admit the climate is changing but say that it is nothing to worry about because humans will just adapt. This argument is much more popular with the extremely wealthy than with the rest of the world’s population.

Cass proceeds to dismiss several reports from organizations such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Government Accountability Office that estimate the impacts of increasing temperatures on the U.S. and global economy by simply saying people will do things like turn on air conditioners. Thus, he concludes, those estimates of the costs which he admits include “deaths from extreme heat, lost hours of work from extreme heat, and deaths from heat-caused air pollution” are “mostly from laughably bad economics.”

Now, air conditioning might be a feasible solution for office workers and the affluent, but what about people who work outside, such as agricultural workers? Cass acknowledges this problem is real, but he has a solution for that as well: “This does not rule out possible technological innovation in the future (such as cooling vests).”

Can’t afford a mythical cooling vest on, for example, a migrant worker’s salary? At the very end of the analysis, Cass touches on this as well: “Just because adaptation is desirable and likely to occur does not make it free.”

No explanation from Cass as to where the funding for all of this adaption would come from. 

It’s unlikely the Mercers will foot the bill, but their dollars likely will be sufficient to keep the air conditioners running at the Manhattan Institute's offices.

The 'People Live in Florida' Argument

Like his peers at the climate-denying Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cass also trots out the example of people currently living in Florida as his evidence that humans prefer warmer climates and have no problem adapting to heat. 

Cass’s report only focuses on increases in temperatures and while he briefly mentions the usefulness of studying impacts of sea level rise, he doesn’t account for this or any of the other risks of climate change in his analysis. That makes including an image of a beach in Jacksonville, Florida, an interesting choice in the part of his report arguing that Floridians are excellent at adapting.

Last month the Florida Times-Union published a story on the dangers which Jacksonville is facing due to sea level rise. Mike Buresh, chief meteorologist with the area's Fox News affiliate, explained the reality of climate change and sea level rise there.

“Just a few years ago, we were doing stories on Vilano Beach, and the homes that are now gone,” he explained. “We were questioning: Could they last another 15, 20, 25 years? Well, they didn’t last five.”

The story also featured Courtney Hackney, a retired professor at the University of Northern Florida where he was director of the coastal biology program.

Hackney admits that he had heard early warnings about the dangers of sea level rise, but the warnings had come from those he referred to as “radicals.”

The radicals were dismissed back then, he says. Now Hackney admits that not only were the radicals right but that their estimates were too conservative.

“That’s frightening,” Hackney is quoted as saying.

Perhaps Cass should have a conversation with the people of Vilano Beach about the value of adaptation?

Main image: Cover of Oren Cass's report “Overheated: How Flawed Analyses Overestimate the Costs of Climate Change.”

As Congress debates what, if anything, to do with the federal electric vehicle (EV) tax credit, the oil industry is fighting to kill the popular incentive, which is hitting some key milestones in the program.

In the final weeks of the current legislative session (and before Democrats retake control of the House), many groups with financial and other ties to Koch Industries are ramping up efforts to fight any expansion of the EV tax credit program, while throwing a Hail Mary attempt to cancel the tax incentive entirely.

Dueling Bills to Expand and Kill the EV Tax Credit

The electric vehicle (EV) tax credit, first established under the George W. Bush administration and updated under a 2009 law, offers $7,500 in tax benefits to consumers and comes with a 200,000 cap on the number of vehicles sold by manufacturer; once that cap is reached, the credit is gradually phased out over the next 12 months.

Tesla has already reached the cap and General Motors (GM) is about to exceed it.

Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have introduced several bills this fall addressing the tax credit.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), along with other Democratic co-sponsors, propose extending the tax credit through 2028 and eliminating the 200,000 vehicle cap.

“It’s crazy that we might allow the electric vehicle tax credit to run out just as the American EV market is starting to gain a foothold,” Merkley said in a September statement announcing the legislation. “Every day, we see the effects of climate chaos all around us — record-setting droughts, out-of-control wildfires, destructive mega-storms, and spreading insects and ocean acidification. Market-based incentives that help EVs compete with gas-powered cars are not only good for our economy, they’re essential to our future.”

Ford Raptor F150 truck. Credit: Doug Kline, CCBY-NC 2.0

Meanwhile, a pair of Republicans, Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada, home to the Tesla Gigafactory, and Rep. Diane Black of Tennessee, where Nissan manufacturers its Leaf EV, are sponsoring bills to lift the cap and extend the credit to 2022. But even this more moderate extension has come under fire by ardent EV opponents, particularly Koch Industries.

In October Koch lobbyist Philip Ellender sent a letter to senators strongly urging them to oppose Heller’s proposed extension to 2022. The letter claimed that Koch Industries supports ending all energy subsidies, including ones that it benefits from. In reality, the Koch industrial empire has fought for years to preserve petroleum subsidies and tax breaks.

A third set of bills endorsed by Koch-funded groups would not only eliminate the EV tax credit, but also impose a “user fee” on non-gasoline vehicles. Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso — who took in $45,400 from Koch Industries from 2013 to 2018, including $15,400 just this year — and Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, also a Koch ally, introduced these bills.

An October press release from the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which Barrasso chairs, cites an estimate from the Manhattan Institute that axing the tax credit would save $20 billion in taxpayer dollars over the next decade.

The Manhattan Institute has financial ties to the Koch network and ExxonMobil and has questioned the role of human activity in causing climate change. 

Koch Groups Fight to Keep American Drivers Addicted to Oil

With transportation now the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., and with improved battery technology and declining costs, zero-emission electric vehicles are becoming more enticing to American consumers and policymakers. California is leading the way, with EVs comprising 10 percent of new vehicles purchased.

According to AAA, 20 percent of Americans surveyed say they plan to purchase an EV for their next vehicle, up from 15 percent in 2017.

“Today, electric vehicles have mainstream appeal,” said Greg Brannon, AAA’s director of automotive engineering. “While concern for the environment is still a major motivator, AAA found U.S. drivers are also attracted to the lower long-term costs and advanced technology features that many of these vehicles offer.”

This is a concerning trend for the profiteers of petroleum-based transport.

“We’re starting to see more attention given to this by Koch-funded groups,” said Don Anair, research and deputy director of the Clean Vehicles Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “EVs are starting to take a chunk of the market, and it’s becoming more of a threat to the oil industry.”

Unsurprisingly, the opposition to electric vehicles and policies that support them is funded almost entirely by the oil industry, and largely by the fossil fuel billionaire Koch brothers.

In the case of the federal tax credit for EVs, any bills extending or eliminating it would first have to pass through the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. The Kochs have contributed cash to Republicans on both committees.

According to one analysis, “Since 2013, Koch Industries has given $253,600 to 11 of the 14 Republicans on the Senate committee and $374,000 to 21 of the 24 Republicans on the House committee, including Chairman Brady.”

That same analysis, based on reviewing data from Koch-controlled foundations’ 990 tax forms, shows that a number of nonprofit groups advocating against EV incentives received Koch funding from 2012 to 2016.

Source: Union of Concerned Scientists

The Koch network’s two main arguments against electric vehicles are that they are too expensive and they have little environmental benefit. These arguments are disseminated via think tank studies and in conservative media outlets and op-eds.

The Manhattan Institute study published in May claims that the environmental benefits of EVs are questionable and don’t justify the high cost.

Another study from earlier this year produced by the Pacific Research Institute emphasizes that EV tax credit beneficiaries are primarily wealthier households, while ignoring the fact that higher-income earners are more able to afford new cars in general and thus more likely to buy EVs. The tax credit further reduces the cost of EVs to help make them more affordable for all consumers.

Both Manhattan and PRI are recipients of Koch cash.

While electric vehicles may be innovative technological marvels, old-fashioned subsidies continue to drive the industry. https://t.co/Irow1o79fm

— Manhattan Institute (@ManhattanInst) December 13, 2018

The latest Koch-linked study criticizing the EV tax credit makes the misleading conclusion that the policy will have a net negative economic impact resulting in declining household incomes — a point the Daily Caller trumpeted as a warning “of dire consequences.”

That study was commissioned by a Koch Industries subsidiary called Flint Hills Resources, and the firm that produced the study — NERA Economic Consulting— has a history of drawing up anti-regulatory reports funded by polluting industries, including the tobacco industry. 

The bottom line is that non-gasoline electrified transport directly challenges the Kochs’ bottom line.

“The Koch industry wants to maintain the status quo,” said Anair. “That’s how they benefit.”

Encouraging EV Expansion

On the other side of the issue, automakers and utilities are banking on a future of increasingly electrified transport and have lobbied in support of extending the EV tax credit. Companies like GM, Nissan, and Tesla have teamed up with advocacy groups and other EV interests to form the EV Drive Coalition, which is urging Congress to lift the cap and maintain the credit in order to “level the playing field.”

In March, a group of over three dozen utilities and the trade group Edison Electric Institute sent a letter to Congress in support of lifting the cap.

“Eliminating the manufacturers’ cap will provide certainty to both automakers and consumers. It will also allow the utility industry to enable an electrified transportation future that creates and sustains more American jobs, reduces our reliance on foreign oil, makes our air cleaner, and our communities more sustainable,” the letter concludes.

Electric vehicles are undeniably less polluting than their gas-engine counterparts.

“No matter where you live in the country, comparing EVs charged on the local electricity grid with gasoline vehicles, the electric vehicles have lower global warming emissions,” Anair explained. This is the case today, and will only improve as the grid gets cleaner.

Credit: Aayush Srivastava, Pexels

As for cost, the upfront sticker price remains a barrier to widespread EV purchasing. However, as with any new technology, the price point continues to plummet as innovation improves.

“We’ve seen a lot of progress on the cost of the vehicles. We’ve seen battery costs drop from about $1,000/kwh [kilowatt hour] to about $200/kwh,” said Anair.

He and other clean vehicle researchers have identified that within the next decade, based on cost trends, EVs will start to become cost-competitive with gasoline vehicles. Beyond the up-front cost, they are already competitive with conventional cars.

According to AAA, electric vehicles fall slightly below the average annual cost to own and operate a new vehicle in 2018. That average cost is $8,849, which includes cost of fuel, maintenance, repairs, insurance, license/registration/taxes, depreciation, and loan interest.

For EVs, the estimated annual cost is $8,384 — higher compared to costs for small sedans/SUVs and hybrids but lower than annual costs for larger vehicles and pickup trucks. As more affordable EVs reach market, the annual cost of ownership will drop even more substantially, as depreciation and loan interest expenses make up the lion's share of EV annual costs.

For all the noise the Koch network makes about the cost of the EV tax credit, it is silent when it comes to the price consumers pay continuously filling up at the gas pump.

According to MarketWatch, rising oil prices resulted in Americans shelling out an additional $4.4 billion in April of this year compared to April 2017.

Gas prices in 2018 could be the highest in four years, according to GasBuddy's annual #Fuel Price Outlook report. How much will you be paying at the pump? https://t.co/nBj0odyKedpic.twitter.com/kkKuIC9N5M

— GasBuddy (@GasBuddy) January 3, 2018

The Bureau of Labor Statistics calculated that Americans spent nearly $2,000 on average on gasoline and motor fuels in 2017, up 3.1 percent from 2016. In total, U.S. spending at the pump amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Gas Buddy projected Americans would spend $364.6 billion on gas this year.

By contrast, electric vehicles offer much lower fuel and maintenance costs and additional benefits. “There’s a lot of evidence out there pointing to a future where the transportation system that is largely electrified has a lot of co-benefits in terms of electricity grid management and fuel cost savings,” said Anair.

He noted that it’s unclear how the tax credit will fare in the coming negotiations in Congress. But there is a strong economic case to be made for extending the credit.

“Undoing the tax credit now would be completely contradictory to the point these Koch-funded groups are making that the credit is bad for lower and moderate income families,” he said. “It’s exactly at the point where we’re getting these EV technologies in that range where the tax credit can tip the scale to make the vehicles affordable options for lower income families.”

Main image: 2018 Nissan Leaf SL Credit: Courtesy of AAA

Mark P. Mills

Credentials

• BSc Honors, Physics, Queen’s University [1]

Background

Mark Mills has been President of Digital Power Group since 2001 and operates the website Tech-Pundit.com. He is a Faculty Fellow at the McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science at Northwestern University, a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and a Strategic Partner at Cottonwood Venture Partners, an investment firm focused on technological advancements in oil and gas production. He serves on the Advisory Board of the Notre Dame Reilly Center for Science, Technology, and Values. [1]

Mills began his career in uranium mining and refining with Eldorado Nuclear (now Cameco) before moving to RCA as an engineer and physicist. He worked on defense-related projects with NORTEL and served as a staff consultant to the White House Science Office during the tenure of President Ronald Reagan. [1]

Mills is a regular contributor to Forbes Magazine and his writings have been featured in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. He has appeared on television on multiple networks. [1], [2]

Mills co-founded the venture capital firm Digital Power Capital, ICx Technologies, the Electric Council for the Economy, the Critical Power Coalition, the Center for Science Technology & Media, and the ElectroTechnology Marketing Group. [1]

The Greening Earth Society, a project of the Western Fuels Alliance that promoted CO2 as beneficial to the environment, listed Mills as a scientific advisor between 1998 and 2000. [3]

Stance on Climate Change

2005

Advocating for more U.S. nuclear power production, Mills and co-writer Peter Huber of the Manhattan Institute wrote:

“Many Greens think that they have a good grip on the likely trajectory of the planet’s climate over the next 100 years. If we keep burning fossil fuels at current rates, their climate models tell them, we’ll face a meltdown on a much larger scale than Chernobyl’s, beginning with the polar ice caps. Saving an extra 400 million tons of coal here and there—roughly the amount of carbon that the United States would have to stop burning to comply with the Kyoto Protocol today—would make quite a difference, we’re told. But serious Greens must face reality. Short of some convulsion that drastically shrinks the economy, demand for electricity will go on rising.” [4]

Key Quotes

2017

Writing for The New Atlantis, Mills expressed his belief that the only worthwhile technological advances in the energy sector were those that serve existing systems of procuring and processing fossil fuels:  

“No existing technologies can move us away from hydrocarbons on a global scale; there are no quick, easy solutions.” [5]

May 1, 2015

In a report published by the Manhattan Institute titled “Shale 2.0: Technology and the Coming Big-Data Revolution in America’s Shale Oil Fields,” Mills downplayed the efficacy of renewable energy sources when compared with shale oil:

“In terms of energy output, per unit of capital cost, for energy-producing hardware, shale technology has improved by some 500 percent during the past five years; wind turbines, solar cells, and lithium batteries have improved as well, but far less spectacularly. Further, efficiency gains in alternative-energy technologies are slowing, while shale technology shows few signs of a slowdown. Such trends refute the belief that tech progress is bypassing hydrocarbons.” [6]

January 14, 2009

Writing for The Spectator, Mills suggested an energy paradigm shift was unlikely to arise from new forms of energy, but rather from advances and efficiencies in the existing hydrocarbon sector:

“One thing has not changed in 40 years: perpetual-motion-machine-style wishful thinking. While emerging energy technologies offer exciting (essential) promise, none of them are about to disrupt the oil industry. Terrorism, terrible policies, and wars can. Energy tech is the hope to sustain, not disrupt, our oil-dependent economy.” [7]

2000

Praising the role of cities in maximizing economic productivity while preserving the rural landscape for agriculture and wildlife, Mills and Peter Huber asserted no new forms of energy would be able to power increasingly consumptive urban environments:

“The city itself is all the more kind to the environment, because it has so completely rejected the policies that the green establishment holds dearest. It shuns 'renewables.' …

 “There's no way the city could ever adopt the green establishment's 'renewable' path to energy. Manhattan is never going to heat its buildings or power its computers with rooftop solar cells, biomass, or windmills. There's nowhere near enough rooftop or wind, and no biomass to speak of, other than the mass of the people.” [8]

Key Deeds

September 13, 2018

In testimony before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Mills appeared on behalf of the Manhattan Institute to advocate for expanding the market for American-produced natural gas to overseas markets:

“Increasing domestic natural gas production has the potential to add millions of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars to the GDP over the coming years. But in the new realty, it is clear that the scale of growth in domestic gas production coming can’t possibly get absorbed by any growth in U.S. domestic demand. In all likelihood, not even half of the expected rise in output from the profoundly productive American shale fields can be taken up domestically. Exports of LNG will become an increasing critical if not the primary vector for new gas production.” [9]

2017

Mills co-founded Cottonwood Venture Partners with a focus on the “digital oilfield.” The firm’s portfolio includes holdings of technology companies that provide tools and services to oil and gas extractors.

As of 2018, CVP was invested in Ambyint, MineralSoft, Novi Labs, SitePro, and Well Data Labs. [10] 

December 22, 2016

In a piece for Forbes.com titled “The Art of the Arctic Deal,” Mills lamented the outgoing Obama Administration’s offshore drilling ban:

“What are we to make of the Obama Administration’s unprecedented move to permanently ban offshore oil and gas drilling in the Arctic and the Atlantic coast? For the anti-oil ‘green’ lobby this action was publicly hailed as 'an incredible holiday gift.' The ban was also good news for lawyers readying for years of litigation to combat another of the current Administration’s ever-creative use of ancient statutes. More importantly, the move was doubtless greeted with quiet delight in Riyadh and Bejing (sic), and most of all in Moscow. It is fitting that the Obama Administration began, and now ends with a gift for Vladimir Putin.” [11]

July 11, 2015

Mills presented atalk at The Heartland Institute’s Tenth International Conference on Climate Change. The title of the presentation, “Shale 2.0 Will End Green Dreams,” is based on a report Mills authored for the Manhattan Institute titled “Shale 2.0: Technology and the Coming Big-Data Revolution in America’s Shale Oil Fields.” [12], [6]

The fundamental assertion in Mills’ presentation was that technological advancements in fossil fuel extraction and processing far outpace advancements in the renewable energy sector, and should therefore be prioritized over renewables when shaping energy policies:

“At the core, all climate policies that are ultimately effected are always about energy. There’s nothing else about climate policy other than giving money to climate scientists to genuflect to the idea that the climate apocalypse is happening.” [12]

September 23, 2014

Writing for RealClear Politics, Mills suggested geopolitical factors – namely terrorism and reliance on foreign sources of energy – required a boost in the production and export of U.S.-based fossil fuels.

In order to achieve energy dominance in the world hydrocarbon trade, Mills presented a strategy that begins with opening up private and public lands for expanded resource extraction:   

“Step 1: Encourage yet more production on private and state lands. This could be done with expeditious regulatory approvals, as opposed to today's heel-dragging, especially relating to collateral infrastructure from pipelines to refineries and ports (think Keystone pipeline). And to really accelerate things, we could offer the classes of tax credits, subsidies, and special favors now given to non-hydrocarbon energy.” [13]

March 2, 2014

Speaking at a George Marshall Institute event, Mills presented his views on the profit margins of oil and gas technologies versus those associated with renewable energy. According to Mills, revenue yields from fossil fuels prove their superiority over alternative energy sources: [14]

“When you buy a piece of hardware in a factory or any business it has a capital cost and a revenue yield, and these are the ultimate reductionist measures that matter. In the end, I’m a physicist, I like physics, I like tech, but in the end it’s the money that matters. The laws of physics always prevail, but they don’t work so well if you don’t make any money. In the business world, you need to make money.”

Mills also cited the economic growth catalyzed by fossil fuel production to justify the expansion of hydrocarbon extraction in the U.S.:

“We should get behind accelerating, not impeding, the oil and gas and coal sectors of the United States, because there’s a lot of jobs being created there already.” [14]

August 2013

Mills authored a report sponsored by the National Mining Association and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) titled “The Cloud Begins With Coal: Big Data, Big Networks, Big Infrastructure, and Big Power.”

Citing growing energy demands from increased global data consumption, Mills presents a case for expanded coal-powered energy generation:

“Electricity fuels the infrastructure of the world’s ICT (Information-Communications-Technologies) ecosystem – the Internet, Big Date and the Cloud. Coal is the world’s largest single current and future source of electricity. Hence the title of this paper.” [15]

2005

Mills and Peter Huber, citing America’s ever-increasing energy demands, called on environmentalists to embrace nuclear power as the only viable alternative to coal:

“The power has to come from somewhere. Sun and wind will never come close to supplying it. Earnest though they are, the people who argue otherwise are the folks who brought us 400 million extra tons of coal a year. The one practical technology that could decisively shift U.S. carbon emissions in the near term would displace coal with uranium, since uranium burns emission-free. It’s time even for Greens to embrace the atom.” [4]

Affiliations

• George C. Marshall Institute — Board Member (as of 2015). [16]
• Manhattan Institute — Senior Fellow, 2013-present. [2], [19]
• Greening Earth Society — Scientific Advisor, 1998-2000. [3]
• Eldorado Nuclear (Cameco) — Advisor of Power Analytics (former). [17]
• Atomic Industrial Forum— Science Advisor (former). [1]
• Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy — Co-founder & Executive Director (former). [1]
• International Battery Inc. — Chairman & Interim CEO. (former). [17]
• Banc of America Securities — Technology Advisor (former). [1]
• Cottonwood Venture Partners — Strategic Partner, 2017-present. [2]
• Digital Power Capital — Co-founder and Chief Tech Strategist (former). [1]
• Digital Power Group — President, 2001-present. [2]
• McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science at Northwestern University — Faculty Fellow, 2014-present. [2]
• Notre Dame Reilly Center for Science, Technology and Values — Advisory Board Member. [1]
• ICx Technologies — Co-founder, Chairman, CTO (former). [1]
• EYP Mission Critical Facilities — Board Director (former). [1]
• The Electric Council for the Economy [1]
• Critical Power Coalition [1]
• Center for Science Technology & Media [1]
• ElectroTechnology Marketing Group [1]
• RCA OptoElectronics — Engineer. [1]
• Bell Northern Research (NORTEL) — Engineer. [1]

 Social Media

• @MarkPMills on Twitter
• Mark P. Mills on Facebook 
• Mark P. Mills on LinkedIn

Publications

According to Mills' Tech-Pundit website, he contributes regular columns to Forbes.com and submits articles to the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, RealClear Politics, City Journal, and Investors Business Daily. [18]

Between 2000 and 2003 Mills and Peter Huber co-authored the monthly Digital Power Report investment newsletter, which was published by Forbes. [18]

Mills has written numerous reports for the Manhattan Institute, including:

• “The Real Fuel of the Future: Natural Gas,” September 24, 2018
• “Expanding America's Petroleum Power: Geopolitics in the Third Oil Era,” February 12, 2016
• “Shale 2.0 – Technology and the Coming Big-Data Revolution in America's Shale Oil Fields,” May 21, 2015
• “Prime the Pump: The Case for Repealing America's Oil Export Ban,” July 6, 2014
• “The Cloud Begins With Coal: The Report,” December 10, 2013
• “Oil, Gas, And Coal Can Prime the Jobs Pump,” October 24, 2012
• “Unleashing the North American Energy Colossus: Hydrocarbons Can Fuel Growth and Prosperity,” July 12, 2012

Mills co-authored a book, The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, The Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy, with Peter Huber in 2006, and wrote Work in the Age of Robots under the RealClearBooks imprint. [18]

Resources

1. “About,” tech-pundit.com. Archived December 17, 2018. Archive.is URL: http://archive.is/zbO6I

2. “Mark P. Mills,” LinkedIn. Accessed December 12, 2018. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

3. “Scientific Advisors,” greeningearthsociety.org. Archived October 22, 2000. Archive.is URL: http://archive.is/Z3EB4

4. Peter W. Huber, Mark P. Mills. “Why the U.S. Needs More Nuclear Power,” City Journal, Winter 2005. Archived December 18, 2018. Archive.is URL: http://archive.is/DpeQl

5. Mark P. Mills. “Making Technological Miracles,” The New Atlantis, Spring 2017. Archived December 18, 2018. Archive.is URL: http://archive.is/yLCsu

6. Mark P. Mills. “Shale 2.0: Technology and the Coming Big-Data Revolution in America’s Shale Oil Fields,” The Manhattan Institute, May 1, 2015. Archived December 18, 2018. Archive.is URL: http://archive.is/xwWHY. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

7. Mark P. Mills. “Will Exxon Get Googled?”, The Spectator, January 14, 2009. Archived December 18, 2018. Archive.is URL: http://archive.is/iJFOr

8. Peter W. Huber, Mark P. Mills. “How Cities Green the Planet,” City Journal, Winter 2000 issue. Archived December 18, 2018. Archive.is URL: http://archive.fo/Bm6di

9. “Testimony of Mark P. Mills, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute Before U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources On The Role of U.S.LNG in Meeting European Energy Demand,” United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, September 13, 2018. Archived December 18, 2018. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

10. “Portfolio,” cottonwoodvp.com. Archived December 18, 2018. Archive.is URL: http://archive.is/6dn8g

11. Mark P. Mills. “The Art of the Arctic Deal,” Forbes.com, December 22, 2016. Archived December 18, 2018. Archive.is URL: http://archive.is/VshtS

12. Mark Mills. “Shale 2.0 Will End Green Dreams,” climateconferences.heartland.org, July 11, 2015. Archived December 18, 2018. Archive.is URL: http://archive.is/6DduO. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.

13. Mark P. Mills. “A Four-Step Energy Strategy For Our Time,” Real Clear Politics, September 23, 2014. Archived December 18, 2018. Archive.is URL: http://archive.is/SYVYQ

14. “Mark Mills on Energy Policy,” Youtube video uploaded by user George Marshall Institute, March 2, 2014. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.

15. Mark P. Mills. “The Cloud Begins With Coal: Big Data, Big Networks, Big Infrastructure, and Big Power,” tech-pundit.com, August 2013. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

16. “Board Members,” George C. Marshall Institute. Archived August 15, 2015.

17. “Executive Profile: Mark P. Mills,” bloomberg.com. Accessed December 18, 2018. Archive.is URL: http://archive.is/dpMrz  

18. “Writing,” tech-pundit.com. Accessed December 18, 2018. Archive.is URL: http://archive.is/NaZTv

19. “Mark P. Mills,” manhattan-institute.org. Accessed December 18, 2018. Archive.is URL: http://archive.is/0vu1z

Other Resources

• “Mark P. Mills,” Sourcewatch.

[Update 2/7/19] On Wednesday, Senator Barrasso released a new version of his Fairness for Every Driver Act, which he had forecast with the Fox News op-ed. In his remarks on the Senate floor he again repeated the same talking points that have been pushed by Koch network voices for months. The American Petroleum Institute distributed a press release applauding the proposed bill, making the same erroneous claim about who benefits from the tax credit.

Hey @SenJohnBarrasso, how about the fact that every time a gas-powered car sells, EVERYSINGLEPERSONONEARTHPAYSFORIT including American taxpayers. https://t.co/hAUuZ4uEwLhttps://t.co/9IhjGw0fnI

— Fred Lambert (@FredericLambert) February 6, 2019

[Original post] On Tuesday morning, Wyoming Senator John Barrasso published an op-ed in Fox News arguing for an end to the federal electric vehicle (EV) tax credit and a new “annual highway user fee for alternative-fuel vehicles.”

Barrasso, who cashed more money from Koch Industries in the 2018 election cycle than all but two other senators, and has taken in $45,400 from Koch Industries from 2013 to 2018, introduced a bill last October that would immediately amend the tax code to terminate the EV tax credit and calculate a new annual user fee for drivers of cars that aren't powered by gasoline or diesel. A similar bill was introduced at the same time in the House by Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady of Texas, a key Koch ally.

Besides the Trump administration's proposed rollback of fuel efficiency standards — which the Koch network and other oil and gas interests have been aggressively lobbying for — Barrasso's proposal reflects a top policy priority of the Koch network, one that would greatly benefit oil refiners and gasoline marketers who are desperate to keep American drivers coming back to gas stations.

Senator Barrasso's Op-Ed Echoes Koch Network Talking Points

Gas pump. Credit: Jess Lundgren, CC BY 2.0

If the Republican Senator's op-ed sounds familiar, it's probably because Barrasso repeats a number of talking points that Koch network representatives have been honing over the past year.

For instance, Barrasso writes: “Every time one of these cars sells, the U.S. taxpayer must help pay for it.”

Within just the past two months, we've seen some slight variation on this line in a number of opinion pieces and commentaries, all penned by beneficiaries of Koch cash. In December, Jonathan Lesser of the Manhattan Institute (which has received more than $2.6 million from Koch foundations) tried to paint the EV tax credit as “inequitable” in Investors Business Daily.

A couple days later, George Landrith, president of Frontiers of Freedom (at least $335,000 from Koch foundations) and the Energy Equality Coalition, argued the same in The Daily Caller.

Just two weeks ago, Ross Marchand of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (at least $1.1 million from Koch groups) bashed the “EV tax credit gravy train” and then a couple days later, Drew Johnson of the National Center for Public Policy Research (at least $1 million from Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund) asked readers of the Austin American Statesmen to “Imagine taxing middle-class families to help rich folks buy luxury cars.”

What the Koch EV Attacks Leave Out

A brand new Chevy Bolt is retailed around $36,000. Credit: Courtesy of AAA

All of these commentators fail to mention a few crucial and relevant facts, besides their immediate ties to funding from the petrochemical billionaire Koch empire.

First, while attempting to portray the EV tax credit as a “handout to the rich,” the Koch-funded advocates harp on one particular figure, as Johnson puts it: “Almost 80 percent of EV federal consumer tax credits go to households making more than $100,000 a year.”

This is deceptive and inaccurate framing that has been widely used in anti-EV arguments. To support the point, some authors cite a study by the Congressional Research Service (though most make the claim without any reference), which describes how in 2016, 57,066 individual taxpayers claimed $375 million in plug-in vehicle tax credits. Of these 57,066, 78 percent have an adjusted gross income of $100,000 or more.

However, as Wade Malone explains in InsideEVs, 158,614 plug-in vehicles were sold in 2016. What about the other 100,000 or so EVs? They were leased.

Malone explains:

“In this situation, leasing companies claim the $7,500 tax credit. The tax credit is then almost always applied directly or indirectly to reduce monthly lease payments. As a result, lease rates are typically in the same ballpark (or lower) than equivalent ICE [internal combustion engine] vehicle leases.”

Others cite older data from 2014 IRS filings that was promoted in a recent Pacific Research Institute study, which also ignores the significant role leases play in the EV market. Through 2017, the vast majority of EVs were leased — a full 80 percent of non-Tesla EVs and still well more than half of all EVs including Tesla, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

As Malone explains, these leases have a trickle down effect of making EVs available to all economic classes.

“This is appealing to many middle class buyers for a variety of reasons. The buyer is able to see an immediate reduction in their monthly payment rather than waiting until tax filing season to receive a full or partial tax credit. Secondly, EV tech is rapidly improving. Leasing allows buyers to drive for 3 or 4 years, then move on to the next generation of electrics.

When the vehicle is turned in at the end of a lease, the car hits the used market at a reduced price. Because a used electric car is no longer eligible for the $7,500 tax credit, dealers price it factoring in the full credit. Otherwise, purchasing new would be more cost effective over used. Because of this, middle class and lower middle class buyers can affordably finance a used EV or PHEV [plug-in electric vehicle]. It is not simply the wealthy who benefit.”

While falsely claiming that 80 percent of all EV credits benefit households that earn more than $100,000, these op-eds ignore the fact that the average income of households that purchase any new vehicle — plug-in or gasoline powered — is even higher than that. According to a report by the National Center for Sustainable Transportation, the average household income for new car buyers was $119,400 in 2012.

Finally, the cost of the EV tax credit is a tiny fraction of the lost tax revenue that results from permanent tax breaks to the oil and gas industry. In his 2018 study for the Manhattan Institute, Lesser argues that the EV tax credit is costing the U.S. treasury hundreds of millions. To be precise, in 2017, this total was $670 million. However, according to the treasury's own figures, oil and gas subsidies and tax credits cost $4.7 billion annually.

Or, if we repealed just nine tax breaks commonly used by oil and gas companies, as the Center for American Progress has calculated, the U.S. Treasury would save an average of $3.7 billion every year.

In his op-ed, Marchand wrote, “It's tough to decide which is worse: a subsidized company that can't survive without government largesse or a well-off successful business that doesn’t need taxpayers' help but gets it anyway.” Yet, none of the self-described free market advocates are arguing to end the billions handed out to the very “well-off successful” oil and gas companies.

To summarize, EV tax credits benefit all income levels, especially when factoring in leases and secondary sales markets, and the entire EV tax credit program costs the U.S. Treasury a lot less than oil and gas tax breaks.

Senator Barrasso and Colleagues Echo Faulty Koch Claims

Charles Koch at a conference in Aspen in 2016. Credit: Fortune Brainstorm TECH, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Promoting his “Fairness for Every Driver Act” in Fox News, Barrasso claims that the EV tax credit “disproportionately subsidizes wealthy car buyers.” He argues, without citation, that “eight out of 10 electric-car tax credits go to households earning at least $100,000.”

When Barrasso introduced the bill, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which he chairs, released a press release citing estimates from the Manhattan Institute that axing the tax credit would save $20 billion in taxpayer dollars over the next decade. Even if this estimate is true, the savings would be less than half of those achieved if the oil and gas industry's permanent tax breaks were repealed.

The Manhattan Institute, which has received more than $2.6 million from Koch foundations, argued aggressively in 2011 for the preservation of the oil and gas tax breaks.

If Senator Barrasso's bill were to move, it would have to clear the Senate Finance Committee and a comparable tax package would need to pass the House Ways and Means Committee. As Barrasso is no doubt well aware, the Koch network has already invested in those committees. Elliott Negin at the Union of Concerned Scientists noted, “Since 2013, Koch Industries has given $253,600 to 11 of the 14 Republicans on the Senate committee and $374,000 to 21 of the 24 Republicans on the House committee, including Chairman Brady.”

Before Senator Barrasso introduced his bill last year, Koch Industries' lobbyist Philip Ellender sent a letter to various members of Congress asking for an end to the EV tax credit and all energy related subsidies

“Instead of expanding this subsidy for wealthy EV owners, Congress should eliminate it along with all other energy incentives — including eliminating any incentives given to us and our competitors where we may participate. We are focused on long-term value creation, not short-term windfalls.”

While the federal government would gain significantly more revenue by killing the tax breaks to wildly profitable oil and gas companies, Senator Barrasso's legislation is only focused on the part of the Koch Industry's request that would repeal the relatively small tax credit that makes it easier for Americans of all income levels to enjoy the economic and environmental benefits of electric vehicles.

Main image: Senator John Barrasso at CPAC. Credit: Gage Skidmore, CCBY-SA 2.0

By Dave Anderson, Energy and Policy Institute. Originally posted on Energy and Policy Institute.

President Trump’s claim that the Green New Deal would cost $100 trillion can be traced back to the Manhattan Institute, a think tank backed by fossil fuel investor Paul Singer and companies like ExxonMobil. 

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Edward Markey made waves at a press conference in February when they rolled out a Green New Deal resolution that called for the nation to transition to 100 percent clean energy in ten years. 

Brian Riedl, a senior fellow at the New York-based Manhattan Institute, attempted to “cost out the Green New Deal” in a Twitter thread the next day. Riedl admitted he had “No idea” how much things like “Installing renewable energy everywhere” would cost. 

Riedl nonetheless floated his own guesstimate that the cost of the Green New Deal “… must be heading towards $100 trillion.” 

How do we cost

-Replacing 250M gas vehicles? ($7T?)
-Killing most of 200k aircraft?
-Replacing military jets?
-High speed rail everywhere?
-Upgrade/replace 120M buildings?
-All the R&D? Installing renewables everywhere?

No idea…but must be heading towards $100 trillion. (2/

— Brian Riedl (@Brian_Riedl) February 8, 2019

The claim reverberated across social media and right-wing media outlets like Townhall.com, and soon found its way onto President Trump’s bully pulpit.

“They want to take away your car, reduce the value of your home, and put millions of Americans out of work, spend $100 trillion, which, by the way, there’s no such thing as $100 trillion,” President Trump said a few days later at a rally in El Paso, as he attacked the Green New Deal.

Marc Thiessen, a syndicated columnist for the Washington Post, then cited Riedl as the source of a slightly more conservative estimate that the Green New Deal would cost between $46 and $81 trillion. 

The American Action Forum run by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Manhattan Institute fellow, later put out an “Initial Analysis” that Republicans have used to falsely claim the Green New Deal would cost $93 trillion, a similarly massive number that was not quite big enough for some pundits.

“We should make it an even $100 trillion,” wrote Allahpundit, an anonymous blogger for the conservative blog HotAir. “People love round numbers. We’ll find another $7 trillion in the couch cushions.” 

President Trump stuck with the $100 trillion number during his speech at CPAC last week.

“But perhaps nothing is more extreme than the Democrats’ plan to completely takeover American energy and completely destroy America’s economy through their new $100 trillion Green New Deal,” Trump said at CPAC.  

President Donald Trump speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 2018. Credit: Zach D. Roberts for DeSmog

The $100 trillion guesstimate that originated with a Manhattan Institute fellow’s Tweet remains a fixture of the debate over the Green New Deal. Charles Payne of Fox News used the figure during an interview last week with Andrew Wheeler, President Trump’s EPA administrator.

Others like Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell have preferred to say that the Green New Deal will cost $93 trillion, a “bogus figure” according to an analysis by Politico reporter Zack Coleman.  

The Green New Deal’s supporters have noted that the resolution is a series of ambitious goals to decarbonize the economy, not a detailed set of policy proposals, which are to be developed via “democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers,” according to the resolution itself. 

“Right now the focus really needs to be on what are the policies that allow us to decarbonize and also reduce inequity and inequality in our economy … the math will come once the policy is ready,” Green New Deal architect and New Consensus Policy Director Rhiana Gunn-Wright said this week on MSNBC.

The goals of the Green New Deal resolution and similar moves by states like California, Hawaii, and New Mexico to adopt 100 percent clean electricity standards represent a threat to the Manhattan Institute’s backers in the fossil fuel industry. 

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (center) speaks on the Green New Deal with Senator Ed Markey (right) in front of the Capitol Building in February 2019. Credit: Senate Democrats, CCBY 2.0

Paul Singer, the founder and CEO of Elliott Management, is the chairman of the Manhattan Institute’s board of trustees. His Paul E. Singer Foundation contributed $3.725 million to the Manhattan Institute from 2011 to 2017, according to annual reports the foundation filed with the IRS that can be found on GuideStar and Citizen Audit. 

Elliott Management is now the top shareholder in Peabody Energy, a major producer of coal, with a 26 percent stake valued at more than $850 million. Elliott Management’s financial interest in Peabody Energy dates at last as far back as 2015 and the coal company’s bankruptcy. 

In its latest annual report to Wall Street, Peabody Energy listed clean energy policies and competition from alternative sources of energy, such as wind and solar power, as well as renewable energy “mandates and subsidies” among the factors impacting coal demand and pricing. 

Elliott Management’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission also reveal current investments in fossil fuel producers like Devon Energy and ExxonMobil, and electric utilities like FirstEnergy Corp and Sempra Energy. 

Singer is known in energy circles as an activist investor who has pushed utilities like NRG and Sempra Energy to divest from their renewable energy assets. In 2015, DeSmog revealed that the Paul E. Singer Foundation had contributed $200,000 to climate skeptic Bjorn Lomborg’s think tank. 

Singer was once a leader of the Never Trump movement within the Republican party, but more recently he was spotted talking “amicably” with Trump at a political fundraiser. Singer has also contributed money to the pro-Trump super PAC Future45. 

Embed from Getty Images

ExxonMobil itself has contributed over $1 million to the Manhattan Institute since 1998, and its CEO Darren Woods has predicted that popular support for the Green New Deal will wane. 

The Manhattan Institute has also draws support from the Koch donor network, which counts Singer among it members. Koch foundations have contributed over $1 million dollars to the Manhattan Institute over the years. 

Much of the Manhattan Institute’s work on energy and environmental issues is geared to benefit its fossil fuel industry funders. The think tank has railed against the Martin Act, a securities law the New York attorney general has used to investigate the accuracy of ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy’s statements to investors about climate change. The Manhattan Institute has also targeted climate science, electric vehicles, and renewable energy with disinformation.

The same day that Brian Riedl posted his “$100 trillion” tweet, the Manhattan Institute responded to the Green New Deal roll out in Congress with statements from senior fellows Robert Bryce and Jonathan A. Lesser. 

In one op-ed titled, “The Green New Deal Is the Antithesis of Green,” Bryce argued that renewable energy projects like Lighthouse Wind in upstate New York are facing:

“… a growing rural backlash, and that backlash is already limiting the growth of renewable sources and in particular, the growth of wind. The obvious conclusion is that renewable energy alone cannot meet our economy’s enormous energy needs, and no amount of populist spin can change that fact.”

The Lighthouse Wind project just happens to be located nearby a struggling coal power plant located in Somerset, New York. Peabody Coal Sales supplied coal to the plant as recently as 2017, according to fuel receipts data published by the Energy Information Administration. Bryce has been criticizing that wind project for years.

Just last week, Bryce joined the echo chamber of climate skeptics and renewable energy opponents who have piled on to attack a 500-megawatt solar farm planned for Spotsylvania County in Virginia. Among the early opponents of that solar project was Arthur “Randy” G. Randol III, a former lobbyist for ExxonMobil and consultant for Peabody Energy, who has been involved in climate denial campaigns since the 1990s. 

It’s an example of how local concerns about renewable energy projects are often exploited by political operatives and special interest groups tied to the fossil fuel industry as part of a broader war on clean energy technologies and policy ideas like the Green New Deal. 

In reality, wind and solar are the largest source of new electricity capacity in the U.S., and more popular with the public than fossil fuels. Renewable energy projects are getting built, and communities that support them are reaping economic benefits.

Main image: President Trump speaking to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 2018. Credit: Zach D. Roberts for DeSmog

In May 2018, the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research published a report, “Short Circuit: The High Cost of Electric Vehicles,” by Jonathan Lesser that makes a number of demonstrably false claims about electric vehicles (EVs).

By cherry-picking data, disregarding greenhouse gas emissions, and conducting analysis based on discredited assumptions, Lesser claims that widespread adoption of electric cars would increase air pollution and have a negligible impact on the global climate. In another section, Lesser criticizes government subsidies and policies that support the deployment of electric vehicles and EV infrastructure, while ignoring the at least $4 billion in subsidies and tax preferences that the oil and gas industry benefit from every year, amounting to hundreds of billions in taxpayer support for oil producers and refiners over the past century. 

Lesser promoted the report in a commentary published in Politico, titled “Are electric cars worse for the environment?” The commentary uses the easily debunked findings of Lesser's report to argue that electric vehicle subsidies “might be counterproductive.” 

The report and Politico commentary are often cited by politicians and advocates who oppose electric vehicle-friendly policies and subsidies. 

Jonathan Lesser's 'High Cost of Electric Vehicle Subsidies' Report, Debunked

Many experts in the electric vehicle and energy industry have directly rebutted and debunked the research in Lesser's report. 

Lynn Daniels and Edward J. Klock-McCook of the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) published the most comprehensive and authoritative rebuttal to Lesser's report. Daniels and Klock-McCook write:

“Conclusions are reached through misrepresentation and reliance on projections that are known to be consistently inaccurate. The same poor methods are applied to the economics of electric vehicles (EVs) and to questions about the profitability of, and public investment in, EV charging infrastructure.” 

RMI further explains that “Lesser cherry-picked the pollutants that support his narrative (in this case, SO₂, NO_X, and PMs [particulate matter]) and ignored the pollutant (CO₂) that contradicts his narrative. A methodology that accurately accounts for all emissions results in a dramatically different result.”

The article continues to explain why the analysis of Lesser's preferred three criteria air pollutants is itself faulty, as it depends on Energy Information Agency projections of the fuel mix for electricity generation and the levels of electric vehicle adoption through 2050, noting that “those EIA long-term forecasts are notoriously inaccurate, consistently underestimating renewables penetration and overestimating grid emissions.” The result is a “reference case for both ZEV [zero-emissions vehicle] penetration and the mix of electricity generation sources [that] will nearly certainly overestimate [electric vehicle] emissions.” 

The authors also debunk claims about the “negligible” climate impacts of electric cars, and the effectiveness and equity of electric vehicle and EV infrastructure investments.  

Daniels and Klock-McCook conclude, “Lesser’s analysis relies on projections that are recognized to be conservative; it ignores the positive carbon benefits of ZEVs; it misrepresents EVSE infrastructure investments; and it fails to provide adequate context so that ZEV subsidies, costs, and impacts may be compared to the status quo. At RMI, we believe that regardless of how you tweak the analysis or which projections you choose, ZEVs offer significant positive benefits in all scenarios.”

Even using the criteria pollutants that Lesser cherry-picks, a peer-reviewed scientific study disputes Lesser's claims that electric cars will cause greater pollution. As David Pomeranzt of the Energy and Policy Institute notes:

“[A] peer-reviewed study by scientists from the Carnegie Mellon Vehicle Electrification Group did look at those other pollutants in 2016. They examined EVs in one of the coal-heaviest parts of the country (the PJM grid) and found that by 2018, coal plant retirements would make EVs as clean or cleaner than gasoline-powered cars on those other pollutant fronts too. Even if one were to discount the climate benefits of electric vehicles entirely, Lesser’s argument on these other kinds of pollution does not hold water. (Lesser’s report fails to acknowledge virtually any information from peer-reviewed studies like that one which have looked at the effects of electric vehicles on pollution.)”

To the issue of tax incentives and subsidies, on CleanTechnica, Zachary Shahan goes to great lengths to put electric vehicle incentives in proper context, comparing them to current and historic subsidies for the oil and gas industry.

Best Rebuttals to Lesser's Flawed Electric Vehicle Report:

• Lynn Daniels and Edward J. Klock-McCook of Rocky Mountain Institute, “If We Cherry-Pick Data, Rely on Discredited Projections, and Ignore CO2… EVs Are Bad!”

• Zachary Shahan of CleanTechnica, on the report: ”Oh, POLITICO, Please Don’t Publish Garbage — Reality Check For Electric Vehicle Hit Job

• David Pomeranzt of the Energy and Policy Institute: “Climate denier attacks electric vehicles… for not doing enough to slow down climate change”

• Dana Nuccitelli of The Guardian: “Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels”

• Electric Auto Association of Northern Nevada: “No, electric vehicles won't cause more pollution (or crash the grid)”

• Zachary Shahan of CleanTechnica, on subsidies: ”Oil Subsidies & Natural Gas Subsidies — Subsidies For The Big Boys (Not For Society)”

The Manhattan Institute: The Oil-Funded Think Tank that Paid for Jonathan Lesser's Flawed Electric Vehicle Report 

The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research is a conservative think tank that receives extensive funding from the oil and gas industry, including ExxonMobil, the Koch Family Foundations, and the Mercer Family Foundation.  Rebekah Mercer, daughter of hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer, sits on the Manhattan Institute's board of directors. 

The Manhattan Institute and its experts have frequently published pieces and made public comments that deny the scientific consensus on climate change, including listing global warming as a top ten “environmental myth.”

As recently as 2011, the Manhattan Institute, argued aggressively for the preservation of the oil and gas tax breaks. 

For more information on the Manhattan Institute, see their profile in Desmog's Climate Disinformation Database. 

Jonathan Lesser: The 'Short Circuit' Report Author  

Lesser is frequently contracted by the Manhattan Institute, where he has the title of adjunct fellow. Lesser is a president of Continental Economic, where he serves as an energy industry consultant for electric utilities and oil and gas companies. He has a long track record of providing testimony and writing commentaries that dismiss the scientific consensus on climate change, and overestimate costs of energy efficiency and renewable energy resources.

According to his CV, Lesser has submitted expert testimony and reports on behalf of major utility and fossil fuel interests like Exelon, Occidental, Duke Energy, FirstEnergy, Shell, various state-based gas and utility companies, and the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, an anti-wind farm group with a Koch brother as its chairman.

As recently as 2014, Lesser repeated the common climate denier myth that “global temperatures have not risen for the last 15 years,” a point that has been rebutted and disproven completely. 

The attacks on electric cars reverberating through the conservative echo chamber have found a new voice in Steve Forbes. The two-time Republican presidential candidate and Editor-in-Chief of Forbes Media published an op-ed on Fox News this weekend, one that repeats a number of well-rehearsed but thoroughly debunked claims casting doubt on the environmental benefits of electric cars and their practicality for the mass market. 

Like so many commentary and opinion pieces that came before it (including one by Wyoming Republican Senator John Barrasso, also published on Fox News in February) Forbes cherry-picks data points that are long outdated and cites a number of “reports” that have been commissioned by oil industry and Koch-affiliated think tanks, including the Manhattan Institute. 

Debunking the Steve Forbes Op-Ed on Electric Cars

The op-ed hinges on an increasingly popular and misleading theme in recent attacks on electric vehicles (EVs), one that is reflected in the title: “Rich people don’t need your money to buy electric cars—Let’s get real about EV tax credits.”

However, while electric car antagonists like Forbes try to portray the EV tax credit as a handout only to wealthy car-buyers, the figures cited tell an outdated and incomplete story, and they ignore auto leases entirely, rendering them next to meaningless in an electric car market where more than half of all new cars registered are leased.

This talking point can be traced all the way back to a 2016 full page advertorial published in The Hill by Koch Industries: “Or the tax credits (up to $7,500) the government offers to consumers who purchase hybrid and electric vehicles. Such credits may seem enticing to the general public, but the reality is that 90 percent of the beneficiaries come from the top income bracket.”

Forbes echoes the claim, adding a citation to a paper published by the University of California Berkeley’s Energy Institute at Haas. The problem with that particular paper has nothing to do with the authors or the publisher, but rather that it is outdated and its findings are being misrepresented. Published in October 2015, the authors Severin Borenstein and Lucas W. Davis use data from electric vehicles sales from 2009-2013, when the electric car market was still in its infancy and very few model options were available to buyers. Their data also doesn’t account for leased vehicles, which according to the author’s own disclosure, skews their findings. (See page 12.)

Drivers who lease vehicles don’t claim the federal tax credit, but as Wade Malone explains on Inside EVs, they benefit from a lower monthly payment after the lessor claims the credit and drops the base price for the lease accordingly:

“158,614 plug-in vehicles were sold in 2016. What about the other 100,000 or so EVs? They were leased. In this situation, leasing companies claim the $7,500 tax credit. The tax credit is then almost always applied directly or indirectly to reduce monthly lease payments. As a result, lease rates are typically in the same ballpark (or lower) than equivalent ICE [internal combustion engine] vehicle leases.”

Forbes also cites a Manhattan Institute “estimate” of the average income of Tesla buyers from 2013. Bear in mind that six years ago, Tesla only had two models for sale (the luxury Roadster and the premium Model S) and its early adopters certainly were wealthy. Since then, Tesla has added multiple new models at lower prices, including most recently the Model 3, which can be found for as low as $35,000 today, which is less than the cost of the average new car sold in the United States.

In effect, the figures Forbes cites are hardly relevant today, in an electric car market that now has plenty of model options available for less than the average new gas-powered car, and at a time when more than half of all new electric cars registered are leased.

As this op-ed will inevitably careen throughout the conservative media echo chamber, it’s also worth noting that Forbes serves on the Board of Trustees of the Heritage Foundation, a key conservative cog in the Koch influence machine that has received more than $6 million from Koch family foundations and another $780,000 from ExxonMobil.

Talking Points Supplied by Oil-Funded Manhattan Institute

As noted earlier, Forbes’s op-ed cites the Manhattan Institute, which has become a popular reference in the recent spate of attacks on electric cars and the EV tax credit.

Formally known as The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, the conservative think tank receives extensive funding from the oil and gas industry, including more than $1 million from ExxonMobil and more than $3 million from the Koch family foundations.

(The Mercer Family Foundation is also a major donor, and Rebekah Mercer, daughter of hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer, sits on the Manhattan Institute's board of directors.)

As Maxine Joselow reported on E&E News, “The Manhattan Institute has been busy churning out a flurry of anti-EV studies in recent years.” Joselow notes how the recent Barrasso opinion piece for Fox News cited a Manhattan Institute report, and how last week George Will “pointed to another Manhattan Institute study claiming that EVs are dirtier than their gasoline-powered counterparts.”