“IER/AEA have thousands of individual donors, reflecting the intellectual case for a free market and the goodness of civil society. This is a proud fact.”
A Mother Jones article from 15 years read: “Meet the 12 loudest members of the chorus claiming that global warming is a joke and that CO2 emissions are actually good for you.” And number 12 of the “dirty dozen” was the educational nonprofit Institute of Energy Research and its advocacy arm, the American Energy Alliance.
IER/AEA would surely make the list today–and be ranked higher. This is a badge of honor. The message of classical liberalism applied to energy remains strong and consistent. Consumers matter. Taxpayers matter. Energy resource efficiency matters. Respect for the energy decisions of voluntarily consenting adults matter.
Here is the piece by Josh Harkinson from December 5, 2009, verbatim, with my critical comments.
Robert Bradley, the CEO of the Institute for Energy Research, is a former director of policy analysis at Enron, where he once wrote speeches for Ken Lay. While most experts blame Enron’s failure on a lack of government oversight, Bradley cites too much government meddling. In his new book, Capitalism at Work: Business, Government, and Energy, he writes that Enron’s collapse “is yet another case of unintended consequences from government intervention.”
Comment: Yes. And see here and here for summaries of my thesis.
Bradley is now committed to keeping the government from regulating carbon. His 2003 book, Climate Alarmism Reconsidered, argues that carbon dioxide “is not a pollutant but a building block of a living and vibrant biosphere.” He’s even willing to diss his former employer to make his point, suggesting that CO2 foes are as self-centered as Enron was when it pushed for a climate treaty and subsidies for its wind and solar divisions. “The ‘green’ energy crusade that Enron in some ways fathered is much more about corporate welfare than true energy sustainability,” he writes.
Comment: Correct again, and more so today.
Since April, IER’s advocacy arm, the American Energy Alliance, has been airing television ads in the districts of key members of Congress, stressing the potential costs of Waxman-Markey. One ad claimed that an MIT study found that the bill “could cost our families more than $3,100 per year in new taxes.” But the author of the study, professor John Reilly, has said that the number was a misrepresentation of his work and “just wrong.” Confronted with that response, Bradley replied that Reilly had since confirmed to the Weekly Standard “that households will in fact pay this amount.” But Reilly told me that his estimate of Waxman-Markey’s true cost is just $223 per household by 2020 and maintained that the use of the larger number “was incorrect.” Other AEA ads have been called out for similar distortions.
The IER’s American Energy Freedom Center is chaired by former Virginia Sen. George “Macaca” Allen. Thomas Pyle, the president of the American Energy Alliance, was a policy analyst for former Rep. Tom DeLay before becoming director of federal affairs for Koch Industries.
Correct: And Mr. Pyle is a classical liberal, not a lobbyist for any particular energy and technology. Consumers in a free market decide the business configuration with taxpayers neutral.
In 2007, the most recent year for which tax filings are available, IER had a budget of nearly $1 million. In May, the Guardian reported that IER has received donations from Exxon, KBR, and trusts set up by Koch. Asked who funds the Institute for Energy Research, Bradley would say only that its money comes from “individuals, foundations, and corporations—including energy companies.”
Comment: IER/AEA have thousands of individual donors, reflecting the intellectual case for a free market and the goodness of civil society. This is a proud fact.
Appendix: The Twelve