Pacific Research Institute (PRI)

 Background

The Pacific Research Institute (PRI), known as the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy (PRIPP) until 1984, is a conservative think tank founded in 1979 with the mission to “champion freedom, opportunity, and personal responsibility for all individuals by advancing free-market policy solutions.” According to their website, PRI“promotes the principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility. The Institute believes these principles are best encouraged through policies that emphasize a free economy, private initiative, and limited government.”[1]

Steven F. Hayward is the Pacific Research Institute's senior fellow in environmental studies, and also works with the American Enterprise Instite which maintains a close relationship with PRI. Both the Pacific Research Institute and the American Enterprise Institute has received significant funding from Koch Industries and Scaife foundations.  Hayward is the author of PRI's Almanac of Environmental Trends which they publish every third year on Earth Day.  [31]

According to the print version of the PRI Report, the chief drivers of environmental improvement are economic growth, constantly increasing resource efficiency, technological innovation in pollution control, and “the deepening of environmental values among the American public.” It paints a less favorable picture for government policy, which Hayward describes as a “a lagging indicator, often achieving results at needlessly high cost, and sometimes failing completely.” [29], [30]

PRI has received over $1.7 million in donations from Koch-related foundations, $3.8 million from Scaife foundations, and $615,000 from the oil company ExxonMobil. The Pacific Research Institute also received over $1.5 million from DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund, two groups that have been described as the “Dark Money ATM” of the conservative movement. [12], [14]

Stance on Climate Change

2011

“The earth's climate changes constantly, usually on time scales that are much longer than the average human lifespan but relatively short in geological terms. The historical record suggests that climate shifts can happen suddenly, for reasons that remain unclear. The argument that currently observable climate changes are outside the range of normal climate variability is a key tenet of the climate campaign, and despite the incessant refrain about the 'consensus' that 'the debate is over,' this core question is far from settled. ” [25]

August, 2009

“Climate modeling is far from a precise science. The last decade of global temperatures (from about January 1999 onward) reveals little to no warming. This runs contrary to the estimates of most runs of climate models – though similar periods without warming do occur in a small portion of climate model runs, which include a statistically random element to account for typical small-scale variability. While a decade is a relatively small period in climate time-scales, this too points to the need to continue to research climate drivers. 

 

“We need to continue to discuss appropriate responses to climate change, but it is inappropriate to claim that the science is settled and all the facts are in. Estimates of the costs of climate change are even more uncertain – making it difficult to make reasonable decisions on the basis of these cost projections. The dialogue over climate change policy should continue, with an open acknowledgement that there are still many uncertainties in our understanding.” [27]

November, 1998

“The Kyoto Protocol is wrong on all accounts. There is no conclusive scientific evidence that global warming exists or that, if it does, human activity is a contributing factor. But in the event warming is occurring and is stoppable, the Protocol will not even come close to achieving its stated goal. The world's largest emitters will get a free ride, leaving the United States to bear the burden.” [2], [24]

Funding

According to PRI's website, their annual budget is approximately $5 million and is comprised primarily of donations from foundations, individuals and corporations. There are approximately 22 full time, part time, and intern personnel.

The following is based on data the Conservative Transparency project compiled from publicly-available 990 tax records. Note that not all individual funding values have been verified by DeSmogBlog for accuracy. View the attached spreadsheet for additional details on the Pacific Research Institute's funding by year (.xlsx).  [12]

Donors Trust & Donors Capital Fund Funding

As reported by Conservative Transparency, the Pacific Research Institute has received over $1.5 million from DonorsTrust (DT) and Donors Capital Fund (DCF) combined. [12]

Mother Jones magazine has described Donors Capital Fund and Donors Trust as the “Dark Money ATM” of the conservative movement. Together, DT and DCF act as a conduit for conservative funding, including millions of dollars from Koch sources. Their “Donor Advised Funds” allow conservative groups and individuals to donate large sums of money while keeping their identity a secret.  [14]

Koch Funding

Greenpeace USA reports The Pacific Research Institute has received at least $562,000 in donations from Koch foundations between 2005 and 2011, with a grand total of $1,302,000 in grants between 1997 and 2011. [3]

Totals from the most recent Conservative Transparency Data are $1,732,800 for combined Koch funding up to 2013: [12]

• David H. Koch Charitable Foundation —$400,800
• Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation— $427,000
• Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation— $905,000

ExxonMobil Funding

Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets found that PRI received at least $530,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. [2]

The most recent data from Conservative Transparency lists this total at $615,000. [12]

Other Funding

According to SourceWatch, PRI has received funding from the following corporations: [13]

• Altria
• ChevronTexaco
• Cypress Semiconductor
• Exxon Mobil Corporation
• Freedom Communications
• Microsoft
• Pfizer
• PhRMA
• SBC (now AT&T)
• Verizon
• White House Writers Group

And the following foundations:

• Anschutz Foundation
• Bernard Lee Schwartz Foundation
• Capecchio Foundation
• Center for American Unity
• Charles G. Koch Foundation
• Chase Foundation of Virginia
• D &DF Foundation
• D & D Foundation
• David and Annette Jorgensen Foundation
• Dean Witter Foundation
• Earhart Foundation
• Farrell Family Foundation
• Girard foundation
• Hugh & Hazel Darling Foundation
• Lilly Endowment
• Lynder and Harry Bradley Foundation
• Milbank Foundation for Rehabilitation
• Philip M. McKenna Foundation
• Ruth & Lovett Peters Foundation
• Sarah Scaife Foundation
• Templeton Foundation
• The Gleason Foundation
• The Hickory Foundation
• The Little River Foundation
• The San Francisco Foundation
• Walton family Foundation
• Weiler Foundation
• William E. Simon Foundation
• William H. Donner Foundation

990 Tax Forms

Key People

Board of Directors (2012 - 2016) [17], [19]

Staff (2012 - 2016) [4], [16]

Scholars (2012 - 2016) [15], [18]

 Actions

PRI“Hysteria's History” Series (2014 - 2015)

In 2015, The Pacific Research Institute launched a video series on the environment titled “Hysteria's History,” a four-part series “aimed at exposing young people to the historical progression of environmental alarmism that has often resulted in poor and contradictory policy proposals.”[20]

According to PRI, “This web-based series is part of PRI’s effort to inject facts and reason into the debates over climate change, water quality, and other environmental policy issues. PRI hopes that this new web series will be used by teachers, professors, and student groups on college campuses to show how the problems facing the environment need real solutions based on science. The videos are based on PRI’s Center on the Environment’s brief Hysteria’s History: Environmentalism in Context by Dr. Kaleita and Gregory R. Forbes.” [20]

Episode 4: July, 2015 — “Why is Alarmism so Dangerous?” [20]


  

“Hysteria’s History: Why Haven’t We Starved to Death?,” is the first in a four-part series aimed at exposing young people to the historical progression of environmental alarmism that has often resulted in poor and contradictory policy proposals. This new web-based series is part of PRI’s effort to inject facts and reason into the debates over climate change, water quality, and other environmental policy issues. PRI hopes that this new web series will be used by teachers, professors, and student groups on college campuses to show how the problems facing the environment need real solutions based on science. [23]

 

Episode I highlights the dire and overconfident warnings from prominent scholars about food shortages and the misguided policy proposals that followed.  All of the videos in PRI’s “Hysteria’s History” web series are presented in a visually compelling and easy-to-understand format and feature commentary from a variety of public policy scholars including Dr. Steven Hayward, a senior fellow at PRI; Gregory Conko, a senior fellow and the Director of Food Safety Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute; and Nicholas Eberstadt, Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute.”[23]

December, 2014

The Pacific Research Institute released a study (PDF) critical of the EPA's proposed regulations to limit Carbon Dioxide Emissions from power plants in Ohio.  [28]

According to the PRI report, the EPA's proposed regulations would increase electricity costs for low income households, and “ disproportionately impact Ohio’s African-American households.” [28]

April 20, 2011

PRI announced the release of their “Almanac of Environmental Trends,” authored by Stephen F. Hayward. According to the book, published on Earth Day. [29], [30]

The report (PDF) includes sections on Air Quality (Advocacy Groups “distort air quality data to reinforce public anxiety”), Energy (We have lots of fossil fuels so we shouldn't worry), Climate Change (the science isn't settled), Water Quality (consistently improving), Toxic Chemicals (the EPA's regulations for toxic chemicals are “out of all proportion”) Forests and Land (we have lots of trees, so we shouldn't worry), Biodiversity (it's “impossible to draw definite conclusions” about species loss, but there are “stable or improving fish and bird habitats”), and Public Opinion (people aren't as worried about the environment).

In his report, Hayward asserts that one of the factors skewing public opinion on environmental quality in the U.S. is environmental advocacy groups “… for whom good news is bad news.”

According the section of his report on “Climate Change,” Hayward suggests that climate change has natural causes:

“The historical record suggests that climate shifts can happen suddenly, for reasons that remain unclear. The argument that currently observable climate changes are outside the range of normal climate variability is a key tenet of the climate campaign, and despite the incessant refrain about the “consensus” that “the debate is over,” this core question is far from settled.”

August 3 - 6, 2011

Previous Director of Health Care Studies, John R. Graham, spoke at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The Workshop was titled, “Rationing By Any Other Name: Medicare's Independent Payment Advisory Board.”

According to his archived biography at PRI,  Graham is also a Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) and Adjunct Scholar to the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. [6]

November, 2009

The Pacific Research Institute published “Top Ten Energy Myths,” a study by Tom Tanton, their senior fellow in Energy Studies. 

PRI“Index of Leading Environmental Indicators” (1996 - 2009)

Every Earth Day, starting in 1996 and continuing to 2009, the Pacific Research Institute co-published an “Index of Leading Environmental Indicators” with the American Enterprise Institute. The studies generally suggest the environment is improving over time and implies that little to no intervention is required to solve the world's environmental problems.

The reports are also dismissive of global warming. For example, Report author Stephen Hayward said in the most recent 2009 report:

“The data show that 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, and there has been no discernible warming for the last decade, after two decades of steady warming between 1979 and 1998.” [5]

View the reports below:

• 2009 Report 
• 2008 Report 
• 2007 Report
• 2006 Report
• 2005 Report 
• 2004 Report 
• 2003 Report (original file corrupted; archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog)
• 2002 Report
• 2001 Report
• 2000 Report
• 1999 Report 
• 1998 Report
• 1997 Report
• 1996 Report

April 16, 2007

The Pacific Research Institute produced a DVD“documentary” on Earth Day 2007 titled “An Inconvenient Truth…Or Convenient Fiction?” which set out to counter Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth. The movie was produced by PRI Senior Fellow Stephen Hayward, who is also a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. It was filmed at the Heritage Foundation and produced by Leesa Kelly and Tim Donner. [7]

February 4, 2001

Senior Fellow Steven Hayward signed a letter to President Bush requesting that Bush withdraw from the “Climate Action Report 2002,” and that the report be rewritten based on “sound science.” The letter also recommended that Bush “dismiss or re-assign all administration employees who are not pursuing your agenda, just as you have done in several similar instances.” [8]

June 25, 1998

Held a conference entitled “Junk Science: A Hazard to Your Health” which featured climate change skeptic Robert Balling who lectured on how mainstream climate science that recognized man-made climate change was “Junk Science.” [9]

February 1987

According to documents in the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, Phillip Morris partially funded a “project on advertising and the marketing process” by the PRI. [10]

Related Organizations

• American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
• Cato Institute
• Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity — Listed as a “Statehouse News Bureau.” [11]

 Resources

1. “Mission Statement,” Pacific Research Institute. Archived March 23, 2016. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6gESFKAwR

2. Exxonsecrets Factsheet: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, PRI. Accessed March 22, 2016.

3. “Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy (PRIPP),” Greenpeace. Archived March 23, 2016. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6gDHh1ygs

4. “Our Staff,” Pacific Research Institute. Archived November 26, 2012. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.

5. “Index of Leading Environmental Indicators: 2009 Report,” Pacific Research Institute, April 16, 2009.

6. “John R. Graham,” Pacific Research Institute. Archived July 22, 2010.

7. Jamie Glazov. “An Inconvenient Truth or Convenient Fiction?”, FrontPageMag, May 21, 2007.

8. “Joint Letter To President Bush On The EPA's Climate Action Report,” Competitive Enterprise Institute, June 7, 2002.

9. “Junk Science: A Hazard to Your Health,” Pacific Research Institute. Archived April 10, 2006.

10. R.E. Marden, Philip Morris. Pacific Research Institute/Advertising Project Memorandum. 1 pp. February 26, 1987. Philip Morris Bates No.2023646840.

11. “Statehouse News Bureaus,” JPEG Image Archived by SourceWatch.

12. “Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy,” Conservative Transparency. Accessed March 22, 2016.

13. “Pacific Research Institute,” SourceWatch.

14. “Exposed: The Dark-Money ATM of the Conservative Movement,” Mother Jones, February 5, 2013. Archived July 23, 2015.

15. “Our Scholars,” Pacific Research Institute. Archived November 6, 2012. Arhived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.

16. “Staff,” Pacific Research Institute. Archived March 23, 2016. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6gEOQLbuz

17. “Board of Directors,” Pacific Research Institute. Archived March 23, 2016. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6gEOWR8Wa

18. “Scholars,” Pacific Research Institute. Archived March 23, 2016. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6gEOefWWU

19. “Board of Directors,” Pacific Research Institute. Archived October 31, 2012. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog. 

20. “HYSTERIA'S HISTORYPARTIV,” Pacific Research Institute, July 15, 2015. Archived March 23, 2016. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6gESoQx66

21. “Why hasn't the chihuahua gone extinct?” Pacific Research Institute, May 19, 2015. Archived March 23, 2016. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6gEUkZvAX

22. “Episode 2: Hysteria’s History: Why Haven'’t We Run Out of Oil?” Pacific Research Institute, December 3, 2014. Archived March 23, 2016. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6gETdFNV1

23. “Episode 1: Hysteria’s History: Why Haven’t We Starved to Death?” Pacific Research Institute, September 10, 2014. Archived March 23, 2016. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6gETM6NUT

24. Dana Joel Gattuso. “The Chilling Effects of the Kyoto Protocol,” Pacific Research Institute, November 20, 1998. Archived March 24, 2016. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6gEkmOXTO

25. “CLIMATECHANGE: Indicators and Outlook” (PDF), Pacific Research Institute, 2011. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.

26. Thomas Tanton. “TOPTENENERGYMYTHS,” Pacific Research Institute, November 3, 2009. Archived March 24, 2016. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6gEliAnwl

27. Amy Kaleita. “CLIMATEMODELINGISFARFROM A PRECISESCIENCE,” Pacific Research Institute, August 18, 2009. Archived March 24, 2016. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6gEltI6yK

28. Wayne Winegarden. “The Regressive Impact on Ohio's Lower-Income and African-American Families from EPA's Proposed Regulations on Carbon Dioxide Emissions” (PDF), Pacific Research Institute, December, 2014. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.

29. Steven F. Hayward. “PRIRELEASESNEW 2011 ALMANACOFENVIRONMENTALTRENDS,” Pacific Research Institute, April 20, 2011. Archived March 24, 2016. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6gEmvGJgI

30. Steven F. Hayward. “2011 Almanac of Environmental Trends” (PDF) Pacific Research Institute, April 2011. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.

31. “Stephen F. Hayward,” Pacific Research Institute. Archived April 1, 2016. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6gRmzesgW

Other Resources

• “Pacific Research Institute,” Wikipedia.