Think-tank behind "Danish" Wind Study Tied to Polluter Funding
Posted September 14, 2009 in Solving Global Warming
We got word this afternoon that the Institute for Energy Research (IER), a polluter front-group, has released a study from CEPOS, a Danish think-tank, that claims to show that wind power's contribution to the power supply in Denmark is overstated.
We need to look at the substance of the charge, but in the meantime it is well worth knowing that both IER and CEPOS are tied to polluter funding. IER is run by former Koch Industries and Petroluem Refiners lobbyist Thomas Pyle. And IER has recieved $150,000 from the Charles and David Koch-controlled Claude R. Lambe Foundation since 2006.
CEPOS, the originator of the study, was also awarded a $100,000 grant from the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, which in turn received funding from the Charles G. Koch Foundation.
This is reminiscent of the "Spanish" study, a bogus analysis trashing green jobs that has been debunked by the US, Spanish governments and others. The Wall Street Journal noted that the author is a fellow at a think-tank that has received funding from ExxonMobil, and just as with the Danish study, it was the Koch-funded IER that pushed the Spanish study out as well when it hit US shores.
It kinda makes me think that the polluters are so desperate to debunk the value of clean energy they are having to import their studies from overseas.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Alan Jeffers — Sep 15 2009 03:05 PM
ExxonMobil did not fund the Spanish study as Mr. Altman suggests. At ExxonMobil, we take the issue of climate change seriously. Instead of repeating discredited conspiracy theories, you can read our position on climate change and what we're doing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at www.exxonmobil.com/climate
Alan Jeffers, ExxonMobil
Mike Giberson — Sep 16 2009 01:03 AM
Re: "having to import their studies from overseas."
Or maybe, when it comes to explaining what is going on in Spain or Denmark, the experts actually are people in Spain or Denmark.
You should have gone with your instinct to "examine the substance" rather than leading with ancillary attacks speculating on the source of the funding for the research. The report itself is not so bad, at least compared to many "anti wind power" studies.
Peter Altman — Sep 16 2009 11:01 AM
Alan, thanks for reading. I have clarified the post to make clear the author has been tied to ExxonMobil funding, not this particular study. As for ExxonMobil's position on climate change, surely you jest? ExxonMobil has a notorious history of mis- and disinformation on climate, well documented by the Union of Concerned Scientists at http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html.
Rob Bradley — Sep 16 2009 12:02 PM
Hi, I'm the founder and CEO of this "polluter front group."
IER as a PR firm and I am not a shill. Never have been and never will be.
I am sincere about my beliefs about free-market energy policy and have plenty of books and articles out on my positions. I also blog at MasterResource.org on a variety of issues that I invite you to peruse.
My opposition to wind on economic and environmental--and "political capitalism" in general--goes back to Enron in the 1990s, where I was director of public policy analysis.
I fought hard against Enron Wind Company and the company's opportunistic climate alarmism. I have posted memos documenting this at http://www.politicalcapitalism.org/enron/.
- Rob Bradley
Rob Bradley — Sep 16 2009 12:18 PM
Me again. More clarification
IER is not a PR firm but a scholarly think tank. We welcome critical comments on the substance of our studies, such as by Mr. Giberson.
Let's keep the debate on the facts and issues, not on the tired ad hominems.
On philosophy, I direct you to the discussion on "principled entrepreneurship" (tm) at http://www.politicalcapitalism.org/aboutpe/
and my new book, Capitalism at Work: Business, Government, and Energy. This is what IER is all about. Interestingly, 'new left' historian Gabriel Kolko endorsed my book, so maybe there is middle ground in our debate against corporate 'rent-seeking' at the expense of consumers, ratepayers, and taxpayers.