Heritage Foundation

Background

The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank founded in 1973 by Paul Weyrich to “formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.”¹

The Heritage Foundation has been a fervent opponent of the Kyoto Protocol and its online database of “policy experts” includes many climate change skeptics such as Patrick Michaels, Sallie Baliunas, Thomas Gale Moore, Robert Balling, and Fred Singer.² ³

The Heritage Foundation has had considerable influence over Republican politicians. It is estimated that two-thirds of the policy recommendations it made in 1981 were adopted by the Reagan Administration. The Heritage Foundation has been described as “the most effective media operation in American politics.”⁴ ⁵

Jim DeMint, former South Carolina Republican Senator, became Heritage Foundation president in 2013. According to The New York Times, this marked a shift in the foundation: “Long known as an incubator for policy ideas and the embodiment of the party establishment, it has become more of a political organization feeding off the rising populism of the Tea Party movement.”⁶

Heritage is a former member of the Cooler Heads Coalition (as of 2004).⁷ Thomas A. Roe, a member of the board of trustees of the Heritage Foundation, founded the State Policy Network in 1991 as a way to promote conservative policies at the state level.⁸

It was also behind the right-wing news website Townhall.com. In 2005, Townhall.com split from The Heritage Foundation “in order to expand the scope of Townhall.com’s mission to inform, empower and mobilize citizens for political change.” In 2006, it was acquired by Salem Communications.⁹

The Heritage Foundation has been a member of the Atlas Network, a group that has been described as “The Johnny Appleseed of antiregulation groups,”¹⁰ for as long as the Atlas Network has shared its membership directories.¹¹

Heritage Foundation & Project 2025

“Project 2025 is a plan to rapidly ‘reform’ the U.S. government by shuttering bureaus and offices, overturning regulations, and replacing thousands of public sector employees with hand-picked political allies of Trump,” DeSmog has reported.¹²

“It also proposes a range of radical anti-climate policies, including slashing restrictions on fossil fuel extraction, scrapping investment in renewable energy, and gutting the Environmental Protection Agency.”

E&E News reported on the plan in 2023, writing it was “a plan for demolishing the federal government’s efforts to counter climate change.”¹³

“Called Project 2025, it would block the expansion of the electrical grid for wind and solar energy; slash funding for the Environmental Protection Agency’s environmental justice office; shutter the Energy Department’s renewable energy offices; prevent states from adopting California’s car pollution standards; and delegate more regulation of polluting industries to Republican state officials,” E&E News wrote.¹⁴

“‘Project 2025 is not a white paper. We are not tinkering at the edges. We are writing a battle plan, and we are marshaling our forces,’ said Paul Dans, director of Project 2025 at the Heritage Foundation, which compiled the plan as a road map for the first 180 days of the next GOP administration. ‘Never before has the whole conservative movement banded together to systematically prepare to take power day one and deconstruct the administrative state’,” E&E News reported.¹⁵

According to The Heritage Foundation, “[o]rganized by the Heritage Foundation, Project 2025 has brought together 45 (and counting) right-of-center organizations that are ready to get into the business of restoring this country through the combination of the right policies and well-trained people. The Project’s foundation is built on four interconnected pillars.¹⁶

The Heritage Foundation lists Spencer Chretien as the Associated Director of the “2025 Presidential Transition Project at The Heritage Foundation.” According to his profile, “[f]rom 2020-2021, Chretien was a Special Assistant to President Donald J. Trump and Associate Director of Presidential Personnel, helping to identify, recruit, and place hundreds of political appointees at all levels of government.”¹⁷ He previously served at the American Legislative Exchange Council, Citizens Against Government Waste, and FreedomWorks.¹⁸

Chretien describes the project as having four “interconnected pillars,” including the first as its policy book “Mandate for Leadership.”¹⁹ Donald Trump has reportedly repeatedly disavowed the document, which BBC described as a “‘wish list’ for the next Republican president,” saying, “I have nothing to do with Project 2025.”²⁰

The second pillar is an “online personnel database,” which The Heritage Foundation describes as a “Conservative LinkedIn” that would launch in March.²¹

The third is the “Presidential Administration Academy,” which they describe as “interactive, on-demand training sessions” for conservatives who make it into the administration.²²

The fourth is the “Playbook, which will take the policy ideas expressed in Mandate for Leadership and transform them into an implementation plan for each agency to advocate to the incoming administration.”²³

Project 2025 Advisory Board & Funding

According to the Project 2025 website, its advisory board is a “broad coalition of over 100 conservative organizations [that] has come together to form the project pillars.”²⁴

DeSmog reported that six family fortunes were responsible for more than $120 million of donations going to Project 2025’s Advisory Groups since 2020:²⁵

At least $2.7 million from the Coors Family²⁶
at least $9.6 million from groups affiliated with Charles G. Koch
at least $13 million from groups affiliated with Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein
at least $21.5 million from those affiliated with the Scaife Family
at least $22.4 million from those affiliated with Barre Seid
at least $52.9 million from those affiliated with the Bradley Family²⁷

Another investigation published at DeSmog and The Guardian revealed that Shell USA Company Foundation, A U.S. foundation associated with the Shell oil company, donated to at least fourteen groups listed on Project 2025’s advisory board, including the Heartland Institute and the Heritage Foundation.²⁸

Centre for Climate Reporting Investigation of Russell Vought

The nonprofit Centre for Climate Reporting did an undercover investigation of Project 2025, including an interview with Russell Vought, one of the key authors of the plan.²⁹

CNN reported how the Centre “spun an elaborate fiction, with a journalist and a paid actor posing as the brother and son-in-law of a reclusive New Mexico investor” to get the footage.³⁰

While Trump publicly distanced himself from Project 2025 during the election, Vought said during the interview that Trump had previously praised Vought for doing a “fantastic job” at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). He also claimed that Trump has “blessed” his organization and “he’s very supportive of what we do.”³¹

“I see what he’s doing is just very, very conscious distancing himself from a brand,” Vought said. “It’s interesting, he’s in fact not even opposing himself to a particular policy.”

He also said Trump had “been at our organization, he’s raised money for our organization, he’s blessed it … he’s very supportive of what we do.”

During the July 25, 2024 meeting, Vought discussed Trump’s public plan to carry out one of the largest deportations in US History, saying it could help “save the country.”

Once the deportation plan started, “you’re really going to be winning a debate along the way about what that looks like,” Vought said. “And so that’s going to cause us to get us off of multiculturalism, just to be able to sustain and defend the deportation, right?”³²

Rachel Cauley, a spokesperson for Vought’s nonprofit, the Center for Renewing America, commented on the video, claiming, “It would have been easier to just do a [G]oogle search to ‘uncover’ what is already on our website and said in countless national media interviews. But thank you for airing our perfect conversation emphasizing our policy work is totally separate from the Trump campaign, as we have been saying.”³³

About a week following the conversation, the director of Project 2025, Paul Dans, stepped down and was also leaving the Heritage Foundation.³⁴

CNN summarized Vought’s role with Project 2025 and the Trump administration:

“Vought served as the director of the Office of Management and Budget under Trump, where he made a name for himself as a policy wonk committed to the MAGA movement. In public, Trump repeatedly praised Vought for doing an “incredible” and “fantastic” job at OMB.

“After Trump left office, Vought started the Center for Renewing America, a nonprofit that describes itself as the ‘tip of the America First spear.’ CRA was one of many right-leaning groups that partnered on Project 2025, a more than 900-page blueprint for Trump’s second term that was led by the Heritage Foundation. Vought personally authored the project’s chapter on the executive office of the president, and his group contributed to several other chapters of the plan as well.

“Vought also served as the policy director of the Republican National Convention committee that rewrote the GOP’s official platform this year – a sign of how central he is to Republicans’ policy goals.”³⁵

Trump picked Vought to lead the Office of Management and Budget again in 2025, The New York Times reported, noting his appointment would typically require Senate confirmation.³⁶

“Vought, the first-term White House budget chief who began implementing Schedule F at the Office of Management and Budget, is set to return to the same role as Trump is pledging to reinstate Schedule F,” The Washington Post reported.³⁷

The Guardian noted that Vought is one of several Trump picks who have direct ties to Project 2025:³⁸

James Braid — chosen by Trump as the director of the Office of Legislative Affairs. Braid taught a course as part of Project 2025’s leadership training program.
Brendan Carr — Trump’s nominee to chair the Federal Communications Commission. Carr wrote Project 2025’s chapter on the FCC.
Monica Crowley — named for a state department role. Crowley was a contributor to Project 2025
Pete Hoekstra — Trump’s pick for ambassador to Canada. Contributor to Project 2025’s “Mandate for Leadership” document
Tom Homan — Picked as Trump’s “border czar.” Homan is a contributor to Project 2025 and a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
Karoline Leavitt — Incoming White House press secretary. Leavitt appeared in training videos for Project 2025.
Stephen Miller — Pick for deputy chief of staff for policy. Miller is president of the America First Legal Foundation. America First Legal was listed as a supporter of Project 2025 and appeared as a member of its advisory board.
Peter Navarro — named by Trump as a senior counselor for trade and manufacturing. He wrote a chapter for Project 2025 called The Case for Fair Trade.”
John Ratcliffe — Trump offered the role of CIA director. Ratcliffe was a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation and is listed as a contributor to Project 2025.
JD Vance — Trump’s vice president, JD Vance, has ties to the Heritage Foundation.

Tory Candidate Ties to Heritage Foundation

DeSmog reported several U.K. Tory candidates had ties to the Heritage Foundation, including:³⁹

Robert Jenrick — Gave February 2024 to the Heritage Foundation
Priti Patel — Gave November 2021 speech to the Heritage Foundation
Oliver Dowden — Gave February 2022 speech to the Heritage Foundation
Liz Truss — Gave April 2023 speech to the Heritage Foundation
Lord David Frost — Gave a June 2023 speech to the Legatum Institute think tank and introduced Kevin Roberts, who he described as “one of the U.S.’s foremost fighters for conservative ideas.” He also described the Heritage Foundation as “America’s premier conservative think tank.”
Nadhim Zahawi — Met with Heritage Foundation in September 2022 while Conservative chancellor at a “ministerial roundtable,” according to government records.
Nigel Farage — gave a 2015 speech to the Heritage Foundation about the prospects of a U.K. referendum on European Union membership.

Project 2025 Training Videos

ProPublica and Documented obtained over 14 hours of training videos from Project 2025, part of its Presidential Administration Academy.⁴⁰ ⁴¹

In one of the videos, conservative activist and former deputy chief of staff at the U.S. Agency for International Development in the Trump administration, Bethany Kozma, commented:⁴²

“If the American people elect a conservative president, his administration will have to eradicate climate change references from absolutely everywhere,” Kozma said.

“When I think of climate change, I immediately think of population control, don’t you? I think about the people who don’t want you to have children because of the ‘impact on the environment’,” she added.

E&E News also reported on the leaked videos.⁴³

According to ProPublica and Documented, 29 of the 36 speakers have previously worked for Trump in some capacity.⁴⁴

DeSmog Reporting on Project 2025

Joe Fassler and Sharon Kelly. “Climate Deniers Waiting in the Wings as Trump Reclaims Presidency,” DeSmog, November 8, 2024.
Sam Bright and Adam Barnett. “Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel Has Ties to Group Behind ‘Extreme’ Trump Agenda,” DeSmog, November 7, 2024.
Joe Fassler. “The Friendly New Face of Dark Money: How Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard helped wealthy donors pour $171 million of dark money into Project 2025,” DeSmog, October 28, 2024.
Joe Fassler. “Mapped: How 6 Billionaire Family Fortunes Fund Project 2025,” DeSmog, October 25, 2024.
Geoff Dembicki. “Trump Megadonor Tim Dunn Has a Plan More Extreme Than Project 2025,” DeSmog, October 23, 2024.
Sam Bright. “Trump and Orbán Allies Gather at Anti-Green Event Hosted by Project 2025 Group,” DeSmog, October 11, 2024.
Joe Fassler. “6 Billionaire Fortunes Bankrolling Project 2025,” DeSmog, August 14, 2024.
Geoff Dembicki. “Inside the Anti-Climate Culture War Led by Jordan Peterson and Project 2025,” DeSmog, September 9, 2024.
Geoff Dembicki. “Revealed: Shell Oil Nonprofit Donated to Anti-Climate Groups Behind Project 2025,” DeSmog, August 15, 2024.
Adam Barnett. “Project 2025: Tory Candidates Have Ties to Group Drafting ‘Dangerous’ Trump Agenda,” DeSmog, August 14, 2024.

Other Resources on Project 2025

Project2024Admin.com — Court Accountability Action (CAA) website with research and analysis on Project 2025
Project 2025 Index — Search within the Project 22025 plan by term. Developed by the Autonomy Institute 501(c)(3).

Donald Trump’s “Shadow Transition Team”

Politico reported in 2016 that the Heritage Foundation was one of the most influential forces behind Donald Trump‘s transition team.⁴⁵

“Part gatekeeper, part brain trust and part boots on the ground, Heritage is both a major presence on the transition team itself and a crucial conduit between Trump’s orbit and the once-skeptical conservative leaders who ultimately helped get him elected,” Politco’s Katie Glueck writes.

Three sources with conservative groups said that Heritage employees were tracking resumes, looking to staff Trump’s administration with conservative appointees. One source described the effort as a “shadow transition team” and “an effort to have the right kind of people in there.”⁴⁶

The transition team is being assisted from Heritage officials including: ⁴⁷

Becky Norton Dunlop, distinguished fellow at Heritage
Ed Meese, distinguished fellow emeritus
James Carafano, Heritage national security expert
Ed Feulner, founding trustee
Rebekah Mercer, Heritage board member

A source reported that Rebekah Mercer had also been working with Heritage to recruit appointees for positions at the undersecretary level and below.⁴⁸

Stance on Climate Change

2016

“[C]limate change […] is a contentious and unproven scientific theory.” — Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow and manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at The Heritage Foundation.⁴⁹

“Regardless of one’s opinions on the degree to which climate change is occurring, regulations associated with the Paris accord will have no meaningful impact on the planet’s temperature.”⁵⁰

2010

“What I conclude from a policy standpoint is that global warming is clearly not a crisis and should not be addressed as one … None of the scary stuff about global warming is true, and what is true about global warming, what the science actually tells us about man’s role in changing the climate, is far from terrifying.” — Ben Lieberman, Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and Environment at The Heritage Foundation.⁵¹

2009

“Global warming will not hurt the U.S. economy.”⁵²

On Carbon Emissions

2016

“I think the serious people, the economists that have looked at this, understand there is a cost to reducing carbon emissions, because CO2 is a necessary byproduct of their most affordable and reliable energy sources, which are the natural resources of coal, natural gas, and petroleum. To take that choice away from people forces them to more expensive sources of energy” — David Kreutzer, research fellow in energy economics and climate change at The Heritage Foundation.⁵³

Funding

The following is based on data compiled by the Conservative Transparency Project and updated with data from publicly available 990 forms. Note that not all funding information has been verified by DeSmog.⁵⁴

View the attached spreadsheet for additional information on The Heritage Foundation’s funding by year (.xlsx).

Heritage Foundation Funding

Heritage Action for America Funding

ExxonMobil Funding

According to ExxonSecrets, Heritage Foundation has received $780,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.⁵⁵

Koch Funding

According to Greenpeace, The Heritage Foundation received $6,130,201 from Koch foundations from 1997 to 2017.⁵⁶

990 Forms

Key People

View key people by year below or view the attached spreadsheet if Heritage Foundation’s key People (.xlsx).

Policy Experts

The Heritage Foundation maintains a project of PolicyExperts.org, which maintains a list of US“⁵⁷ and International “experts.”⁵⁸

ExxonSecrets noted that Heritage Foundation’s Policy experts have included notable climate change deniers such as:⁵⁹

View a full, searchable list of Heritage Foundation’s policy experts below, as of 2023:

Actions

January 24, 2025

Alexander Frei, Kevin D. Dayaratna, and Austin Gae wrote a Heritage Foundation Special report titled “Calculating the ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ with the GIVE Model: An EPA Model Not Ready for Prime Time.”⁶⁰

The paper summary suggests that the models used by the Biden Administration to calculate the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), specifically the Greenhouse Gas Impact Value Estimator (GIVE), are “highly susceptible to user manipulation.”

They alleged that “Consequently, lawmakers can—as the Biden Administration did—manipulate the SCC by specifying assumptions that align with desired outcomes, thereby engaging in circular logic to produce and justify predetermined regulatory policies.”

“As a result, the authors strongly advise lawmakers against using these models in regulatory policy,” they concluded in the summary.

In their concluding policy recommendations, the authors suggested that “the EPA should eliminate the use of SCC in any and all federal permitting and regulatory rule-making.”

They went further to suggest permanently banning any use of SCC in policy: “Lawmakers should pursue legislation to prohibit use of the SCC in policymaking in order to prevent future Administrations, of either party, from using the SCC.”

December 11, 2024

Willie Soon, Ronan Connolly, and Michael Connolly wrote a Heritage Foundation special report titled “The Unreliability of Current Global Temperature and Solar Activity Estimates and Its Implications for the Attribution of Global Warming.”⁶¹

“The scientific debate is still ongoing, and the scientific community is not yet in a position to establish whether the observed temperature changes since the 1800s are mostly natural, mostly human-caused, or a mixture of both,” they claimed in the report summary.

They concluded, “We think that the IPCC did not provide a strong enough argument for its choice of the available global temperature trends.”

“We therefore conclude that the IPCC was overconfident and premature in its detection and attribution statements. The scientific debate remains ongoing. In our opinion, the scientific community is not yet in a position to establish whether the observed temperature changes since the 1800s are ‘mostly natural,’ ‘mostly human-caused,’ or ‘a mixture of both.’ The scientific debate about how much global warming is manmade and how much is natural has not been resolved. We hope that in its Seventh Assessment Report, the IPCC will not continue with its scientifically weak approach.”

December 5, 2024

The Heritage Foundation released a special report (No. 304) titled “Air Quality and Public Health: Is There a Link?” by S. Stanley Young and Warren B. Kindzierski.⁶²

According to the report’s summary, “This Special Report shows that the research cited by the EPA does not show a causal relationship between PM2.5 and poor health outcomes. Hence, the link between PM2.5 and public health should not be taken seriously.”

Young and Kindzierski also claimed that “any effect from man-released greenhouse gases, measurable climate change, and health effects from PM2.5 is entirely unproven.”

“[T]he PM2.5−adverse health link is far less certain than what the EPA would have us believe,” they claimed.

They concluded that “With no detected causal effects and given persistent, hidden problems in PM2.5 health research, any purported material link between PM2.5 and public health is entirely unsupported and should not be taken seriously.”

December 4, 2024

The Heritage Foundation released a special report attempting to disprove the EPA’s claim of a connection between climate change, ozone, and asthma.⁶³

“Taken together, the current information from chamber studies, observational studies, and animal toxicology studies does not offer credible support for an ozone–asthma hypothesis that is aggregated by modeled projections of climate change. The EPA’s claims that an increase in the abundance of ozone in the future will lead to climate-related health effects, including asthma, are not supported,” S. Stanley Young and Warren Kindzierski wrote in conclusion.

November 7, 2024

Susan Crockford wrote a Heritage Foundation special report titled “Defying Predictions: How Increased CO2 and Innovation Are Mitigating Effects of Drought on U.S. Crops and Forest Productivity.”⁶⁴

“Contrary to predictions that changes in climate are going to cause forest, cropland, and rangeland productivity to decline over time, recent data show that the known fertilizing effect of additional carbon dioxide (CO2)—which is literally food for plants—has offset many of the predicted adverse effects by enhancing drought tolerance and plant growth,” Crockford claimed in the report’s summary.

In her conclusion, Crockford claimed that “While almost all recent forest fires are ultimately human-caused, arson fires are a category apart.” She added, “Blaming recent forest fires on climate change comes with a specific, unique risk.”

Crockford concluded, “Because a demonstrable link between recent fires and rising CO2 levels is tenuous at best, as the evidence presented in this Special Report shows, climate scientists and their supporters in the media should perhaps avoid labeling forest fires as a clear signal of human-caused climate change until the evidence supporting such a position is more convincing.”

October 16, 2024

Roy Spencer wrote an article that appeared in ArcaMax, republished at The Heritage Foundation, titled “Climate Change: The Science Doesn’t Support the Heated Rhetoric.”⁶⁵

“Other than modest warming, there has been little change in any kind of severe weather that can be attributed to global greenhouse gas emissions,” Spencer claimed in the piece.

According to Spencer, “The exaggerated projections of climate models have led many countries to adopt extremist ‘Net Zero’ goals, aiming for no CO2 emissions at all by 2050. This is essentially impossible since the world continues to run on fossil fuels as our dominant energy source.”

He alleged that “we have been misled by the vested interests who financially benefit from convincing the citizens we are in a climate crisis.”

“Climate change is big business for a lot of players. That includes a marching army of climate scientists whose careers now depend on a steady stream of funding from governments,” Spencer added.

In a section titled “The Good News,” Spencer wrote: “As a climate scientist, I agree that our greenhouse gas emissions produce some warming. But is this necessarily a bad thing? Ten times as many people die from cold weather than from hot weather. Agricultural yields of corn, soybeans, wheat, and rice continue to break records nearly every year. Growing seasons at high latitudes have been lengthened. It has been estimated that the agricultural benefits of more CO2 (which is necessary for life on Earth) has totaled trillions of dollars.”

He concluded, “Stop believing everything you read about climate change. You’ve been misled. There is no climate crisis.”

October 1, 2024

Susan J. Crockford produced a “special report” for the Heritage Foundation titled “Resilient Wilds: Unmasking the Surprising Adaptability of U.S. Ecosystems to Climate Change,” where she claimed to “provide convincing evidence that warming-associated changes in ecosystems, regardless of cause, are more likely than not to have an overall positive or neutral impact on the survival of the most critical animal species that they support.”⁶⁶

Crockford also claimed in her conclusion that “Contrary to past projections, massive loss of sea ice either has not happened (the Antarctic) or has not caused harm to ice-dependent species (the Arctic).”

“Consequently, there seems to be little rationale for lawmakers and the public to worry unduly about the effects of future human-caused global warming on the animal inhabitants of natural landscapes,” Crockford wrote.

DeSmog has noted that Susan J. Crockford, who describes herself as a “zoologist with more than 35 years experience, has regularly published reports for the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), which are often echoed by an extensive network of climate change denial blogs, conservative news sources like Breitbart, and climate change denial think tanks and organizations.

She has said that “‘polar bear expert’ describes me just as well as ‘dog evolution expert;’ however, she has not published in any peer-reviewed journals on polar bears.⁶⁷

Crockford has claimed her GWPF reports are peer-reviewed. However, an undercover Greenpeace investigation cast doubt on the validity of the GWPF’s internal review process, noting that only the group’s internal advisory council generally reviewed documents rather than the genuine, rigorous, and often anonymized, peer review of a traditional scientific journal.⁶⁸

July 22, 2024

Roy Spencer wrote Heritage Foundation commentary that originally appeared in the National Review titled “Hot Summer? Don’t Sweat It.”⁶⁹

“Research has shown that there could easily have been warmer years during the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago. No one knows for sure. And some of the warming in the last 150 years could well be just a recovery from the ‘Little Ice Age’ that ended during the 19th century,” Spencer wrote, linking to a report by Ross McKitrick.

Discussing climate change models, Spencer claimed, “These models run hot, which would suggest that some caution is required when using them as a base for public policy.”

According to Spencer, “An important issue that is seldom discussed is the fact that warming over the past 150 years is simply assumed to be anthropogenic (human-caused). But increasing CO2 in the atmosphere from fossil-fuel burning has perturbed the energy budget of the climate system by only 1 percent compared with the average 235–245 Watts per square meter in and out of the climate system.”

He concluded, “Altogether, irresponsible reporting deliberately sensationalizing the weather is not a reason for consternation or concern. People should enjoy their summer and not worry about the sky falling down, because it won’t.”

June 20, 2024

Heritage Foundation’s director of the Center for Energy, Climate and Environment and Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow Diana Furchtgott-Roth wrote an article that originally appeared in The Daily Caller and the Heritage Foundation republished titled “Biden’s Hypocrisy on Climate Change Is Painfully Obvious.”⁷⁰

In the article, Furchtgott-Roth claimed that “Temperatures have varied for centuries.”

Citing a Heritage Foundation report by Roy Spencer, she added, “Climate models are not reliable and accurate enough to attribute global warming to human activities. The observed rate of global warming over the past 50 years has been weaker than that predicted by almost all computerized climate models.”

She went on to cite a Daily Signal article by meteorologist Joe D’Aleo and the Heritage Foundation’s Kevin Dayaratna to claim that “Although carbon dioxide emissions and temperature—both in America and globally—have increased over the latter parts of the 20th Century, no meaningful increase in frequency and intensity of hurricanes has been observed.”

She also went on to claim that “Although some say that increased CO2 levels are detrimental to human health and welfare, deaths are more likely to result from medical events triggered by the cold than by the heat.”

She concluded, “Biden’s repetition that climate change is an existential threat gives him an excuse to impose more regulations and sign into law subsidies for favored donors.”

March 13, 2024

David R. Legates wrote a Heritage Foundation special report on sea level rise where he claimed, “the dynamics of sea level rise are considerably more complex than portrayed in the mainstream media, and thus, these concerns are vastly overstated.”

“Measurements indicate no significant recent acceleration that can be attributed to increases in carbon dioxide,” Legates claimed.

Among those Legates cited or mentioned in the report were Nils-Axel Mörner, Richard W. Rahn of the Cato Institute, Patrick J. Michaels of the Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation’s Kevin D. Dayaratna and Nicolas D. Loris.

“Nils-Axel Mörner argues that the estimated rate for the 21st century is exaggerated, with a more appropriate value being about a third of that,” Legates wrote in his conclusion.⁷¹

January 24, 2024

The Heritage Foundation published a backgrounder (No. 3809) by Roy W. Spencer titled “Global Warming: Observations vs. Climate Models.”⁷²

“While the climate system has warmed somewhat over the past five decades, the popular perception of a ‘climate crisis’ and resulting calls for economically significant regulation of CO2 emissions is not supported by science,” Spencer claimed in the backgrounder.

Spencer concluded, “Climate models produce too much warming when compared to observations over the past fifty years or so, which is the period of most rapid warming and increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. […] This discrepancy is never mentioned when those same models are used as the basis for policy decisions.”

“Also not mentioned when discussing climate models is their reliance on the assumption that there are no natural sources of long-term climate change,” he added.

November 2023

Axios reported that the Heritage Foundation was responsible for orchestrating a “government-in-waiting” via its Project 2025,⁷³ which describes the goal of its 2025 Presidential Transition Project as to “collectively, pave the way for an effective conservative administration: a policy agenda, personnel, training, and a 180-day playbook.⁷⁴

“Think of it as a transition team set in motion years in advance,” Axios reported. “Former President Trump’s allies are pre-screening the ideologies of thousands of potential foot soldiers, as part of an unprecedented operation to centralize and expand his power at every level of the U.S. government if he wins in 2024, officials involved in the effort tell Axios.”⁷⁵

October 5, 2023

Roy Spencer and Kevin Dayaratna wrote Heritage Foundation commentary that first appeared in Newsweek titled “Summer Weather Data Don’t Amount to Climate Catastrophe.”⁷⁶

Spencer and Dayaratna wrote, “Some argue that even if there is a remote chance that doom-and-gloom climate projections are true, we should move toward complete decarbonization to save the planet. But these policies will have significant economic consequences and negligible environmental effects.”

They claimed, “Even taking alarmist assumptions about the planet’s sensitivity to CO2 emissions at face value, if the United States were to eliminate fossil fuel consumption immediately, the policies would result in less than 0.2 degrees Celsius of temperature mitigation by 2100. This is because other countries, including China, will continue to pump out CO2 into the atmosphere, as they have been doing for years.”

July 26, 2023

The Heritage Foundation’s Diana Furchtgott-Roth wrote an article titled “Hot Weather Does Not Mean Climate Change,” which first appeared in The Daily Signal.⁷⁷

In the article, Furchtgott-Roth promoted a book by Steven Koonin as evidence that “the science is not as settled as many politicians would have us believe.”

“[W]hat if we were not in a climate crisis after all, and trillions of dollars in planned tax credits and green energy expenditures are a misuse of taxpayer resources?” She posited.

“Koonin finds that daily record high temperatures have not increased over the past 100 years and daily record lows have become less common. This is directly at variance with media headlines,” she wrote.

“’Consensus’ on the ‘climate crisis’ as presented by news outlets is not a scientific consensus at all. We need to follow scientific knowledge as it develops and carefully consider the costs and benefits of different alternatives.”

June 12, 2023

The Heritage Foundation hosted an event titled “The Big Government Car Theft,” featuring Steven G. Bradbury, Donna Jackson, director of membership development for the Project 21 Black Leadership Network, and Michael McKenna of the vice president’s office.⁷⁸

Source: Heritage Foundation YouTube account

The event description reads as follows:

“Are you ready for the government to take away your car? New proposed regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency would require new car sales to be 60% electric by 2030, compared to fewer than 6% in 2022, so you might not be able to buy your preferred car. These regulations would make cars more expensive, reduce safety, and cause America to give up energy independence to China. Experts join us to explain how you can fight back.”

During the event, host Diana Furchtgott-Roth listed several supposed reasons to oppose new EPA rules requiring a percentage of new vehicle sales to be electric.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth: [00:03:28] “One is energy independence. Right now, China makes the batteries, and we don’t want to be dependent on China for a very important source of energy and for our economy. We saw that that didn’t work when Russia invaded Ukraine. It didn’t work in the 1970s with OPEC. We want to be energy independent, and we are energy independent right now with oil and natural gas.

“The second reason that the United States as a whole might not want to go full-scale on these electric vehicles is the effects on the climate. So the rationale for this EPA rule is that it’s going to help the climate; it’s gonna lower global temperatures. But Kevin Dayaratna, the chief statistician of the Heritage Foundation, using models from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Department, has shown that it would only make a difference of two-tenths of one degree Celsius if all the fossil fuel emissions in the United States were erased. So it’s not going to make any difference on the climate.

“And the final reason that people might not want to go full-scale on electric vehicles is the human rights aspect. There are children who are mining these minerals that are required for the electric batteries.” [00:04:48]

Donna Jackson claimed it would take away private ownership of vehicles from Americans:

Donna Jackson: [00:09:19] “You know, this is the way that the government wants to take away private ownership from most Americans. However bad you think this is going to be on most Americans, it’s going to exponentially worse on African-Americans.” [00:09:36]

She further described it as a “war on the poor.” [00:13:44]

Mike McKenna cited survey numbers from the American Energy Alliance and the Committee to Unleash Prosperity:

Michael McKenna: [00:14:03] “I want to focus on two sets of numbers, since politics is about numbers. One is a soft set of numbers; one is a hard set of numbers. The first one is the soft set. The American Energy Alliance and the Committee to Unleash Prosperity conducted a survey recently about this and other things, and it showed that the idea of a federal electric vehicle mandate was widely unpopular; it was about 55 points underwater with the voters. That’s no shocker. We’ve done polls for years. That’s about the same number we’ve had for years; it seems to be a steady distaste of the federal government telling folks what to do.

“We’ve also asked another question year in and year out, and that is who should make decisions, the decisions about what cars you’re going to buy and what fuels you’re going to use, right? That too, about 80 percent of the people, and I know it’s going to shock everybody, 80 percent had this quaint, old-fashioned idea that they should make decisions about the cars they buy. And that’s the problem, right? If you’re the EPA, the EPA wants to very carefully and extensively limit your ability to make that choice.” [00:15:16]

Michael McKenna: [00:17:08] “I can go on and on with the numbers, right, but what I’m telling you is the American people don’t want this, and what also I’m telling you is, it’s not workable. It’s not going to happen that way.” [00:17:19]

Donna Jackson claimed the primary goal of the EPA standards was to “lower your standard of living.”

Donna Jackson: [00:22:45] “I think one of the things that Americans need to realize is the whole goal is to lower your standard of living. That’s the primary goal. They’re not concerned about if the vehicle is going to work, if it fits your lifestyle, if it’s going to serve the community that you’re living in; it’s to lower your standard of living.” [00:23:05]

Donna Jackson: [00:23:59] “They want people who are permanently dependent on the government. They need to make sure that you don’t have access to income, so you cannot own in this country.

“30 by 30, 55-50, and taking away your transportation are all interrelated. If you don’t own any property, then you have to do what the government says to do. They want control.” [00:24:26]

March 28, 2023

The Heritage Foundation released a special report (No. 270) titled “Winning the New Cold War: A Plan for Countering China,” where they argued that the US should roll back ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) policies to increase security.⁷⁹

Within a section titled “Reject Damaging Environmental, Social, and Governance Policies,” the report suggested,“Proactive measures can be undertaken through educational briefings and partnerships with state Attorneys General, Treasurers, Governors, and state and federal legislators to inform them of the ways in which China manipulates ESG to its advantage.”

In another section, they suggest, “America is well endowed with natural resources and should reject plans to transition to ‘green energy’ technologies dominated by China.”

The report suggested several stops corporate boards should take, including “rejecting ESG and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) compliance measures that undermine U.S. competitiveness and advantage Chinese competitors.”

The report also claimed, “[T]here is growing evidence that Beijing is co-opting divisive environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policies and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives to undermine U.S. competitiveness.”

Discussing renewable energy, the report added, “The United States is also an energy superpower with abundant natural resources, yet current climate policies prioritize a transition to electric vehicles, and electricity generated by wind and solar power, which is more costly and less efficient. These technologies also make the United States progressively more dependent on Chinese supply chains, with the PRC increasingly dominating ‘green energy’ technologies, manufacturing, and exports. This is an imprudent approach.”

The report also details a list of recommended actions, for example, to address “Energy and Climate Challenges:

“The U.S. government must discount the climate agenda as the organizing principle governing foreign and domestic energy policy. America must reorient its energy policy away from pursuing a ‘net-zero’ economy and toward ensuring reliable, affordable, and abundant energy (ideally with ample domestic supplies) for the American people. Critical actions include eliminating arbitrary, self-imposed restrictions that impose competitive disadvantages for no environmental benefit; reducing domestic dependencies on China for energy and transportation technologies; eliminating the more than $250 billion of newly enacted green energy–related tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA); enacting tax reform that would lift burdens from investments that would strengthen the ability of American companies to meet global energy needs; and increasing global energy supplies to mitigate adversarial countries’ leveraging of energy markets for political ends.”

December 5, 2022

“They [Republicans] should make sure that voters are aware that many who impose ESG considerations on investments are themselves in bed with genocidal, slaving, communist China,” Heritage Foundation’s executive vice president, Derrick Morgan, wrote in The Daily Caller. The Heritage Foundation republished the commentary on its website.⁸⁰

November 29, 2022

“Rather than trying to persuade developing countries to abstain from conventional fuels, the West should be encouraging all countries to plan for avoiding weather damage and use the most efficient form of fuel available for energy production, including natural gas, coal, and nuclear. This will raise standards of living and disproportionately help the poor,” Diana Furchtgott-Roth wrote in a commentary piece that originally appeared in Forbes titled “Developing Countries Need Modern Energy, Not Climate Reparations.”⁸¹

August 8, 2022

Derrick Morgan, executive vice president of The Heritage Foundation, wrote a commentary piece that originally appeared in The Daily Caller titled “Biden’s Civil War on Energy Is Leaving Endless Collateral Damage in Its Wake.”⁸²

“Unlike threats such as drugs or poverty, there is no widespread consensus on the ‘evil’ of so-called fossil fuels,” Morgan claimed in the piece. He added, “Biden’s espoused targets might be coal and oil corporations, but the collateral damage is you and me.”

Morgan went on to link to an article by Bjorn Lomborg:

“Biden is fighting this civil war in the name of “trusting the science”—which, after the last two years, should give everyone pause. But even if you do “trust the science” of climate change, all this pain would be for very little, if any, gain. One expert [Bjorn Lomborg] looked at what would happen under temperature models if the United States followed through on its Paris commitments.

“He ran two scenarios and found a temperate reduction of between 0.008 and 0.03 degrees centigrade by 2100.”

June 16, 2022

“The Paris Agreement is an ill-suited mechanism to curb warming, even when accepting the dubious premise of catastrophic warming. With no enforcement mechanisms and no repercussions for failing to meet emissions reduction targets, countries can continue to emit GHGs well into the future,” Kevin Dayaratna, Katie Tubb, and David Kreutzer wrote in a Heritage Foundation backgrounder titled “The Unsustainable Costs of President Biden’s Climate Agenda.”⁸³

“As shown, U.S. adherence to the targets of the Paris Agreement provides no more than trivial benefits, if any, and does so at an extraordinarily high cost to average Americans. It is neither reasonable nor laudable to push policies that have real costs to American families and businesses and further erode the American system of limited, representative government for no environmental benefit,” they claimed.

April 7, 2022

Drew Bond and James Jay Carafano wrote a commentary piece titled “An Action Plan for America’s Energy Security” that originally appeared in The Washington Times.⁸⁴

“Though Western European leaders knew that their ‘greening’ of domestic energy production had left them undesirably dependent on Russian oil and gas, President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine jolted them into realizing just how vulnerable they had become,” Bond and Carafano wrote.

According to the authors, “The biggest problems right now are government regulations that impede domestic mining for rare earth minerals and the further development of every form of energy, from conventional fuels to nuclear power to renewables.”

They concluded, “If public policy leaders will once and for all come together around this issue and slash red tape, they will deliver a better present and a more prosperous—and secure—future for the American people.”

March 15, 2022

James Carafano, vice president of the Heritage Foundation’s Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy and E. W. Richardson Fellow, was quoted as an “expert” by Fox News in an article claiming “Russia duped Europe into energy dependence by funding ‘rabid environmental groups’.“⁸⁵

“The Russians actually fund some of the most rabid environmental groups in Europe because they sic them on the energy projects that aren’t Russian,” Carafano told Fox News in a phone interview.

Fox News also quoted Michael Shellenberger from an earlier interview, where he had suggested “You’re not really an independent nation if you depend on foreign countries so heavily for your energy supplies.”

February 11, 2022

Heritage president Kevin Roberts wrote an op ed in the Sacramento Bee describing “big tech” companies as an “enemy of the American people” because of their alleged “woke ideology” and “discrimination against conservative books and media.” Robert alleged that this includes the “routine, partisan deplatforming of “disinformation” that often boils down to differences of opinion.”⁸⁶

The op ed cited a Heritage Foundation report that criticized platforms like YouTube for censoring “content that contradicts left-wing orthodoxy.”⁸⁷

December 21, 2021

“Rather than thinking about environmental issues as a global crusade or an existential crisis that trumps every concern and national interest, climate and related challenges can be dealt with most effectively by treating it like the foreign policy problem it is,” James Jay Carafano and Jack Spencer wrote in a Heritage Foundation commentary piece that originally appeared in the National Interest.⁸⁸

“Climate change is happening. Human activity may well play a role. There are other arguably more pressing environmental issues as well,” they argued without citation.

They claimed, “We are stuck in neutral because there is an undeniable effort to use climate change to drive a far broader agenda for radical political change,” adding that “Likewise, deliberately inflammatory rhetoric only adds to concerns of fear mongering [sic] and manipulation by climate activists.”

December 9, 2021

The Heritage Foundation hosted an event with Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA) and Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO), chairman and member, respectively, of the Congressional Western Caucus, to discuss “Major Legislation to Improve Implementation of the Endangered Species Act.”⁸⁹

Source: Heritage Foundation YouTube account

Rep. Dan Newhouse said during the meeting, [02:50] ”The ESA [Endangered Species Act] is a failure, and onerous regulations have hindered species recovery efforts. Not to mention, and I can speak of this firsthand, not to mention the economies and the livelihoods of so many people in rural america.” [03:07]

According to Rep. Ken Buck, [06:11] “The problem is, that rather than using the Endangered Species Act as a shield, the woke left uses the Endangered Species Act as a sword. It attacks private property rights wherever it can. [06:23]

[…]

[06:36] And by using this statue as a sword, it has done great harm, not just to our economy, but as my friend Dan Newhouse said, to individual livelihoods, to the folks who are working the hardest on the land,” [06:53] Buck added.

He gave the example of protections for the Lesser Prairie Chicken under the ESA as something that “really highlighted the problems that we have with the Endangered Species Act.”

“The idea that the Act can be used to shut down energy production because the left doesn’t like fossil fuels and uses any vehicle they can to harm folks,” Buck went on.

“If you look at it, thousands of critters have been put on the endangered species list. Only a handful have ever been taken off, and some of that handful have taken off because they were already extinct. It’s really a mismanaged program. It deserves congressional scrutiny, and I hope we get there,” he added.

November 3, 2021

“The administration seems bent on ‘transforming’—i.e., ruining—the energy sector and the national economy with it in service to a radical climate agenda,” Jack Spencer and James Jay Carafano wrote in Heritage Foundation commentary originally published at The National Interest titled “Biden’s Climate Policy Is a Titanic Disaster in Waiting.”⁹⁰

“Decades of data from The Index of Economic Freedom clearly show that economic freedom goes hand in hand with economic growth, which is essential to environmental stewardship. In fact, climate-related deaths have fallen 96 percent over the last century, thanks to rapid economic growth and increased access to affordable, reliable energy,” Spencer and Carafano claimed.

“Rather than urging our friends and allies to pursue policies that make their energy sectors more brittle and costly, the United States should be championing freer trade to get them the energy they need,” they added.

August 28, 2021

Katie Tubb wrote an article titled “Climate Change Report Isn’t a Blank Check for Green Policies” that originally appeared in the Detroit News and was republished by The Heritage Foundation.⁹¹

According to Tubb, the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report is “not the last word in climate science.”

She wrote:

“Climate is a wickedly complex system. It involves long-term patterns, the dynamic interactions between clouds and oceans, influences from human activity and natural forces like volcanoes and solar activity, and physics, to name just a few major factors.

“No one person has a mastery of all that knowledge, which makes the IPCC report a useful tool in understanding the issue. But our knowledge is always growing.”

Tubb added, “More studies continue to highlight persistent problems with climate models exaggerating warming.“

She concluded, “Therefore, it’s incumbent on citizens to ask good questions of their elected representatives when they advocate for policies like the Green New Deal, subsidies for electric vehicles or regulations on electricity generation. And politicians should not be given a free pass by claiming to act on a supposed mandate of ‘the science, as presented in reports like the IPCC’s.”

She quoted Judith Curry in her conclusion:

“As aptly stated by one climate scientist: ‘We need to remind ourselves that addressing climate change isn’t an end in itself, and that climate change is not the only problem that the world is facing. The objective should be to improve human well-being in the 21st century, while protecting the environment as much as we can.’”

May 13, 2021

Mother Jones obtained a leaked video provided by watchdog group Documented, revealing Heritage Foundation’s potential role in voter suppression laws in Georgia.⁹²

Source: Mother Jones YouTube account

Jessica Anderson, executive director at Heritage Action for America, a sister organization of the Heritage Foundation, stated in a private meeting that “eight key provisions that Heritage recommended” had made their way into the final Georgia law, which was passed on March 25, 2020.⁹³

The law included limitations on mail ballot drop boxes, additional voter requirements for mail-in ballots, and prohibitions on counties accepting donations from non-profit organizations looking to expand Georgia’s voting base. The initiative formed part of a wider campaign, which involved spending $24 million over two years in eight battleground states, to restrict voting rights.⁹⁴

Mother Jones noted all of those recommendations were part of the Heritage Foundation’s February 2021 report. ⁹⁵

During the private meeting with political donors in Tucson, Arizona during April 2021, Anderson reportedly stated she had told the Governor of Georgia: “Do not wait to sign that bill. If you wait even an hour, you will look weak. This bill needs to be signed immediately.”⁹⁶

The Heritage Foundation also drafted three provisions in legislation which Iowa Republicans had adopted prior to Georgia’s law. Anderson stated: “We worked quietly with the Iowa state legislature. We got the best practices to them. We helped draft the bills. We made sure activists were calling the state legislators, getting support, showing up at their public hearings, giving testimony.”⁹⁷

Mike Marshall, Executive Director of the Iowa Ethics & Campaign Disclosure Board, opened an investigation into the claims made by Anderson regarding the Heritage Foundation’s role in pushing the aforementioned legislation. An article in EIN Presswire written by Iowa’s State Democrats stated: “The claims made recently by Heritage Action about their role in secretly pushing voter suppression legislation in Iowa and other states are disturbing.”⁹⁸

March 9, 2021

The Heritage Foundation held a virtual event titled “A First Look at Biden’s Energy and Climate Policies” featuring Travis Fisher of the Electricity Consumers Resource Council, Todd Johnston of ConservAmerica, and Shawn Regan of the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC).⁹⁹

Source: Heritage Foundation YouTube account

Todd Johnson commented on Electric vehicles in his presentation:

Todd Johnston: [00:09:50] “Our top-line assessment is that electric vehicles will play an increasing role in the decarbonization of the transportation sector. There’s no question about that. But there are some very serious questions relative to cost, performance, supporting infrastructure in their environmental footprint that remain to be to be worked out.

“At the same time, other vehicle technologies are making great strides in reducing emissions. And I think that’s that’s one of the things that we unfortunately don’t hear a lot about. There’s a lot of good progress that’s been made in other more traditional types of technologies. And so, from a ConservAmerica standpoint, we believe that this is something that should be worked out in the marketplace, not through government interventions, through subsidies and mandates and the like.” [00:10:35]

Shawn Regan claimed there would be no environmental benefit to an oil and gas leasing moratorium:

Shawn Regan: [00:13:22] “I think in terms of the oil and gas leasing moratorium, you know, it really won’t have much in terms of environmental benefits simply because supply restrictions like this do little or nothing to reduce demand for fossil fuels, which is ultimately what will have to happen to make a meaningful impact at reducing pollution in greenhouse gasses.” [00:13:44]

January 28, 2021

Nicolas Loris wrote an article originally published in USA Today, republished at The Heritage Foundation, titled “On Climate Change, Government-Centric Approach Will Hurt U.S.A. With Unintended Consequences.”¹⁰⁰

“Reforms should focus on breaking down barriers to innovation, providing timelier permitting for new, cleaner energy projects and reducing trade barriers that stunt the adoption of more efficient technologies. We need economic freedom, not more restrictions,” Loris concluded.

Loris wrote, “Climate change is real, and man-made emissions are indeed having an impact. However, many of the subsidies and regulations being proposed are costly and ineffective, benefiting the well-connected rather than the planet.”

According to Loris, “[P]olicies that restrict or prohibit natural resource extraction in the United States will not stop or substantially change the global consumption of these resources.”

He added:

“In fact, even if the United States were to achieve a net-zero emissions target at the sacrifice of higher energy bills and a weaker economy, the climate benefit would be minimal, as America constitutes a relatively small percentage of global emissions.

The Paris Agreement does little to change this, as major emitting developing countries have free reign to emit well into the future without meaningfully changing their behavior.”

January 13, 2021

Darken Bakst wrote a commentary, originally published at The Daily Signal and republished at the Heritage Foundation, titled “Environmental Extremism Is Creeping Into Every Domain of Public Policy.”¹⁰¹

Bakst claimed the following:

“Many on the left continue to place their ideology of environmental extremism above all other considerations, including economic growth, individual freedom, and the welfare of low-income Americans.

This worldview ignores critical tradeoffs and places environmental interests above even basic principles that have long served as a foundation of this nation. Further, this extreme environmental movement has crept into almost every issue area imaginable.”

According to Bakst, “To environmental extremists, it’s more important for the government to force radical changes to how we generate electricity and fuel our vehicles than it is to have reliable and affordable energy or to remove barriers to innovation.”

October 22, 2020

Discussing then-Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s policy vision on energy and environment, Nicolas D. Loris wrote in a Heritage Foundation backgrounder where he claimed, “Combined, these policies would harm consumers multiple times over through higher energy prices—and lead to more cronyism and corporate welfare in energy markets.”¹⁰²

“Green New Deal–like policies would give the government far more control over the energy economy—and strip away choices that should be left to consumers. These policies would be harmful for taxpayers, ratepayers, families, and businesses across the country,” Loris claimed.

He added, “In terms of climate effects, any unilateral reduction in emissions would barely affect global surface temperatures or sea levels.”

Loris discussed “environmental considerations” related to renewable energy:

“In addition to the lack of climate benefits, it is important to remember that alternative energy sources require mining and manufacturing, and can produce their own waste streams. There are environmental considerations to take into account when disposing of lithium-ion batteries and solar panels, or even wind turbine blades that are difficult and expensive to transport and crush at landfills.”

According to Loris, “Policies that prohibit conventional energy development in the U.S. could very well make the planet worse off. Limits on coal, oil, and natural gas production in the United States will not stop the global consumption of these natural resources.”

September 14, 2020

“The integrated assessment models are unreliable, and policymakers would be wise to prohibit their use,” Nicolas Loris wrote in Heritage Foundation commentary excerpted from the Heritage Foundation’s “2020 Mandate for Leadership.”¹⁰³

Withdrawing from the Paris [C]limate [A]ccord was a bold step toward climate leadership because international climate efforts have been wasteful and unproductive. Recognizing this, the administration should withdraw from the entire United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.”

July 29, 2020

The Heritage Foundation held a virtual event with EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler “on Recent Successes.”¹⁰⁴

Source: Heritage Foundation YouTube account

Some notable quotes are below.

Andrew Wheeler: [00:05:59] “We are listening more, and people can see that this administration has a view on policy that is based on sound and transparent science and not based on virtue signaling for climate changes and foreign capitals.”[00:06:17]

Andrew Wheeler: [00:32:39] “We’re much better off leaving the Paris Agreement. Since 2005, our CO2 emissions have dropped 15 percent in this country, while at the same time, most other industrial nations’ CO2 emissions have increased. Almost all of Europe has increased their CO2 emissions.

“The Paris Climate Accord was great for Paris, bad for Pittsburgh. We would have had to make additional reductions here, while our trading partners, such as China, were able to increase their emissions without checks until at least 2030before they would even have to start making any reductions.

“The Paris Climate Accord was a horrible deal to the American consumer, American businesses, American families. We have proven that you can reduce CO2 emissions without being part of the international agreement on the Paris Climate Accord. We did, we are reducing pollutants. As I said earlier, we have taken three regulatory actions to reduce CO2 emissions in this country.” [00:33:40]

May 1, 2020

Nicolas Loris wrote an article that originally appeared in the Arizona Daily Star, which the Heritage Foundation republished, titled “Calls to Ban Natural Gas Appliances Are Misguided.”¹⁰⁵

Discussing proposals to restrict the use of natural gas in commercial and residential buildings, Loris claimed, “in many instances, gas appliances are actually the greener option.”

“[N]ow fossil fuel opponents are going beyond climate to sell their pitch. More effort has gone into the effects of gas-fired stoves on indoor air quality,” Loris wrote, noting recent studies suggesting fewer deaths as a result of indoor air pollution.

However, “cooking on electric stovetops and natural gas ranges both produce fine particulates that affect indoor air quality,” Loris countered, adding, “there are more practical alternatives than requiring homes to replace a perfectly functioning gas range.”

He concluded, “Like many misguided environmental policies, banning natural gas appliances is less about achieving a healthier, cleaner environment and more an unfounded attack on a particular fuel source.”

April 13, 2020

Nicolas Loris wrote Heritage Foundation commentary first published in The Detroit News titled “The Best Fuel Economy Standard Is Zero.”¹⁰⁶

“Policymakers will get it ‘just right’ when they scrap CAFE [corporate average fuel economy standards] entirely,” Loris argued.

“CAFE standards aren’t an effective climate strategy either. The global temperature impact would be practically immeasurable,“ he wrote.

February 21, 2020

Nicolas Loris wrote a Heritage Foundation commentary piece that originally appeared in the Lincoln Journal Star titled “A Ban on Hydraulic Fracturing? No Fracking Way.”¹⁰⁷

“[F]racking poses no threat to groundwater supplies,” Loris claimed in the piece.

“A fracking ban would also have adverse effects on the environment,” he added.

“Policies that needlessly restrict energy supplies in the U.S. won’t stop consumers from using oil or natural gas, whether in the U.S. or elsewhere. Instead, production will merely shift to places where the environmental standards aren’t as rigorous. Any decision to significantly curtail America’s energy output will be a gift to Russia, Saudi Arabia and the rest of OPEC.”

Loris concluded, “calls for a fracking ban instead hostilely target one industry and set regulations that are devoid of any meaningful environmental benefit, mischaracterize risk and misinform the public.”

November 26, 2019

Nicolas Loris and Douglas Blair wrote an article that originally appeared in The Daily Signal titled “French Protesters Didn’t Want Macron’s Gas Tax. They Should Reject His Climate Agenda.”¹⁰⁸

“The Paris [C]limate [A]ccord is a failure on multiple levels. It fails to please anybody and does far more harm than good,” Lois and Blair wrote. They added, “The agreement is toothless, with nonexistent enforcement mechanisms and weak incentives for any country to actually try to follow the deal.”

According to Loris and Blair:

“The yellow vest movement had lofty ambitions. The protesters saw an unfair tax being levied against them in the name of climate alarmism and rightly said ‘enough.’ They then faltered because they failed to see the true problem.

“The Paris [C]limate [A]ccord will force these higher taxes and more, and for negligible effect on global temperatures. Much like the French government’s fuel tax, the Paris [C]limate [A]ccord is a costly non-solution that will leave people worse off and with fewer resources to address environmental challenges.”

March 25, 2019

The Heritage Foundation co-hosted an event with the Pacific Legal Foundation titled “Horror Stories of EPA and Corps Overreach under the Clean Water Act.”¹⁰⁹

Source: Heritage Foundation YouTube account

February 13, 2019

Heritage Foundation senior visiting fellow in economics Stephen Moore wrote a Heritage Foundation commentary piece that first appeared in The Washington Times titled “Green Is the New Red.”¹¹⁰

Moore concluded in the piece, “Conservatives have tended to laugh and sneer at the GND [Green New Deal] (me included), but these frontal assaults on free market capitalism are quickly becoming Democratic orthodoxy. Green is the new red, as the saying goes, and unless conservatives defeat and discredit these dingbat ideas, Donald Trump will be proven wrong. America will be on its way to becoming a socialist nation.”

November 27, 2018

Nicolas Loris wrote an article that was originally published in The Daily Signal, republished by the Heritage Foundation, titled “4 Problems With the New Climate Change Report.”¹¹¹

In the article, Loris cited Judith Curry as evidence that the National Climate Assessment’s projections are based on what “is not a likely scenario.”

“When taking a more realistic view of the future of conventional fuel use and increased greenhouse gas emissions, the doomsday scenarios vanish. Climatologist Judith Curry recently wrote, ‘Many ‘catastrophic’ impacts of climate change don’t really kick at the lower CO2 concentrations, and [Representative Concentration Pathway] then becomes useful as a ‘scare’ tactic,’” Loris wrote.

He added, quoting Tweets by Roger Pielke Jr. as evidence, “there were no increases in drought, no increases in frequency or magnitude of floods, no trends in frequency or intensity of hurricanes, and ‘low confidence for a detectable human climate change contribution in the Western United States based on existing studies.’”

Loris concluded, “The reality, however, is that policies endorsed to combat climate change would carry significant costs and would do nothing to mitigate warming, even if there were a looming catastrophe like the National Climate Association says.”

October 19, 2018

Nicolas Loris wrote an article at The Chicago Tribune, republished at The Heritage Foundation, titled “Can We Blame Hurricanes on Climate Change? Not So Fast.”¹¹²

In the article, Loris quoted Judith Curry:

“Climatologist Judith Curry, meanwhile, parsed through just about every climate expert’s assessment, both pre- and post-Florence, and concluded that ‘convincingly attributing any of this to human[-]caused global warming is very challenging,’” Loris wrote.

He also quoted Roger Pielke Jr.: “The University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke Jr., who specializes in analyzing extreme weather trends, emphasizes that ‘the IPCC once again reports that there is little basis for claiming that drought, floods, hurricanes (and) tornadoes have increased, much less increased due to (greenhouse gases).’”

He cited Ryan Maue, suggesting “he suggests, ‘more detailed climate analysis is needed to better understand what has happened over the past 12 years across the Gulf of Mexico.’”

Loris concluded, “Before we run around screaming that the climate is crumbling, let’s step back and get a full picture of the climate science. And let’s not offer unserious and counterproductive policies that would treat the global energy economy the way a hurricane handles a beachfront hotel.”

September 25, 2018

Heritage Foundation Senior Statistician Kevin Dayaratna testified before the Oregon Joint Interim Committee on Carbon Reduction on the economic and climate impacts of proposed carbon regulations being considered by the Oregon State Legislature.¹¹³

Video of the meeting is available at the Oregon State Legislature’s website.

Dayaratna asserted a proposed cap and trade policy would result in the elimination of thousands of jobs and have little to no effect on the climate.

He responded to questioning about the apparent links between climate change and extreme weather events as “myths propagated by the mainstream media.”¹¹⁴

September 19, 2018

UK Treasury minister Liz Truss met with representatives from the Heritage Foundation during a visit to Washington, DC, Greenpeace’s investigative unit, Unearthed, found. The taxpayer-funded trip also included meetings with the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, and the American Legislative Exchange Council.¹¹⁵

April 25, 2018

The Heritage Foundation hosted an event titled “Saving ‘Endangered’ Species or Regulating with Bad Data,” featuring Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Jonathan Wood and wildlife biologist Roy Ramey, as well as Heritage Foundation visiting senior fellow Robert Gordon.¹¹⁶

According to the event description, “The Endangered Species Act (ESA) will reach the half[-]century milestone in several years and yet, many of the relatively few species that have supposedly ‘recovered’ because of the law were, in reality, never endangered.”

Source: Heritage Foundation YouTube account

Jonathan Wood had this to say about the Endangered Species ACT (ESA):

Jonathan Wood: [00:48:39] “What really drives the Endangered Species Act is people like me. It’s all litigation[-]driven. These are not policy decisions made by people who, you know, bureaucrats who have the public interest in mind and they’re trying to do the best thing they can, based on the science. It’s special interest groups filing lawsuits.

“If a species gets on the list, it’s because someone wanted to accomplish a goal, realized that if I file a petition and then sue and then sue and then sue, eventually I’ll get what I want. And the reality is that the listing process is fundamentally broken. It is completely litigation[-]driven.” [00:49:14]

Jonathan Wood: [00:50:02] “That there’s no real democratic accountability when all it takes is anyone who is willing to pay the cost of a filing fee to generate a lawsuit gets to dictate national policy. Now the reason why that happens is relatively clear. As soon as a species is listed, that automatically triggers really significant and burdensome regulatory restrictions.

“That creates a very strong incentive to push for species to be listed for reasons other than protecting species from extinction. If you don’t like timber harvesting, you have a very strongly incentive to find something in that forest, knowing that if you can make a plausible case that it’s threatened, you’re going to get to shut down the thing you don’t like. And there’s pretty powerful evidence that that’s happened repeatedly.

“On the other side of the coin, there’s a similar incentive for industry to do the opposite and try to twist the science or push the science in a way that suggests that species aren’t at risk.” [00:51:02]

Jonathan Wood: [00:54:19] “The Endangered Species Act is, in many ways, like Hotel California. You can check-in, but you can never leave, and it should disturb all of us, regardless of our views on how high a priority protecting species should be, that so few of them seem to recover, that we’re falling.” [00:54:40]

January 23, 2018

The Heritage Foundation claimed that the Trump Administration had implemented nearly two-thirds of a list of 334 policy recommendations titled the “Mandate for Leadership” series. View the full list here.¹¹⁷ ¹¹⁸

“Over the past several months, Heritage’s executive branch relations staff reviewed the 334 policy recommendations and met with senior administration officials in the several agencies. Heritage analysts briefed administration officials on the recommendations, provided additional insight and information, and advocated for reform,” the Foundation notes.¹¹⁹

“Examples of some of the most notable policy recommendations and their adoption or implementation by the Trump administration include:

Leaving the Paris Climate Accord: In August 2017, Trump announced the U.S. was ending its funding and membership in the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.

Repealing Net Neutrality: In December 2017, Trump’s Federal Communications Commission chairman proposed ending the 2015 network neutrality rules.

Reshaping National Monuments: Heritage’s recommendation to prohibit Land Acquisition (Cap and Reduce the Size of the Federal Estate) was adopted by Trump when he issued two executive orders effectively shrinking the size of national monuments in Utah.

Reinstating the Mexico City Policy: This executive order prevents taxpayer money from funding international groups involved in abortion and ending funding to the United Nations Population fund. On Jan. 23, 2017, in his first pro-life action, Trump signed an executive order today reinstating the Mexico City Policy.

Increasing Military Spending: Trump’s budget calls for a $54 billion increase in military spending to improve capacity, capability, and readiness of America’s armed forces.

Reforming Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program (TANF): The Trump administration adopted and is in favor of strengthening existing work requirements in order to receive benefits.

Allowing Development of Natural Resources: The Trump administration opened off-shore drilling and on federal lands. Executive Order 13783 directed Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to commence federal land coal leasing activities.

Reforming Government Agencies: Trump tasked each of his Cabinet secretaries to prepare detailed plans on how they propose to reduce the scope and size of their respective departments while streamlining services and ensuring each department runs more efficiently and handles tax dollars appropriately.

Withdrawing from UNESCO: In October 2017, Trump announced he was putting an end to U.S. membership in the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).”¹²⁰

November 28, 2017

The Heritage Foundation hosted an event with Rupert Darwall titled “Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex.”¹²¹

Source: Heritage Foundation YouTube account

Rupert Darwall: [00:06:21] “Withdrawal [from the Paris Agreement] frees America to be the world’s hydrocarbon superpower. It enables EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to roll back the Clean Power Plan. All this is happening because of what happened on November the 8th, 2016.

“And it wouldn’t have happened but for the tremendous work undertaken by conservative and libertarian think tanks in this city and across the country, notably in Chicago and in Austin, Texas.

“They took on the climate industrial complex. They prepared the intellectual ground and showed why it needed to be done and what needed to be done. America owes a huge debt of gratitude to the scholars and thinkers at Heritage who’ve been at the forefront of this great effort, as do I. [00:07:06]

Rupert Darwall: [00:25:17] “The science is settled, we’re told. The government must act. But global warming demands more. It demands that citizens agree and requires of those who don’t to hold their tongue and that dissent be silenced.

“Thus, global warming harbors a strong impulse toward the governing modes of the absolutist and the political culture of the totalitarian. At stake, then, is what makes America unique. Ultimately, global warming is a battle for America’s soul. And that’s why we’re here today, to fight it.” [00:25:50]

October 17, 2017

In a Heritage Foundation commentary that originally appeared in The Inquirer titled “U.S. Is Better Off Without the Clean Power Plan,” Nicolas Loris quoted Paul Knappenberger to claim that the Clean Power Plan would be “pointless”:¹²²

“Environmentally, the climate impact of the plan would have been pointless. According to climatologist Paul Knappenberger: ‘Even if we implement the Clean Power Plan to perfection, the amount of climate change averted over the course of this century amounts to about 0.02 centigrade. This is so small as to be scientifically undetectable and environmentally insignificant,’” Loris wrote.

October 10, 2017

The Heritage Foundation co-hosted an event with the Pacific Legal Foundation titled “The WOTUS Debate Continues: From a New Rule to Amending the Clean Water Act.”¹²³

Panelists included Darken Bakst of the Heritage Foundation, Reed Hopper of the Pacific Legal Foundation, and Amanda Aspatore, Vice President for Water Law and Policy at the National Mining Association (NMA).

Amanda Aspatore was not listed on the event description on the Heritage Foundation website. According to an archive of the NMA website, the NMA‘s objective is to “engage in and influence the public process on the most significant and timely issues that impact mining’s ability to safely and sustainably locate, permit, mine, transport and utilize the nation’s vast resources.”¹²⁴

In his introduction, Todd Gaziano, event moderator and the Pacific Legal Foundation’s executive director for their DC Center, commented on the Heritage Foundation’s role in the Clean Water Act:

Todd Gaziano: [00:01:14] “Heritage has been at the forefront of the debate over the proper scope and role of the federal government enforcing the Clean Water Act prohibitions.

“And it also supports groups like us at the Pacific Legal Foundation who litigate to prevent the worst abuses under that act and others.” [00:01:37]¹²⁵

Gaziano introduced Amanda Aspatore, commenting that “She represents the mining industry on environmental, administrative, legal, regulatory, and policy issues with the focus of those arising under the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.”

A search of lobbying disclosures shows Aspatore was registered as a lobbyist for the National Mining Association in 2014 and 2015 on a number of issues, including several bills related to water resources development, such as H.R. 1948, Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2013, and S. 861, “A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide guidance and clarification regarding issuing new and renewal permits, and Waters of the United States.”¹²⁶

During her presentation, Aspatore criticized existing Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rules:

Amanda Aspatore: [00:15:53] “Another one is a lack of clarity over a statute that imposes strict liability on people that violate it, and with that liability comes significant civil sanctions as well as potential criminal sanctions. They can throw you in jail.

“That’s a huge, huge problem for businesses, for landowners everywhere. First of all, it causes a lot of delays because you can hold up a project, and the jobs that that project would create.” [00:16:25]¹²⁷

She also argued that having federal jurisdiction over WOTUS rules could “actually harm the environment.”

Amanda Aspatore: [00:17:36] “And then the one other thing I would note is having that kind of view of federal jurisdiction can actually harm the environment. And I say that because mining companies do a ton of reclamation work as part of modern mining. And sometimes, they will go to older mines that existed prior to environmental regulation.” [00:17:56]

Reed Hopper described WOTUS rules as the largest expansion of federal authority in history:

Reed Hopper: [00:20:10] “I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that the WOTUS rule issued in 2015 is arguably an expansion of federal authority of the largest nature in the history of the nation.” [00:20:28]

In his presentation, Daren Bakst commended the Trump administration’s actions on WOTUS:

Daren Bakst: [00:42:02] “The Trump administration should be commended for their actions to get rid of the WOTUS rule. But even if the Trump administration comes up with the best rule in the history of rules, a future administration that’s set on expanding federal power can always get rid of that perfect new rule. Therefore, we need Congress, ultimately, to define what navigable waters actually means.” [00:42:34]

June 25, 2017

Katie Tubb and Nicolas Loris wrote a piece that originally appeared in The Daily Signal, republished at The Heritage Foundation, titled “Climate Budget Cuts Are Smart Management, Not an Attack on Science,” where they argued President Donald Trump’s budget proposal’s cuts to climate programs have “legitimate justifications for doing so.”¹²⁸

“Even if the federal budget won’t be balanced on the back of eliminated climate programs, there are a number of basic problems with government climate spending,” Tubb and Loris argued.

May 17, 2017

The Heritage Foundation co-hosted an event with the Cornwall Alliance to discuss the Cornwall Alliance’s new documentary, “Convicted: How Climate Alarmism Harms the World’s Poor” (working title). It was co-hosted by E. Calvin Beisner and Becky Norton Dunlop.¹²⁹ ¹³⁰

According to the event description, “As the sequel to Where the Grass is Greener: Biblical Stewardship vs. Climate Alarmism, Convicted delves into the deadly impacts of climate alarmism on people in developing countries, and what Biblical Stewardship requires of us: ‘To seek justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God.’”

The film featured Tom Harris, Tim Ball, S. Fred Singer, H. Leighton Steward, Patrick J. Michaels, and David Legates, among others. The trailer is available on Vimeo from CDR Communications.

May 8, 2017

Heritage Action for America and The Heritage Foundation, represented Michael Needham and Michael Costigan respectively, were listed on an open letter to President Donald J. Trump urging him “to withdraw fully from the Paris Climate Treaty and to stop all taxpayer funding of UN global warming programs.”¹³¹

DeSmog reported that the 40 groups represented in the letter, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), The Heartland Institute, and the Heritage Foundation, have received a combined total of millions of dollars from the Koch Brothers, ExxonMobil, and other industry groups.¹³²

Analysis also showed that the groups accepted about $80 million through Donors Capital Fund and Donors Trust, two groups that have been confirmed is a key financial source for key U.S-based climate change denial groups.¹³³

Apri, 28, 2017

Several news sources reported that Heritage Foundation president Jim DeMint was being forced out as leader of the group due to internal tensions inside the group. His ouster had been described by a “coup” against him, The New York Times reported.¹³⁴

Politico reported that the move was imminent and that additional changes would likely be coming soon, according to a GOP Operative that works with DeMint. There’s massive turmoil over there right now,” the operative said. President Donald Trump had praised DeMint around the time the news broke, mentioning him by name, calling him “amazing” and “a real friend.”¹³⁵ ¹³⁶

April 19, 2017

The Heritage Foundation co-hosted an event with the Discovery Institute titled “March for Science or March for Scientism? Understanding the Real Threats to Science in America.”¹³⁷

The event featured Stephen Meyer, Jay Wesley Richards, and Wesley J. Smith of the Discovery Institute and Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

The event description read as follows:

“On April 22, thousands of demonstrators are expected to converge on the National Mall for a ‘March for Science.’ Although the March is officially being described as non-partisan and open to diverse views, many participants are using it as an opportunity to delegitimize scientific and policy disagreements over climate change, evolution, fossil fuels, and other issues. At this event, a panel of experts will explore the real threats to good science in America, including the suppression of dissenting views, and the growing misuse of science as a club in the culture wars.”

Source: Heritage Foundation YouTube account

Marlo Lewis: [00:09:49] ”Many have a naive belief that activism and science can easily coexist not only in the same organization or institution, but in the same psyche. They have no sense of the temptations that politics presents to anyone who engages in it that can corrupt the judgment, including scientific judgment. And so, all too often, they have no clue that when they behave like partisan hacks, in the name of science, they politicize science and undermine public trust in science. And I think that explains to a great extent what we’re seeing today in the whole climate science debate and why these people are now complaining that the public doesn’t trust them.” [00:10:38]

Lewis commented on John Christy’s testimony at a House Science Committee, also describing Christy as “one of my favorite climate scientists.”

Marlo Lewis: [00:11:51] “Christy presented evidence that, number one, the climate models that form the basis of the alleged consensus, climate science consensus, are tuned too hot. That is to say, they are overly sensitive. They overestimate the effects of carbon dioxide emissions on global temperatures.” [00:12:12]

Marlo Lewis: [00:12:51] “What you see is an increasing divergence, whereas the models are projecting more and more warming, and the observations are showing much less, and the divergence expands over time. Now, you’d think that that might give some people pause, the scientists, and that it would also, in a sense, be a scientific method test of the validity of the models. But it’s only skeptics like Christy who point this out.” [00:13:20]

Marlo Lewis: [00:14:27] “The IPCC consensus, basically the sort of citadel, the fortress of it that everybody invokes and claims 97 percent of all climate science agree on, is the proposition that more than half of the warming of the globe since 1950 is anthropogenic, comes from human activity, greenhouse gasses, all right. And I actually don’t think that’s really that important an issue.

“A lot of people try to, if you, a lot of people pretend that if you accept that, then you accept the whole agenda of the clean power plan and, you know, the Paris Agreement and all these other policies, which are all cost for no benefit and potentially a humanitarian disaster because we really don’t know how to run the global economy yet without fossil fuels.

“But they pretend that the whole issue is wrapped up in this consensus statement on what they call attribution. Okay, there’s a certain amount of warming; how much of it is attributable to human causes versus natural variability.” [00:15:37]

Marlo Lewis: [00:16:54] “And the whole claim that the IPCC now has made for almost 20 years is that they know that more than half the warming is due to human activity because the models and the observations only agree when the models are run with both no natural variability and extra greenhouse gas emissions.

“Christy shows, based on their own data, that it’s precisely the reverse. Now, does that mean that he has disproven their claim that more than half the warming is anthropogenic? No, but it means that they can’t claim to know it.” [00:17:34]

Marlo Lewis: [00:20:28] “I think you have to check your sense of self-awareness and sense of irony at the door in order to enter the temple of consensus climatology.” [00:20:40]

Stephen Meyer criticized aspects of Darwinian evolution theory in his presentation:

Stephen Meyer: [00:41:41] “The public defenders are people like Bill Nye, the science guy, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, formerly Eugenie Scott, who was the head of the National Center for Science Education.

“And these folks are promoting Darwinian evolution, not only as settled science, but in the case of Dawkins and Krauss especially, as the basis for a fully materialistic ideology, which they, in fact, call the new atheism. They argue that science, properly understood, supports an atheistic worldview. And the science they have in mind is the theory of Darwinian evolution.” [00:42:21]

Stephen Meyer: [00:44:42] “You see this huge rhetorical excess in support of an alleged consensus in support further of neo-Darwinian theory. And yet, when you get into the technical literature in biology, you find that leading biologists, including leading evolutionary biologists, now openly doubt the creative power of the central mechanism of neo-Darwinian theory, which is the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations.” [00:45:08]

Stephen Meyer: [00:45:11] “I was testifying before the Texas State Board of Education. They had an innocuous policy proposal that they were putting forward in which they were suggesting that teachers be allowed to inform students about the strengths and weaknesses of competing scientific hypotheses.

“The Darwin-only science education lobby turned out in force to say the Texas state board could not apply that to their theory, to the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution, because in the words of Eugenie Scott, evolution, quote, has no weaknesses. Now I was there to testify, and part of my testimony put into evidence 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers that were raising questions about the central mechanism of neo-Darwinism, again, natural selection, acting on random mutations.” [00:45:59]

Wesley J. Smith responded to an audience member’s question to discuss “the increasing egalitarianism between man and animal, man and plant”:

Audience Member: [01:06:32] “My question is, it’s very clear, and in fact, many of these activists who will be here in Washington this weekend are increasingly unashamed about admitting that it is a political movement, it is a political ideology, this is what we believe, we believe capitalism needs to be destroyed, and so on and so forth.

“How many of those ideas are, have been alluded to today? You’ve mentioned how the increasing egalitarianism between man and animal, man and plant, in a almost resurgence of pagan, the pagan notion of man’s relationship to the Earth and so forth; how can we fight that and oppose that?

“How can scientists and non-scientists alike identify and resist that and oppose that to prevent the very awful consequences that are coming in the pipeline in policy and other areas?” [01:07:21]

Wesley J. Smith: [01:07:22] “The problem with exactly what you’ve described is that it is anti-human. And I think we need to begin pointing out that a lot of this advocacy is precisely misanthropic and anti-human, and I’ve got a couple of examples. David Suzuki, who is a very famous Canadian biologist—been around for years—he’s a rock star of science. He’s done a lot of television. Back in the 70s, he said that human beings are ‘maggots crawling around the Earth, defecating on the planet.’ […]

“David Attenborough, the very famous, very capable naturalist who has done so many wonderful natural wildlife documentaries, has called human beings the quote, ‘scourge on the planet,’ and he has supported groups that are for radical human depopulation. Now, the most radical population control regimen in the world is China. […] China has not managed to reduce the level of population in the country, merely slow its growth. So, if you’re going to have actual radical human depopulation, it’s going to take incredible tyranny.” [01:09:11]

Wesley J. Smith: [01:09:11] “Now, Attenborough and others like him won’t go there. They’ll say, well, birth control will solve it. No, it won’t. And then the question becomes, do we really have that kind of a problem? But the way it’s presented is specifically anti-human. I would even say that Jane Goodall—now this is almost heresy—has harmed science. Now, certainly, her observations of the chimpanzees was magnificent, but what did she do? Did she just report on what she observed? No. She anthropomorphized the chimps. And that changed the entire way science actually approaches these issues.” [01:09:49]

Stephen Meyer: [01:11:42] “Yeah, the anti-humanism is important, and I think this is ultimately a battle of ideas. And part of the way to reverse this is to unmask the source of these ideas because once the unmasking occurs, it becomes more and more apparent to more and more people that they’re really not subject to the arguments that are being promulgated as the consensus.

“For example, the radical animal rights movement, the denial of human exceptionalism, is a logical consequence of a deeper view that there is no qualitative difference between humans and animals because both were produced by the same process of undirected, unguided materialistic evolution.

“And we think that the materialistic theories of evolution, neo-Darwinism, and some of the newer ones that are coming along are empirically false.

“And so to base an ethical theory on an empirically false foundation like that is fallacious and no way to run the country in terms of ethical judgments and policy statements.” [01:12:57]

Stephen Meyer later commented on “the climate change debate,” suggesting that prominent climate change deniers had been “muffled”:

Stephen Meyer: [01:26:18] “Just in the climate change debate, there are a huge number of very prominent skeptics of anthropogenic global warming. Their voices have been muffled, but when you have people like Richard Lindzen at MIT, or Will Happer at Princeton, or Freeman Dyson at Princeton, or John Christy, who was mentioned before; these are high-powered scientists. They’re making very compelling arguments, and their voices need to be heard, and the political people need to hear the arguments on both sides before they render judgment.” [01:26:48] (Links added by DeSmog).

Marlo Lewis concluded with comments on climate science:

Marlo Lewis: [01:31:58] “My point here is, that government basically corrupts everything that it embraces, which is why we have separated religion from government. And to the extent that it’s possible, scientific research should similarly be separated from government; then you would not find climate science, in particular, being a faction-ridden, orthodoxy-enforcing political movement, but rather the quest for knowledge.” [01:32:29]

Marlo Lewis: [01:33:02] “Climate science virtually, with very little exception, is all about impacts, and it’s, I mean, so much of it is not really useful except for political purposes.” [01:33:13]

April 9, 2017

The Heritage Foundation republished commentary originally published at The American Conservative titled “Crosstalk on Climate Change,” where Katie Tubb claimed, according to listed ‘key takeaways’ that “The very nature of global warming is still contested among accomplished scientists.”¹³⁸

“The same climate-sensitivity modeling used by the EPA shows that, if the entire industrialized world totally eliminated all CO2 emissions, only 0.278 degrees Celsius of warming would be averted by the end of the century. That’s not just some fringe skeptic’s claim,“ Tubb wrote.

Referencing a hearing that included testimony from Judith Curry and Roger Pielke, Jr., Tubb added, “As a hearing in the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee last week again demonstrated, the very nature of global warming is still contested among accomplished scientists.”

March 29, 2017

In a piece that originally appeared at The Hill, republished by the Heritage Foundation, Nicolas Loris argued, “Trump was Right to Repeal Obama’s Failing Climate Control Scheme.”¹³⁹

Loris argued against the Clean Power Plan, writing, “we project the Obama’s climate agenda will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and result in a $2.5 trillion cumulative hit to gross domestic product by 2030.”

He added, “Even if every state met its carbon targets under the Clean Power Plan, the averted warming would be two[-]hundredths of a degree Celsius by the turn of the century. There’s your feather.”

“No matter what your position on the climate science is, individual and collective mitigation strategies are all economic pain and no meaningful climate gain,” Loris wrote.

March 17, 2017

The Heritage Foundation republished commentary that originally appeared at FoxNews.com titled “Ignore the Critics: If Trump Withdraws from Paris Climate Agreement, He Will Demonstrate U.S. Leadership.”¹⁴⁰

In the article, Brett D. Schaefer argued that “Repudiating the Paris Agreement would be akin to ripping off a Band-Aid – a small pain in the form of anger from the U.N. and other governments committed to the agreement, but after that, nothing.”

“Conservatives should insist that the President repudiate the Paris Agreement to correct that action alone,” he added.

February 28, 2017

Kevin D. Dayaratna, listed as “Senior Statistician and Research Programmer” at The Heritage Foundation, testified before the Congressional Subcommittee on Environment and Oversight Committee on Science and Technology about the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC).¹⁴¹

“[U]nder a very reasonable set of assumptions, the SCC is overwhelmingly likely to be negative, which would suggest the government should, in fact, subsidize (not limit) CO2 emissions, Dayaratna said in his written testimony.

He clarified, “Of course, I by no means use these results to suggest that the government should actually subsidize CO2 emissions, but rather to illustrate the extreme sensitivity of these models to reasonable changes to assumptions and can thus be quite easily fixed by policymakers.”

Source: House Science, Space, and Technology Committee

February 22 – 25, 2017

The Heritage Foundation was a Presenting Sponsor of the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), among a range of other conservative and pro-industry groups.¹⁴²

Heritage reported that they had nine speakers who addressed CPAC over three days including Rob Bluey, Lindsey Burke, Mike Gonzalez, Bruce Klingner, Ana Quintana, Bryan Riley, Grant Strobl, and Bridget Wagner. Jim DeMint, president of Heritage, also spoke at the event.¹⁴³

February 16, 2017

The Heritage Foundation hosted an event titled “The Smoke and Mirrors Behind Climate Modeling: Advice to Policymakers” featuring Kevin Dayaratna of the Heritage Foundation, Ross McKitrick of the Fraser Institute, and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger of the Cato Institute. Nicolas Loris hosted the panel.¹⁴⁴

Source: Heritage Foundation YouTube account

Some notable excerpts of the event are below:

Nicolas Loris: [00:12:42] “They [the Obama administration] use the CO2 valuation to justify regulations on new and existing power plants, for vehicles, for other appliances, efficiency standards, and much more. To calculate this estimate, the working group relied on three statistical models known as integrated assessment models, or IAMs. But many respects, they should probably be called GIGOs, garbage in, garbage out, because they provide no meaningful guide for public policy analysis whatsoever.” [00:13:10]

In his presentation, Chip Knappenberger claimed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was “being overly conservative” in their 2013 report on potential climate change as “one and a half degrees C to four and a half degrees.”

Chip Knappenberger: [00:23:46] “The IPCC, in my opinion, is being overly conservative in that assessment because there’s a lot of science that says that high-end is not very likely to happen.” [00:23:58]

Knappenberger went on to claim the risks for the higher end of climate change are “actually non-existent or very low”:

Chip Knappenberger: [00:26:17] “So, the new literature is suggesting that that high end, that fat right hand’s tail, where there’s a lot of risk for a high climate change is actually non-existent or very low, the chance of that happening. So if you were to rerun those climate models that are in the integrated assessments with these lower, a tighter distribution of equilibrium climate sensitivity, you produce a whole heck of a lot less warming in the future.” [00:26:49]

Referencing a chart off-screen, he added:

Chip Knappenberger: [00:27:47] “[F]or different time periods, you see that the observed trends are coming in below, consistently below, what the models are expecting them to be, indication that the real world is warming, is less sensitive to carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gasses than the model world.” [00:28:07]

Knappenberger concluded:

Chip Knappenberger: [00:29:54] “So my recommendation here is that the social costs of carbon should not be used in federal rulemaking until, or unless it reflects the latest climate science, and I think you hear from these other guys following me that the problems with the climate module of these integrated assessment models is just one of the many problems that are in these models. So, I don’t like the social cost of carbon, and I don’t think they should be using it.” [00:30:22]

Kevin Dayaratna, in his presentation, promised to “talk about the smoke in mirrors behind integrated assessment modeling.”

Kevin Dayaratna: [00:34:56] “Now, global warming alarmists will always tell you, ooh, the science is settled on global warming. But when you really take that phrase at face value, settled science, it’s essentially an oxymoron.

“New studies consistently come to light and get published, replacing and improving upon prior research in what we call journals., And the concepts of these ECS, equilibrium climate sensitivity distributions, are no different.” [00:35:21]

Kevin Dayaratna: [00:53:11] “At Heritage, we have the Heritage Energy Model, which is a derivative of the EIA’s National Energy Modeling System, and we plugged in a carbon tax in conjunction with the social cost of carbon, and we noticed by 2035, an average employment shortfall of almost 400,000 lost jobs, a total loss of income of more than $20,000 for a family of four, a 13 percent to 20 percent increase in electricity prices, and an aggregate $2.5 trillion GDP loss.

“So the reason for this is very simple. Energy is a fundamental building block of civilization, from lighting up our homes, to turning on our cars, to powering our laptops. The thing is, people take these things for granted, and when we move such a fundamentally important building block toward less efficient and more expensive forms of energy, or just raising the cost of even the least expensive and most efficient forms of energy, we will notice these consequences. So what does this tell us?

“These integrated assessment models are extremely sensitive to very, very reasonable tweaks to assumptions. Now, at their core, and I didn’t really get into this, the damage functions that are behind estimating the SEC are arbitrary, and they don’t really have very much legitimacy in the first place.

“So, as Nick was alluding to earlier, these models, instead of IAMs, maybe we want to refer to them as GIGOs—garbage in, garbage out models. And they can even be negative at times; so, you can have positivity, negativity.

“The sheer fact that these are so sensitive to very, very reasonable changes to assumptions, this is the most alarming aspect of them. They can be easily manipulated by policymakers using any assumptions that they would like.

“And taking them seriously, according to the assumptions that the IWG wanted to make, would literally result in an economic disaster with no environmental benefits.

“So, as a result, we would urge policymakers, at least for now, until these models can be revised and be made more legitimate, to not use these models for regulatory policy.” [00:55:18]

In his presentation, Ross McKitrick claimed there is “no basis for aggressive regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.”

Ross McKitrick: [01:05:06] “Mainstream science and economic tells you you have no basis for aggressive regulation of greenhouse gas emission. It’s all politics that’s been driving that whole program up to this point. So, use and abuse of social cost of carbon numbers.

“First of all, as you’ve seen, the numbers that are out there have ignored a very large literature on low climate sensitivity.”[01:05:30]

Ross McKitrick: [01:05:49] “In the real world, the damage threshold is likely higher than what we know about the social cost of carbon, so neither regulations nor taxes would pass the cost-benefit test.” [01:05:59]

Ross McKitrick: [01:05:59] “Now, as a way of finishing up here, just indulge me for a moment; what would I do as an ideal alternative if it were put to me? So, first of all, I would argue for removing all the current carbon regulations for obvious reasons.

“Then, if you absolutely felt you had to put a tax in place, start it at a very low number, like the social cost of carbon numbers you’ve seen, deflated by marginal cost of public funds, but make it a function of a reliable satellite-derived atmospheric temperature measure.

“So think about what that means. If warming’s gonna happen, okay, the tax rate’s gonna go up over time. But if there isn’t a warming problem, the tax isn’t gonna go, and you’re not gonna impose unnecessary costs on the system.” [01:06:41]

Responding to questions, Knappenberger commented:

Chip Knappenberger: [01:20:29] “I call the term lukewarming. I mean, the fact that I think that climate change is happening, but just not at the rate that even the IPCC says it is, and so a lot of those upper-end impacts that come from that also should be sort of thrown out as well.” [01:20:45]

January 19, 2017

Kevin Dayaratna and Nicolas Loris wrote a Heritage Foundation backgrounder titled “Rolling the DICE on Environmental Regulations: A Close Look at the Social Cost of Methane and” Nitrous Oxide,” where they criticized models used by the EPA to examine the social cost of methane (SCM) and the social cost of nitrous oxide (SCN₂O).¹⁴⁵

“[T]he EPA’s estimates of these statistics are just as unreliable as its SCC estimates,” they claimed.

Under “Key Points,” the authors also claimed that “Current assumptions about the Earth’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide emissions used by the EPA to estimate the SCM and SCN2O are based on outdated research. More recent studies regarding equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) distributions (CO2’s temperature impact) estimate significantly lower probabilities of extreme global warming.”

Discussing climate sensitivity, they claimed, “Global warming activists, including members of the Obama Administration, consistently argue that global warming is indisputably occurring and that the Earth is warming at catastrophic rates.16 Although a variety of studies in the peer-reviewed literature suggest that global warming is occurring, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the critical question: the magnitude of the warming, especially projected for three centuries.”

They cited a Heritage Foundation backgrounder by David W. Kreutzer, Nicolas D. Loris, Katie Tubb, and Kevin D. Dayaratna as evidence for this statement.

Together, they concluded that “The integrated assessment models that the EPA uses to calculate the social costs of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are not legitimate for regulatory analysis. They are unsubstantiated tools that regulators can use to justify costly regulations or thwart new investments.”

January 12, 2017

Michael Needham of Heritage Action for America, an affiliate of the Heritage Foundation, was a signatory to a January 12, 2017 official letter of support (PDF) for Scott Pruitt, in which numerous groups, including The Heartland Institute, American Energy Alliance (AEA), and others, declared that the Senate should “swiftly approve his nomination” for Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Other signatories of the letter included:¹⁴⁶

Thomas Pyle, American Energy Alliance
Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform
Kent Lassman, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Adam Brandon, FreedomWorks
David McIntosh, Club for Growth
Phil Kerpen, American Commitment
Craig Richardson, Energy and Environment Action Team
David Williams, Taxpayers Protection Alliance
Harry Alford, National Black Chamber of Commerce
Jim Martin , 60 Plus
Andrew Langer, Institute for Liberty
Heather Higgins, Independent Women’s Voice
Independence Institute
Richard Martin, Americans for Limited Government
Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes (COAST)
Brett Healy, MacIver Institute
Joseph Bast, Heartland Institute
George Landrith, Frontiers of Freedom
Randy Eminger, Energy Policy Network
Paul Gessing, Rio Grande Foundation
Mike Nasi, Balanced Energy for Texas
Brent Mead, Montana Policy Institute
Forest Thigpen, Mississippi Center for Public Policy

December 9, 2016

In an article that originally appeared in The Daily Signal, Katie Tubb quoted Sen. James Lankford, who described the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) as a “deeply flawed program.”¹⁴⁷

“To promote a healthy market that encourages risk-taking and innovation, Congress should repeal the Renewable Fuel Standard and let consumers make their own choices at the pump,” Tubb concluded.

December 8, 2016

The Heritage Foundation is a co-sponsor of the Texas Public Policy Foundation‘s “At the Crossroads III: Energy and Climate Policy Summit.” The event, describing itself as “the premier energy-and-climate policy event in America,” has historically attracted a range of prominent climate change deniers. The event description invites attendees to “Join national policymakers, leading energy experts, and the field’s most innovative minds to explore what’s next in energy policy, what’s coming in climate science, and how you may affect both.” Note the full video is now listed as “private” on YouTube.¹⁴⁸

The agenda listed the following speakers:

Brooke Rollins, President, Texas Public Policy Foundation
Becky Norton Dunlop, Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
The Honorable Mike Lee (R-UT), Member, Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Water & Power
The Honorable Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman, House Committee on Science, Space and Technology
The Honorable Pete Olson (R-TX), Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy & Power, House Committee on Energy & Commerce
The Honorable Gary Palmer (R-TX), Member, House Committee on Science, Space and Technology
Michael Needham, Chief Executive Officer, Heritage Action for America – Moderator
The Honorable James Inhofe (R-OK), Chairman, Senate Environment & Public Works Committee
The Honorable Kathleen Hartnett White, Director, Armstrong Center for Energy & the Environment, TPPF
Stephen Moore, Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Bud Brigham, Chairman, Brigham Resources, and Founder, Anthem Ventures – Moderator
David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow, Center for Data Analysis, The Heritage Foundation
Patrick J. Michaels, Director, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute
Mark P. Mills, Chief Executive Officer, Digital Power Group; Senior Fellow, The Manhattan Institute; and Faculty Fellow, McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, Northwestern University
Horace Cooper, Adjunct Fellow, National Center for Public Policy Research – Moderator
Patrick Forkin, Vice President Strategy & Global Energy Analytics, Peabody Energy
Allen Gilmer, President, Texas Independent Petroleum Producers Association
Karen Harbert, President, Institute for 21st Century Energy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Invited)
Nick Loris, The Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow, The Heritage Foundation – Moderator
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Dr. Willie Soon, Astrophysicist and Independent Scientist
Andrew M. Grossman, Co-Founder, Free Speech in Science Project – Moderator
Dr. William Happer, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Princeton University
Dr. Craig Idso, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Doug Domenech, director of the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s “Fueling Freedom” project, wrote about the proceedings at The Hill. Domenech outlined the common climate change denial message shared among the speakers: “ Is climate change real? Yes, it has happened in the past and will happen in the future. Is man making an impact on the climate? Perhaps but in very small ways. But the overarching consensus remains the climate change we are experiencing is by no means catastrophic.”¹⁴⁹

Many of the speakers at the event have close ties to Donald Trump and his transition team. Becky Norton Dunlop, Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, was deputy to the senior adviser on President-Elect Donald Trump’s transition team for policy and personnel.¹⁵⁰

Brooke Rollins, President and CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, is on Trump’s economic advisory council. Two other members of Trump’s “economic advisory team,” are Kathleen Hartnett-White and Stephen Moore. Hartnett-White was also in the running for a top EPA position.¹⁵¹

Climate change denier James Inhofe was said to be joining Trump’s National Security Advisory Council. Other connections include David Kreutzer, who is on Trump’s “landing team,” and Allen Gilmer, CEO at Drilling Info, Inc., who donated $2,700 to Donald John Trump, Sr. on September 28, 2016, according to disclosures.¹⁵² ¹⁵³

During his presentation, Richard Lindzen said “the only meaningful question would be whether we are seeing anything sufficiently unusual to warrant concern and the answer to this is unambiguously no.”¹⁵⁴

Corbin Robertson of Quintana Resources said, “I’m gonna start out with a confession, I’m guilty. I’m guilty of providing goods and services and clean affordable energy to the world’s growing population and now the environmentalists and the media want to convict me for my services to humanity.”¹⁵⁵

November 23, 2016

“The Heritage Foundation is helping to lead the fight against the criminalization of scientific dissent on the unproven and questionable theory of man-induced, catastrophic climate change,” Hans A. von Spakovsky and Alden Abbott wrote in Heritage Foundation commentary.¹⁵⁶

The authors noted that Heritage analysts “have also written numerous commentaries about this issue, and held public events, such as a June 10, 2016, presentation, ‘Climate Change—Criminalizing Scientific Dissent.’”¹⁵⁷

That event featured Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Andrew M. Grossman of Baker Hostetler, and Heritage Foundation’s David Kreutzer.

July 12, 2016

The Heritage Foundation, represented by Bridgett Wagner, was among 22 groups represented in a “Coalition” open letter pushing back against what the Heartland Institute describes as an “affront to free speech.” The groups are responding to the recent Web of Denial Resolution brought up in the Senate, calling out fossil fuel industry-funded groups denying climate change.¹⁵⁸

According to the Climate Investigations Center, all but one of the open letter’s signatory organizations have taken money (totalling at least $92 million since 1997) from the “climate denial web” including Koch Brothers’ various foundations, ExxonMobil, and two “Dark Money” organizations, Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund.¹⁵⁹

Championed by Senators Whitehouse, Markey, Schatz, Boxer, Merkley, Warren, Sanders, and Franken, the resolution condemns what they are calling the #WebOfDenial — “interconnected groups – funded by the Koch brothers, major fossil fuel companies like ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal, identity-scrubbing groups like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, and their allies – developed and executed a massive campaign to deceive the public about climate change to halt climate action and protect their bottom lines.”¹⁶⁰

The open letter addresses the senators, calling them “tyrants”:

“We hear you. Your threat is clear: There is a heavy and inconvenient cost to disagreeing with you. Calls for debate will be met with political retribution. That’s called tyranny. And, we reject it.¹⁶¹

The full list of signatories and their respective organizations is as follows:

Grover Norquist — Americans for Tax Reform
Lisa B. Nelson — American Legislative Exchange Council
John A. Charles, Jr. — Cascade Policy Institute
David Rothbard — Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Kent Lassman — Competitive Enterprise Institute
Nicole Neily — Franklin Center for Government and Policy Integrity
Benita Dodd — Georgia Public Policy Foundation
Bridgett Wagner — The Heritage Foundation
Fred Birnbaum — Idaho Freedom Foundation
Joseph Bast — The Heartland Institute
J. Robert McClure III — James Madison Institute
Brett Healy — The John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy
Kory Swanson — John Locke Foundation
Dave Trabert — Kansas Policy Institute
Jason Hayes — Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Brent Mead — Montana Policy Institute
Sharon J. Rossie — Nevada Policy Research Institute
Sally Pipes — Pacific Research Institute
Kevin Kane — Pelican Institute for Public Policy
Paul J. Gessing — Rio Grande Foundation
Lynn Taylor — Virginia Institute for Public Policy
Carol Platt Liebau — Yankee Institute for Public Policy

June 24, 2016

Writing in the Heritage Foundation’s The Daily Signal, Heritage policy analyst Katie Tubb describes the striking down of Wyoming’s Bureau of Land Management’s hydraulic fracking rule as a “win for good environmental policy.”¹⁶²

The regulatory rule would have set federal water, chemical disclosure, and construction requirements for fracking operations on federal and Indian lands.¹⁶³

June 23, 2016

Ted Bromund, senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, describes Britain’s exit from the european union (“Brexit”) as “a victory for all Britons who voted.”¹⁶⁴

“It is a triumph for the simple idea that Britain should be governed by the British people. And it is a tremendous, crushing rebuke for the European Union, and its desire to override the sovereignty of the nations of Europe,” Bromund writes in The Daily Signal.¹⁶⁵

June 10, 2016

The Heritage Foundation hosted an event titled “Climate Change – Criminalizing Scientific Dissent” with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Andrew M. Grossman of Baker Hostetler and the Free Speech in Science Project, and Heritage Foundation’s David Kreutzer.¹⁶⁶

The Heritage Foundation offered the following event description on its website:

“A group of state attorneys general are targeting companies and others whom they claim ‘mislead the public about the dangers of climate change.’ With the help of some private plaintiffs’ law firms, state AGs are opening up potential civil/criminal investigations. They are serving subpoenas on third parties such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute seeking all research and communications on climate change. U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch has also said she is reviewing the issue and academics at institutions from Columbia to the University of Washington have called for prosecutions of those entities that have ‘knowingly deceived the American people about the risk of climate change.’ Other state AGs are objecting to these prosecutions as both ill-advised and violations of the First Amendment.

“Is this a misuse of the law? Are First Amendment rights being violated? Is climate change a proven scientific theory? Should scientific dissent be criminalized? Is this a valid public policy debate or is the danger to the environment so dire and immediate that prosecutions are justified?

“Join us as the Attorney General of Texas, the lawyer representing the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Heritage’s expert on climate change discuss these vital issues.”

June 5, 2016

The Heritage Foundation co-hosted an event with the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) titled “Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy.”¹⁶⁷

The event featured Kathleen Hartnett White and Stephen Moore, the co-authors of the same-titled book.

According to the event description:

“[H]ighly politicized climate policies are pushing a grand-scale shift to unreliable, expensive renewable energy sources inherently incapable of replacing the vast energy services fossil fuels provide. Today, ‘fossil fuel’ has become such a dirty word that even fossil fuel companies feel compelled to apologize for their products. In Fueling Freedom, Kathleen Hartnett White and Stephen Moore make an unapologetic case for fossil fuels, turning around progressives’ protestations to prove that if fossil fuel energy is supplanted by ‘green’ alternatives for political reasons, humanity will take a giant step backwards and the planet will be less safe, less clean, and less free.”

June 2016

The Heritage Foundation was listed among organizations named in a Massachusetts subpoena looking for communications between ExxonMobil and organizations denying climate change, reports The Washington Times.¹⁶⁸

Epstein’s response, writes The Washington Times, was “Buzz off, fascist. […] Only he didn’t say ‘buzz.’” Organizations named in the Massachusetts subpoena included the following:¹⁶⁹

The Centre for Industrial Progress
The Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty
The American Enterprise Institute
Americans for Prosperity
The American Legislative Exchange Council
The American Petroleum Institute
The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University
The George C. Marshall Institute
The Heartland Institute
Mercatus Center at George Mason University

This latest inquiry by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey is part of a series of investigations into what ExxonMobil knew about climate change and when, initiated by a coalition of attorneys general in the US.¹⁷⁰

April 26, 2016

David Kreutzer, Nicolas D. Loris, Katie Tubb, and Kevin Dayaratna wrote a Heritage Foundation backgrounder titled “The State of Climate Science: No Justification for Extreme Policies.”¹⁷¹

“Importantly, whether one thinks global warming poses little or no threat or that the planet is on a path toward catastrophe, the cumulative climate effect of these policies [by the Obama Administration], if implemented, would be a change in the earth’s temperature almost too small to measure.”

They additionally claimed that the 97 percent consensus on climate change is a “myth”:

“There are profound uncertainties in nascent climate science. Nevertheless, global warming hypotheses have been narrowed in the press and public debate to a ‘consensus’ view of catastrophic global warming in a political world that prizes agreement and confidence over exploration, and a media that thrives on crisis. This advances neither science nor sound public policy,” they claimed.

Among those cited as a refutation of the consensus included Richard Tol and a paper by David Legates, Willie Soon, William Briggs, and Christopher Monckton.

“The 97 percent statistic is nothing more than a false talking point; no overwhelming consensus exists among climatologists on the magnitude of future warming or on the urgency to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” they further claimed in the Heritage Foundation backgrounder.

They later cited testimony by William Happer and Judith Curry surrounding supposed biases in climate research.

“It’s [the IPCC’s] prematurely declared ‘consensus’ that global warming is dangerous, accelerating, and instigated by carbon dioxide (CO2 ) has had a far-reaching influence, conflating scientific research with certain economic, energy, agricultural, and social policies. Many scientists and scientific institutions consequently have become quasi-political lobbies,” they claimed, citing Happer.

Citing Curry, they claimed, “And while there has been relatively little comprehensive study into the government’s potential conflict of interest, there have been numerous personal reports of government bias in climate research.”

In a section titled “A Brief History on Global Climate Change and Where We Are Today,” the authors make a range of claims about climate change, including that “Dire predictions for both global cooling and global warming have been found to be grossly inaccurate. The science may be settled that man-made emissions have had some impact on the earth’s temperature, but the consensus stops there.”

Those cited in this section included John Christy, Patrick Moore, Claude Allègre, J. Scott Armstrong, William Happer, Richard Lindzen, Michael Kelly, William Kininmonth, Harrison Schmitt, Nir Shaviv, Henk Tennekes, and Antonino Zichichi, among others, ranging from testimony to Wall Street Journal opinion pieces.

In the following “What the Scientific Data Tells Us About Climate” section, they cited John Christy’s testimony as evidence that “[S]ites [chosen by NASA to measure global temperatures] do not provide even or comprehensive coverage of the Earth’s surface, nor are the sites immune to contamination from land use changes.”

They cited Anthony Watts’ SurfaceStations.org as evidence that “Even the weather stations in the U.S., arguably the best of any country, have serious problems with data quality.”

The Heritage Foundation authors went on to accuse “global warming alarmists” of “adjust[ing] the data.”

“In recent years, the perceived need by global warming alarmists to adjust the data has increased dramatically. The leveling off of world temperatures in the unadjusted temperature record is in stark contrast to the accelerating warming forecast by the IPCC climate models. This hiatus in global warming has been an embarrassment to those who base their dire climate predictions on these poorly performing computer models.”

They added, “Dr. Judith Curry recently compared five data sets of global temperatures and found that all but one show the warming trend has been essentially flat for various periods exceeding 10 years in length during the past 18 years.”

They concluded, “it is simply impossible to know whether any observed current warming is a continuation of this natural trend or represents some new man-made phenomenon. Regardless of what fraction of the observed warming is due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide, the actual temperature trends are not troubling.”

They commented, “Despite trends in the actual climate data and the failure of models to accurately depict reality, many alarmists still argue that carbon mitigation policies are necessary to combat damages caused by future regulations on new power plants and existing ones (the Clean Power Plan) will only kill jobs and cut income, all without having any meaningful impact on global temperatures, now or in the future.”

On extreme weather, they claimed there were “No Trends for More Extreme and Frequent Natural Disasters.”

Discussing sea level rise, they claimed, “Another mainstay of the climate change alarmism movement is that glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, and the oceans are acidifying, which will disrupt ocean life and the food chain. Again, the data does not support such doomsday scenarios.”

The authors concluded, “There is, however, little in real climate science to argue for the urgency and magnitude of these policies [proposed by President Obama]. The expensive and invasive climate policies are a non-solution to an unlikely problem. Congress and the next Administration should reverse course on climate policy in order to unchain economic potential and allow for the world to adapt to the real problems the future may bring.”

April 13, 2016

Three Heritage Foundation researchers, including Nicolas Loris (formerly of the Charles G. Koch Foundation), claim to have modeled the impact of President Obama’s plans to combat climate change based on the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference in Paris and found it to have “essentially zero environmental benefits.”¹⁷² ¹⁷³

According to the authors, “restricting energy production to meet targets like those of the Paris agreement will significantly harm the U.S. economy.” They contend that “ Policymakers should therefore make every effort possible to prevent implementation of these harmful environmental regulations.”¹⁷⁴

Shortly after the “backgrounder” was released, Nicolas Loris published a similarly-themed article in The Heritage Foundation’s The Daily Signal entitled “Top 5 Reasons Congress Should Reject Obama’s Climate Change Treaty.”¹⁷⁵

March 4, 2016

Research fellows Salim Furth and David W. Kreutzer of The Heritage Foundation argue against Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, calling them a “costly mistake.”¹⁷⁶

They cite a research article by prominent economist Richard Tol and claim that a 2.5 degree Celsius increase in average world temperature would increase world gross domestic product (GDP) by up to 2.3 percent.¹⁷⁷

February 2, 2016

Steven Groves, Bernard and Barbara Lomas Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, testified before the Committee on Science, Space, & Technology of the United States House of Representatives on why he believes the Paris Climate agreement is “A bad deal for America.” ¹⁷⁸

Groves recommends that Congress should “Block funding for the Paris Agreement” because he contends the agreement is “illegitimate.” His other recommendations include “Withhold funding for the UNFCCC” and to “Take prophylactic legislative measures […] to ensure that no adaptation funding committed under the Paris Agreement is authorized.”¹⁷⁹

December 4, 2015

Nicolas Loris wrote a Heritage Foundation commentary titled “Apologize for Bad Policies, Not Industrial Progress,” where he suggested, “Obama should not be apologizing for the economic growth that dramatically improved Americans’ and much of the world’s quality of life. Instead, the president should apologize for pushing costly and ineffective climate policies that will make us worse off and trap the world’s poorest citizens in poverty.”¹⁸⁰

“The real problem facing American households and businesses is the Obama administration’s climate policies,” Loris continued.

According to Loris, “even if you do believe that the Earth is heading to catastrophic warming, the warming mitigated by the president’s plan would be barely measurable – unlike the economic consequences.”

Loris argued climate change is “hardly [a problem] at all”:

“This ‘problem’ of climate change is hardly one at all. Natural variations have altered the climate much more than man has. Proponents of global action on climate change will argue that 97 percent of the climatologists agree on climate change,” Loris claimed. He added, “there is no consensus that temperatures are increasing at an accelerating rate.”

“In fact, the available climate data simply do not indicate that the Earth is heading toward catastrophic warming or more frequent and severe natural disasters. Quite the opposite. The earth has experienced a pause in warming since 1998, and data shows that the climate is less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions than the climate models predicted,” Loris claimed.

He went on to quote Roger Pielke as supposed evidence that extreme weather was not increasing:

“Roger Pielke, a professor at the University of Colorado’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, testified last year, ‘There exists exceedingly little scientific support for claims found in the media and political debate that hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and drought have increased in frequency or intensity on climate timescales either in the United States or globally.’”

December 4, 2015

In an article first published at The Daily Signal and republished at The Heritage Foundation titled “5 Facts the Left Isn’t Trumpeting About Paris and Climate Change,” Katie Tubb argued, “Even as global carbon dioxide emissions have increased, warming has plateaued.”¹⁸¹

Citing Judith Curry, she went on to claim that “Most scientists would agree that the Earth has experience [sic] some warming over the past century, but there is little agreement as to how much is attributable to human activity or if warming is even harmful.”

Tubb added, “However, climate models have predicted far more warming than has actually happened in the past 18 years. If models have been unable to accurately project climate conditions ten years out, how can even longer-term projections be depended upon to make good policy decisions?”

She concluded, “[R]egardless of one’s position on global warming, the Paris climate agreement is shortsighted and a bad deal for Americans and the world’s most vulnerable.”

September 25, 2015

Nicolas Loris wrote Heritage Foundation commentary, originally published in the Bradenton Herald, titled “The Clean Power Plan Is a Great Way to Make the Poor Poorer.”¹⁸²

“[T]he Obama administration has been adamant in pushing the message that climate change will hit the poor the hardest. They’re omitting one small but critical word, though. It’s climate change policies that will hurt the most vulnerable citizens. And not just in the United States, but around the world,” Loris claimed.

According to Loris, “Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas. The Clean Power Plan is predicated solely on carbon dioxide’s alleged impact on the climate.
He added, “In fact, the name ‘Clean Power Plan’ is misleading in and of itself. America’s power plants are largely clean of the pollutants that we know have adverse health effects.”

He went on to mention claims by Paul Knappenberger: “According to climatologist Paul Knappenberger, the Clean Power Plan will mitigate only 0.018 degrees Celsius of warming over the next 85 years,” Loris said.

September 1, 2015

Katie Tubb wrote an article that originally appeared in The Daily Signal, titled “Obama Is Ignoring the Science on Climate Change,” where she suggested, “Obama continues to ignore science that doesn’t fit his narrative and has ignored sound evidence from people who disagree with him.”¹⁸³

Tubb quoted Judith Curry:

“Judith Curry, professor at Georgia Institute for Technology and participant in the International Panel on Climate Change and National Academy of Sciences, writes that when politicians talk about an undeniable climate ‘consensus’ they are brushing over ‘very substantial disagreement about climate change that arises from:

Insufficient observational evidence

Disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence (e.g. models)

Disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence

Assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance

Belief polarization as a result of politicization of the science

All this leaves multiple ways to interpret and reason about the available evidence.’

“Curry, and others with evidence countering the president’s narrative of an accelerating and catastrophic warming, are labeled by Obama as ‘critics,’ ‘cynics,’ ‘deniers,’ and on ‘their own shrinking island.’

“Yet data of observed reality collected from the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. National Climate Data Center does not show increasing frequency of extreme weather across the globe, whether you look at hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, or floods.

“With so much yet unknown or unclear, one has to wonder if we are entirely misdiagnosing the problem.”

July 15, 2015

As part of its backgrounder report titled “The Many Problems of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and Climate Regulations: A Primer,” The Heritage Foundation’s Nicolas D. Loris suggested that Congress “Force the EPA to withdraw its endangerment finding on greenhouse gas emissions, recognizing that greenhouse gas emissions are affecting the climate but that no credible evidence exists to suggest that the earth is heading toward catastrophic warming or that climate regulations will affect global temperatures.”¹⁸⁴

Loris also suggested Congress “Clarify in statute that the Clean Air Act does not apply to the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions or other climate-related rulemaking” and should “Prevent the EPA and all other federal agencies from regulating greenhouse gas emissions, including prohibiting funding from being used for implementation.”

July 7, 2015

The Heritage Foundation’s Nicolas Loris published a research report titled “The Many Problems of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and Climate Regulations: A Primer,” one month prior to President Obama’s and the EPA‘s announcement of the Clean Power Plan.¹⁸⁵ ¹⁸⁶

In the report’s abstract, Loris writes the “Obama Administration’s proposed climate-change regulations will exact a high price on Americans and have a negligible impact—if any—on global temperatures.”¹⁸⁷

Loris continues, stating that “Higher energy bills for families, individuals, and businesses will destroy jobs and strain economic growth—and it will all be for naught.”¹⁸⁸

July 7–9, 2015

The Heritage Foundation was a co-sponsor of The Heartland Institute’s Tenth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC10) in Washington, DC.¹⁸⁹

June 4, 2015

Ted R. Bromund, a senior research fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Thatcher Center for Freedom, wrote an article that first appeared in Newsday and The Heritage Foundation republished titled “Climate change is not a national security threat.”¹⁹⁰

“Just for the sake of it, I’m going to assume that climate change is really happening, and that it’s really caused by people. Even if that’s true, climate change still isn’t a national security issue,” Bromund wrote.

He added, “The White House’s report argues that climate change is ‘contributing’—note the hedged word—to ‘conflicts over basic resources like food and water.’ There’s no evidence of this. But fundamentally, wars aren’t caused by natural resources like food, water, or even oil.”

He concluded:

“If climate change is a national security threat, then the Obama administration can claim that any rule the Environmental Protection Agency imposes, and any international climate agreement the White House negotiates, is justified in the name of national security.

“So the point of this isn’t to protect us. It’s to justify taxing, regulating, and controlling us. It’s about making us poorer and less free. Calling that a contribution to our security is an insult to our intelligence.”

April 2, 2015

“The science isn’t settled, but apparently the dogma is: Costly CO2 restrictions need not have any climate impact. It seems they are their own virtue,” Katie Tubb and David W. Kreutzer wrote in Heritage Foundation commentary that first appeared in The Daily Signal titled “Obama Outkicking the Coverage With International Climate Commitments.”¹⁹¹

February 4, 2015

Katie Tubb wrote Heritage Foundation commentary, originally published in The Daily Signal, titled “5 Reasons Why We Shouldn’t Keep Subsidizing Wind And Solar Energy.”¹⁹²

“[I]n the long run, subsidies actually hurt the very industries they’re supposed to help by disincentivizing innovation and making U.S. companies less competitive at home and abroad,” Tubb claimed.

According to Tubb, “eliminating the tax credits would increase greenhouse gas emissions by 0.3 percent. In fact, if the president were truly concerned about environmental impacts, he might consider that a very efficient wind farm would need 260 times the amount of land to produce the same amount of electricity as a typical nuclear power plant, which has virtually no emissions.”

November 13, 2014

Kevin Dayaratna, Nicolas Loris, and David Kreutzer wrote a Heritage Foundation backgrounder on “The Obama Administration’s Climate Agenda,” where they examined the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC).¹⁹³

“In practice, SCC estimates are far too flawed for serious regulatory use,” they claimed in the report.

Citing several Cato Institute studies by Paul C. Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels, they claimed climate sensitivity to CO2 was “40 percent lower than the 3.3 degrees Celsius projected by the climate reports.”

“The failure to include the new studies on climate sensitivity and the inaccuracy of the models exaggerate many of the report’s other dire climate predictions, they claimed.”

“Given the uncertainties surrounding the science of climate change, the minuscule impact of the suggested remedies, and the high cost of proposed regulations, now is a good time to step back from precipitous actions and exaggerated rhetoric,” Dayaratna, Loris, and Kreutzer concluded.

July 7-9, 2014

The Heritage Foundation is listed as an official Co-sponsor of the Heartland Institute‘s Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC9).¹⁹⁴ ¹⁹⁵

May 12, 2014

The Heritage Foundation published a commentary by Nicolas Loris titled “Climate change: A cure worse than the disease.”¹⁹⁶

Loris claimed in the piece that “Although the planet has warmed over the past six decades, and a broad consensus exists that part of that warming is attributed to man-made emissions, what we’re seeing and where we’re headed is not toward climate catastrophe.”

According to Loris, “Sea levels are rising, but not as fast as projected. There have been no significant trends for floods, droughts, hurricanes or tornadoes.”

Referencing the National Climate Assessment released by the Obama administration, Loris claimed that “Many of the models the federal government relied on to promulgate these regulations projected a 0.3-degree Celsius warming over the past 17 years, when in reality no warming occurred (although CO2 emissions have increased).”

“What’s most troubling is, even if climate change were occurring at an unsustainable rate, the administration’s policy prescriptions will not fix anything but will further harm the economy,” Loris claimed.

He added, “And even if we were to stop emitting greenhouse gas emissions entirely, we would not moderate the Earth’s temperature more than a few tenths of a degree Celsius by the end of the century.”

March 22, 2014

Nicolas Loris wrote an article that originally appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel titled “EPA’s coal regs: all pain, no gain for Wisconsin.”¹⁹⁷

“In the real world, the war on coal is a war on affordable, reliable energy. It’s especially problematic for Wisconsinites, who rely heavily on coal for their electricity (more than 60% vs. the national average of 40%),” Loris argued in the piece.

Loris wrote, without citation, “Yes, the climate is changing, and there is little doubt that man-made emissions are having some warming effect. But that does not mean we’re heading to catastrophic warming with more frequent and intense natural disasters. And even if we were, the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations wouldn’t stop it. At best, these job-killing regulations might — in 85 years’ time — help avert warming by 0.2 degrees Celsius.”

March 4, 2014

The Heritage Foundation published a backgrounder (No. 4158) claiming “EPA’s Climate Regulations Will Harm American Manufacturing.”¹⁹⁸

The authors, Nicolas Loris and Filip Jolevski described EPA’s forthcoming climate change regulations as “appropriately labeled the ‘war on coal.’”

“[T]he casualties will extend well beyond the coal industry, hurting families and businesses and taking a significant toll on American manufacturing across the nation,” they argued, adding, “Congress should stop the EPA and all other federal agencies from regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.”

January 17, 2014

“Action is necessary on climate change, but not to halt carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions. Congress should prevent the EPA and all other federal agencies from regulating those emissions or funding projects that have a specific aim to reduce them,” Nicolas Loris wrote in an article originally published at National Review Online, republished at The Heritage Foundation, titled “Climate-Change Busyness.”¹⁹⁹

December 5, 2013

The Heritage Foundation released a backgrounder (no. 2863) by Nicolas D. Loris, Kevin D. Dayaratna, and David W. Kreutzer where, according to the abstract, the authors explain “why Congress should remove the EPA’s and any other agency’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.”²⁰⁰

“To make matters worse, the scientific basis for GHG regulations is dubious at best, but what is certain is that these regulations will raise energy prices and destroy jobs—with no noticeable climate impact,” they claimed.

“Policymakers and regulators should not ignore the abundance of climate data and research that counters the claims that manmade greenhouse gas emissions will lead to such problematic circumstances. Proponents of carbon caps often argue that there is no longer such a debate and that 97 percent of the climate literature agrees that manmade emissions are causing warming. While a near-universal consensus does exist that manmade emissions have some warming effect, that is simply not the point of controversy,” they claimed, citing as evidence a statement by Roy W. Spencer before the Environment and Public Works Committee of the United States Senate.

June 26, 2013

“Though almost no one denies that the earth has warmed, there is no consensus on climate sensitivity, the role carbon dioxide plays or doesn’t, whether global warming is a problem, or how data fit into the broader climate context. Obama cannot solve a problem if we don’t know what it is or even if there is one. And it’ll certainly take more than four paragraphs to explain why,” Katie Tubb wrote in Heritage Foundation commentary that first appeared in The Daily Signaltitled “Obama’s ‘Case for Action’ on Climate Change Doesn’t Cut It.”²⁰¹

June 21, 2013

Katie Tubb wrote the following in an article that originally appeared in The Daily Signal and was republished by The Heritage Foundation, titled “Climate Change: The Cost of ‘Bold Action’.”²⁰²

“The science is far from settled on the connection between carbon dioxide emissions and climate sensitivity, the role carbon plays or doesn’t, if global warming is even problematic, or how data fits into broader climate history. Global average temperatures have plateaued for the past 16 years while carbon dioxide levels have continued to climb.

“It is not denial or cowardice to question interpretation of climate data, studies, and methodology. That is how the scientific method is supposed to work. So until scientists better understand how and why the climate is changing, politicians should have no business boldly regulating carbon dioxide emissions.”

Tubb cited a piece from the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and a Heritage Foundation event as evidence.

May 28, 2013

David W. Kreutzer, a research fellow in Energy Economics and Climate Change at the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, wrote a Heritage Foundation backgrounder (No. 2802) titled “A Cure Worse Than the Disease: Global Economic Impact of Global Warming Policy.”²⁰³

In the background, Kreutzer argued that the Lieberman–Warner and Waxman–Markey cap-and-trade bills, as well as the Boxer–Sanders carbon-tax bill, “would harm the U.S. and global economies.”

Kreutzer later questioned established climate change science, suggesting, “There is some debate about the magnitude of warming experienced worldwide over the past century. However, there is more debate about how much manmade carbon dioxide(CO2) emissions have contributed to this increase in temperature, and there is even greater uncertainty about how rapidly the Earth will warm over the next century and beyond.”

Kreutzer did not cite any specific scientific studies to support this, but rather included his citations as links to Anthony Watts’s blog Watts Up With That, Roger Pielke Jr.’s blog, Roy Spencer’s website, and the now-defunct World Climate Report blog edited by the late Patrick Michaels. He also included some websites that confirm the mainstream scientific consensus, such as Real Climate.

August 29, 2012

Nicolas Loris argued against regulations that would affect the coal industry in an article originally published in The Washington Times, republished at The Heritage Foundation, titled “Crushing Coal Under the Regulatory Steamroller.”²⁰⁴

“A host of federal agencies are proposing and implementing new rules that will increase the costs of mining coal, building new plants (although new carbon-dioxide regulations make that next to impossible) and operating existing plants — all for questionable or minimal environmental or public health benefit,” Loris claimed.

He wrote, “There’s certainly no reason the U.S. should continue to mine coal or build coal-fired power plants just for the sake of using coal. But there’s also no reason why the federal government should artificially reduce coal’s role in energy production by creating an environment that makes a decline in coal production inevitable.”

He concluded:

“For decades, coal has literally been the rock that has powered America with cheap, reliable energy. At current consumption rates, coal can provide enough electricity to fuel our nation for the next 500 years. Yet the current regulatory regime seems intent on penalizing and punishing traditional forms of energy, while simultaneously subsidizing and guaranteeing a market for its preferred (albeit as yet non-economical) alternative sources.

“The recent U.S. Court of Appeals ruling is a welcome recognition that the EPA’s unelected bureaucrats have gone too far. But Congress must also step up to the plate and reform federal policies and regulations to enable the market — not politicians and bureaucrats — to determine the role of coal in U.S. electricity generation.”

August 28, 2012

The Heritage Foundation released a backgrounder (No. 2714) by Nicolas D. Loris titled “Hydraulic Fracturing: Critical for Energy Production, Jobs, and Economic Growth.”²⁰⁵

“Despite the length of time that hydraulic fracturing has been used, and despite the fact that fracking has helped create a burst in American energy production and economic growth, fracking has received much negative attention due to misreporting and dramatic exaggerations,” Loris claimed in the report.

He added, “Much of the public’s concern over hydraulic fracturing has been over the possibility of contaminated drinking water, the chemicals used in fracking, the potential to create earthquakes, and wastewater management. Such concerns do not take into account the federal and state.”

Loris listed the following statements as “Myths”:

“Myth #1: Hydraulic fracturing threatens underground water sources and has led to the contamination of drinking water.”

[…]

“Myth #2: The chemicals used in the fracking process are foreign chemicals that industry hides from the public.”

[…]

“Myth #3: Wastewater from hydraulic fracturing is dangerous and unregulated.”

[…]

“Myth #4: Fracking causes earthquakes.”

Loris later described EPA’s regulations of emissions around fracking as a “backdoor global warming regulation”:

“In April 2012, the EPA announced its first air-emission rules for hydraulic fracturing. Rather than being aimed at fracking itself, this is a backdoor global warming regulation: The rule highlights the supposed environmental benefits of reducing emission of methane, a greenhouse gas. The EPA’s rule miserably fails the cost-benefit test […]”

Loris concluded with the following recommendations to Congress:

■ “Prevent any federal agency from adding new regulations to hydraulic fracturing. The proposed federal regulations are unnecessary and duplicative.”

■ “Prohibit federal regulators from using any statute to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas regulations would drive up the cost of energy for no meaningful change in the Earth’s temperature.”

■ “Reaffirm the states’ authority and effectiveness in regulating hydraulic fracturing. The states have effectively handled the disclosure of chemicals used in the fracking process and have effectively protected drinking water for decades.”

“The facts and history of hydraulic fracturing indicate that many of the fears associated with the process are exaggerated or unsubstantiated,” Loris finished.

May 21–23, 2012

The Heritage Foundation is listed as an official Co-sponsor of the Heartland Institute‘s Seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7).²⁰⁶ ²⁰⁷

March 26, 2012

In a backgrounder report (No. 2668), the Heritage Foundation’s Nicolas D. Loris recommended a range of cuts to the Department of Energy (DOE) budget, including from The Climate and Environmental Science subprogram:²⁰⁸

“[F]unding for climate-change research should be cut entirely from the DOE budget. This would save the entire $315.6 million requested in the FY 2013 budget,” Loris suggested.

“Research on, and modeling of, how and why earth’s climate is changing can be valuable for future discussions, but it should be done objectively and not with the predisposition that greenhouse gas emissions are the main contributor to global warming and that reducing them is a top priority. Either way, leading such a discussion is not the role of the DOE,” he added.

November 16, 2011

The Heritage Foundation’s Nicolas Loris, who was formerly an associate at the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, published a report in the Heritage Foundation’s “Energy and Environment” section of its website titled, “New EPA Inspector General Report: One More Reason to Reject Climate-Change Regulation.”²⁰⁹

Loris writes that “Congress should vote to prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse-gas emissions, and foster a transparent debate about the EPA’s endangerment finding and climate change generally.” Citing Richard Lindzen as a “respected climatologist,” Loris continues by stating “there has been plenty of dissent among the scientific community on the causes and magnitude of climate change.”²¹⁰

November 10, 2011

“The EPA refuses to seriously consider broad dissenting science on the causes of climate change. This is a breach of its responsibility, all the more so when proposing such massive new regulations,” Heritage Foundation policy analyst Nicolas D. Loris argued in the abstract to a Heritage Foundation backgrounder (No. 2623) titled ”New EPA Inspector General Report: One More Reason to Reject Climate-Change Regulation.”²¹¹

“The massive economic costs—and minimal environmental benefits—associated with decisions made by unelected bureaucrats at the EPA who bypass the legislative process to regulate carbon dioxide emissions are reason enough for Congress to intervene,“ Loris argued in the report.

“Congress should vote to prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse-gas emissions, and foster a transparent debate about the EPA’s endangerment finding and climate change generally,” he added.

Later in the report, under a section titled “EPA: Ignoring Dissenting Science,” Loris went on:

“Whether it was providing independent judgment or summarizing existing studies, the EPA should reconsider the endangerment finding because there has been plenty of dissent among the scientific community on the causes and magnitude of climate change.”

When providing examples of “objections from respected climatologists,” Loris mentioned Richard Lindzen and William Gray as well as Climate Change Reconsidered author Fred Singer.

He also cited Craig Idso, Kesten C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong, Willie Soon, and Chip Knappenberger.

Loris concluded: “Congress should insist on preventing federal regulators from mandating greenhouse-gas emissions caps, or from using greenhouse-gas emissions as a means to promulgate a rule.”

September 8, 2011

“Congress should open the limited area needed to drill in ANWR [Arctic National Wildlife Refuge] and completely open America’s coasts for exploration and drilling,” Nicolas Loris wrote in a Heritage Foundation WebMemo titled “Energy Exploration Would Create Jobs and Raise Revenue Without Raising Taxes.”²¹²

“Environmental activists delay new energy projects by filing endless administrative appeals and lawsuits. Shell cited regulatory delays and legal challenges preventing it from moving forward with exploration programs in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Creating a manageable time frame for permitting and for groups or individuals to contest energy plans would keep potentially cost-effective ventures from being tied up for years in litigation,” Loris added.

He also suggested, “Place a freeze on new environmental regulations.”[I]f the President truly wants to provide regulatory certainty, he should tell the EPA to withdraw other new environmental regulations that all miserably fail the cost–benefit test,” Loris added.

June 30–July 1, 2011

The Heritage Foundation was a sponsor of The Heartland Institute’s Sixth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC6) in Washington, DC.²¹³

DeSmog concluded that 17 of the 43 sponsors of the Heartland Institute’s Sixth International Conference on Climate Change, including the Heartland Institute itself, had collectively received over $46 million from either Scaife Foundations, Koch Foundations, or ExxonMobil.

October 1, 2010

The Heritage Foundation claimed that the Royal Society had “significantly softened its position on global warming,” but Greenpeace’s Polluterwatch reports that this was a misrepresentation of the Royal Society’s actual position.²¹⁴ ²¹⁵

Heritage selectively edited the report in a way that manufactured doubt about man-made climate change by editing out 10 pages and 48 paragraphs of text that had provided context in the report.²¹⁶

The Royal Society’s view that man-made climate change is a problem is evidenced in the report summary: “[This report] shows that there is strong evidence that over the last half century, the earth’s warming has been caused largely by human activity.”²¹⁷

Nicolas Loris, the author of Heritage’s controversial post, is a former associate of the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.²¹⁸

May 16–18, 2010

The Heritage Foundation was a sponsor of The Heartland Institute’s Fourth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC4) in Chicago, IL.²¹⁹

DeSmog found that ExxonMobil, Koch Foundations, and Scaife Family Foundations had contributed a combined total of over $40 million to co-sponsors of The Heartland Institute’s ICCC4.²²⁰

June 2, 2009

The Heritage Foundation was a sponsor of The Heartland Institute’s Third International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC3) in Washington, DC.²²¹

May 4, 2009

Heritage held a panel titled “aimed to “explore the lessons of Spain, and examine some of the fundamental flaws in the green jobs-as-an-economic-salve line of argument.”²²²

Media Matters found that the entire Heritage panel had received money from ExxonMobil.²²³

The Heritage Foundation’s senior policy analyst Ben Lieberman joined Robert Murphy, an economist at the Institute for Energy Research (IER), on a panel to discuss the study on renewable energy sources (PDF) done by economist Gabriel Calzada that suggested green jobs were harmful to the economy.²²⁴

Calzada’s study has been debunked on numerous occasions.²²⁵

March 8–10, 2009

The Heritage Foundation was a sponsor of The Heartland Institute’s Second International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC2) in New York.²²⁶

DeSmog researched the funding behind Heartland’s Second International Conference on Climate Change and found that sponsor organizations had received over $47 million in funding from energy companies and conservative foundations.²²⁷

November 5, 2008

In a “WebMemo” published on by the Heritage Foundation, Dr. Donald Kreutzer claimed that policy initiatives to advance green investment hurt economic growth and employment.²²⁸

Kreutzer claimed to have found three studies that had made false claims that green investment can promote job creation. Robert Pollin, the co-author of one of the studies (“Green Recovery”) responded here. See a PDF version of his response here.²²⁹

1990s

The Heritage Foundation reportedly encouraged conservatives to work together to “Strangle the environmental movement” as “It’s the greatest single threat to the American economy.”²³⁰

This originally presented in a blueprint for policy in the 1990s and published in its journal “Policy Review.”²³¹

Heritage Foundation Contact & Location

The Heritage Foundation lists the following contact information on their website:²³²

The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Ave NE
Washington DC 20002-4999

Phone: 202.546.4400
Email: [email protected]

@Heritage on Twitter.
“The Heritage Foundation” on Facebook.
“The Heritage Foundation” on LinkedIn.

Other Resources

“Heritage Foundation,” SourceWatch profile.
Greenpeace research documents on the Heritage Foundation (Page A), (Page B).
Pete Altman. “Heritage Foundation Fools Itself on Carbon Taxes,” Switchboard, April 2, 2009.

Resources

1
“About Heritage,” Heritage Foundation. Archived April 19, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/s9HcE
2
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Heritage Foundation. Archived June 7, 2019. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/hqSo0
3
“Policy Experts,” PolicyExperts.org. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/d0aiz
4
Carl Deal. The Greenpeace guide to anti-environmental organizations. Odonian Press, Emeryville, Calif. Distributed through Publishers Group West, 1993. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/ucmdl
5
Norman Solomon. “The Media’s Favorite Think Tank,” Extra!” July/August 1996. Archived October 14, 2005. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/SM1B0
6
Jennifer Steinhauer and Jonathan Weisman, “In the DeMint Era at Heritage, a Shift From Policy to Politics,” New York Times, February 23, 2014. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/dHred
7
“The Cooler Heads Coalition,” GlobalWarming.org. Archived April 12, 2004. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/lWnpt
8
“About SPN,” State Policy Network. Archived November 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/3EQAV
9
“Townhall.com – the Leading Conservative and Political Opinion Website,” TownHall.com. Archived November 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/5Nl0E
10
“Atlas Economic Research Foundation,” SourceWatch profile.
11
“Global Directory: United States,” Atlas Network. Archived January 8, 2021. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/5Igb4
12
Sam Bright. “Trump Will ‘Kill’ Climate Budgets, Key Ally Tells Heritage Event,” DeSmog, October 7, 2024.
13
Scott Waldman. “Conservatives have already written a climate plan for Trump’s second term,” E&E News, July 26, 2023. Archived June 3, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/kQk9T
14
Scott Waldman. “Conservatives have already written a climate plan for Trump’s second term,” E&E News, July 26, 2023. Archived June 3, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/kQk9T
15
Scott Waldman. “Conservatives have already written a climate plan for Trump’s second term,” E&E News, July 26, 2023. Archived June 3, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/kQk9T
16
Spencer Chretien. “Project 2025,” The Heritage Foundation. Archived October 7, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/pQWhc
17
”Spencer Chretien,” The Heritage Foundation. Archived August 28, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/iLJRp
18
“Citizens Against Government Waste,” SourceWatch. Archived October 9, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/aTKhS
19
“Project 2025’s “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise,” Retrieved from DocumentCloud. Contributed by Hansi Lo Wang (NPR).
20
Mike Wendling. “Project 2025: The right-wing wish list for another Trump presidency,” BBC, September 11, 2024. Archived October 9, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/9x11T
21
Spencer Chretien. “Project 2025,” The Heritage Foundation. Archived October 7, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/pQWhc
22
Spencer Chretien. “Project 2025,” The Heritage Foundation. Archived October 7, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/pQWhc
23
Spencer Chretien. “Project 2025,” The Heritage Foundation. Archived October 7, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/pQWhc
24
“About,” The Heritage Foundation. Archived November 12, 2024.
25
Joe Fassler. “6 Billionaire Fortunes Bankrolling Project 2025,” DeSmog, August 14, 2024.
26
“Adolph Coors Foundation,” SourceWatch. Archived November 12, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/00HPB
27
“Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation,” SourceWatch. Archived September 18, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/EAjjL
28
Geoff Dembicki. “Revealed: Shell Oil Nonprofit Donated to Anti-Climate Groups Behind Project 2025,” DeSmog, August 15, 2024.
29
“Undercover in Project 2025,” YouTube video uploaded by user “Centre for Climate Reporting,” August 15, 2024. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
30
Curt Devine, Casey Tolan, Audrey Ash, and Kyung Lah. “Hidden-camera video shows Project 2025 co-author discussing his secret work preparing for a second Trump term,” CNN, August 15, 2024. Archived November 12, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/hJgMc
31
“Remarks by President Trump at Signing of Executive Orders on Transparency in Federal Guidance and Enforcement,” trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov. Archived October 7, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/F5Eeq
32
Curt Devine, Casey Tolan, Audrey Ash, and Kyung Lah. “Hidden-camera video shows Project 2025 co-author discussing his secret work preparing for a second Trump term,” CNN, August 15, 2024. Archived November 12, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/hJgMc
33
Curt Devine, Casey Tolan, Audrey Ash, and Kyung Lah. “Hidden-camera video shows Project 2025 co-author discussing his secret work preparing for a second Trump term,” CNN, August 15, 2024. Archived November 12, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/hJgMc
34
Steve Contorno and Kristen Holmes. “Project 2025 director steps down amid backlash from Trump,” CNN, July 30, 2024. Archived October 7, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/UMae1
35
Curt Devine, Casey Tolan, Audrey Ash, and Kyung Lah. “Hidden-camera video shows Project 2025 co-author discussing his secret work preparing for a second Trump term,” CNN, August 15, 2024. Archived November 12, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/hJgMc
36
Charlie Savage, Maggie Haberman, and Jonathan Swan. “Trump Picks Key Figure in Project 2025 for Powerful Budget Role,” The New York Times, November 22, 2024. Archived December 9, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/Dqv4E
37
Lisa Rein and Jeff Stein. “Federal employees scramble to insulate themselves from Trump’s purge,” The Washington Post, December 8, 2024. Archived December 9, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/TnHxu
38
Rachel Leingang. “Project 2025: the Trump picks with ties to ultra-rightwing policy manifesto,” The Guardian, December 9, 2024. Archived December 9, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/YbOQt
39
Adam Barnett. “Project 2025: Tory Candidates Have Ties to Group Drafting ‘Dangerous’ Trump Agenda,” DeSmog, August 14, 2024.
40
Andy Kroll and Nick Surgey. “Watch: 14 Hours of Never-Before-Published Videos From Project 2025’s Presidential Administration Academy,“ ProPublica, August 10, 2024. Archived October 8, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/6qV3S
41
Andy Kroll and Nick Surgey. “Inside Project 2025’s Secret Training Videos,” ProPublica, August 10, 2024. Archived October 9, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/zovgp
42
”’Eradicate Climate Change References From Absolutely Everywhere’,” YouTube video uploaded by user “ProPublica,” August 9, 2024. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
43
Robin Bravender. “Leaked Project 2025 videos: ‘Eradicate’ climate references,” E&E News, August 12, 2024. Archived September 26, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/tKOG4
44
Andy Kroll and Nick Surgey. “Inside Project 2025’s Secret Training Videos,” ProPublica, August 10, 2024. Archived October 9, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/zovgp
45
Katie Glueck. “Trump’s shadow transition team,” Politico, November 22, 2016. Archived November 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/AdrXn
46
Katie Glueck. “Trump’s shadow transition team,” Politico, November 22, 2016. Archived November 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/AdrXn
47
Katie Glueck. “Trump’s shadow transition team,” Politico, November 22, 2016. Archived November 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/AdrXn
48
Katie Glueck. “Trump’s shadow transition team,” Politico, November 22, 2016. Archived November 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/AdrXn
49
Hans von Spakovsky. “The Left’s Climate Inquisition’s New Target,” The Daily Signal, April 8, 2016. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/6ElPn
50
Nicolas Loris. “Top 5 Reasons Congress Should Reject Obama’s Climate Change Treaty,” The Daily Signal, April 19, 2016. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/FYmpk
51
Ben Lieberman.”The Economics of Global Warming Policy,” The Heritage Foundation, June 16, 2010. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/TPGCH
52
Conn Carroll. “Study Shows Global Warming Will Not Hurt U.S. Economy,” The Daily Signal, January 6, 2009. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/whGeJ
53
Chris Woodward. “There’s a cost to reducing carbon emissions,” OneNewsNow.com, April 18, 2016. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/hnG0F
54
“The Heritage Foundation,” Conservative Transparency. Data retrieved May 28, 2016.
55
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Heritage Foundation. Archived June 7, 2019. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/hqSo0
56
“The Heritage Foundation: Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group,” Greenpeace USA. Archived March 14, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/p3KBb
57
“US Experts,” Policy Experts. Archived July 21, 2023.
58
“Intl Experts,” Policy Experts. Archived July 21, 2023.
59
“FACTSHEET: HERITAGE FOUNDATION, HERITAGE,” ExxonSecrets. Archived July 15, 2016.
60
Alexander Frei, Kevin D. Dayaratna, and Austin Gae. “Calculating the ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ with the GIVE Model: An EPA Model Not Ready for Prime Time,” The Heritage Foundation special report No. 308 (January 24, 2025). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
61
Willie Soon, Ronan Connolly, and Michael Connolly. “The Unreliability of Current Global Temperature and Solar Activity Estimates and Its Implications for the Attribution of Global Warming,” The Heritage Foundation special report No. 305 (December 11, 2024). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
62
S. Stanley Young and Warren B. Kindzierski. “Air Quality and Public Health: Is There a Link?” (PDF), The Heritage Foundation special report No. 304 (December 5, 2024). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
63
S. Stanley Young and Warren Kindzierski. “Climate Change, Ozone, and Asthma: Is There a Connection?” (PDF), The Heritage Foundation special report No. 303 (December 4, 2024). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog
64
Susan Crockford. “Defying Predictions: How Increased CO2 and Innovation Are Mitigating Effects of Drought on U.S. Crops and Forest Productivity,” The Heritage Foundation special report No. 299 (November 7, 2024). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
65
Roy Spencer. “Climate Change: The Science Doesn’t Support the Heated Rhetoric,” The Heritage Foundation, October 16, 2024. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/2tOrZ
66
Susan J. Crockford. “Resilient Wilds: Unmasking the Surprising Adaptability of U.S. Ecosystems to Climate Change”(PDF), The Heritage Foundation special report no. 294 (October 1, 2024). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
67
“On being a polar bear expert, among other things,” Polar Bear Science, March 12, 2015. Archived July 09, 2024. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/2Ctjt
68
“Unstable thinking about polar-bear habitat,” The Arctic Journal, October 7, 2015. Archived October 12, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/jtmeW
69
Roy Spencer. “Hot Summer? Don’t Sweat It,” The Heritage Foundation, July 22, 2024. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/cz0kF
70
Diana Furchtgott-Roth. “Biden’s Hypocrisy on Climate Change Is Painfully Obvious,” The Heritage Foundation, June 20, 2024. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/5uTOk
71
David R. Legates. “Coastal Inundation: Rising Sea Levels Explained” (PDF), The Heritage Foundation special report No. 278 (March 13, 2024). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
72
Roy W. Spencer. “Global Warming: Observations vs. Climate Models” (PDF), The Heritage Foundation backgrounder No. 3809 (January 24, 2024. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
73
Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen. “Behind the Curtain: Trump allies pre-screen loyalists for unprecedented power grab,” Axios, November 13, 2023. Archived November 23, 2023. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/tp8c8
74
“About Project 2025,” Project 2025. Archived November 23, 2023. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/erV6J
75
Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen. “Behind the Curtain: Trump allies pre-screen loyalists for unprecedented power grab,” Axios, November 13, 2023. Archived November 23, 2023. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/tp8c8
76
Roy Spencer and Kevin Dayaratna. “Summer Weather Data Don’t Amount to Climate Catastrophe,” The Heritage Foundation, October 5, 2023. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/AO8yj
77
Diana Furchtgott-Roth. “Hot Weather Does Not Mean Climate Change,” The Heritage Foundation, July 26, 2023. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/IBMBO
78
“The Big Government Car Theft,” The Heritage Foundation, June 12, 2023. Archived May 16, 2025. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
79
James J. Carafano, Michael Pillsbury, Jeff M. Smith, and Andrew J. Harding (editors). “Winning the New Cold War: A Plan for Countering China” (PDF), Heritage Foundation, Special Report No. 270 | March 28, 2023. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
80
Derrick Morgan. “Climate Money Is Pouring Into Washington—Watch Out for the RINOs,” The Heritage Foundation, December 5, 2022. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/JBnRr
81
Diana Furchtgott-Roth. “Developing Countries Need Modern Energy, Not Climate Reparations,” The Heritage Foundation, November 29, 2022. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/hZ1dF
82
Derrick Morgan. “Biden’s Civil War on Energy Is Leaving Endless Collateral Damage in Its Wake,” The Heritage Foundation, August 8, 2022. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/8zHr4
83
Kevin Dayaratna, Katie Tubb, and David Kreutzer. “The Unsustainable Costs of President Biden’s Climate Agenda,” The Heritage Foundation backgrounder No. 3713 (June 16, 2022). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
84
Drew Bond and James Jay Carafano. “An Action Plan for America’s Energy Security,” The Heritage Foundation, April 7, 2022. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/CSLge
85
Emma Colton. “Russia duped Europe into energy dependence by funding ‘rabid environmental groups’: experts,” Fox News, March 15, 2022. Archived March 21, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/fIA6h
86
Kevin Roberts. “It’s Time To Win the War Against Big Tech,” The Heritage Foundation, February 11, 2022. Archived April 6, 2023. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/4CGAY
87
Kara Frederick. “Combating Big Tech’s Totalitarianism: A Road Map” (PDF), The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3678 (February 8, 2022). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
88
James Jay Carafano and Jack Spencer. “Great Power Competition Is Putting Planet Earth at Risk,” The Heritage Foundation, December 21, 2021. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: http://archive.today/14rmi
89
“Major Legislation to Improve Implementation of the Endangered Species Act,” The Heritage Foundation, December 9, 2021. Archived February 26, 2025. Archived .pdf and .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
90
Jack Spencer and James Jay Carafano. “Biden’s Climate Policy Is a Titanic Disaster in Waiting,” The Heritage Foundation, November 3, 2021. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/YfNFF
91
Katie Tubb. “Climate Change Report Isn’t a Blank Check for Green Policies,” The Heritage Foundation, August 28, 2021. Archived May 21, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/YnS7M
92
Ari Berman and Nick Surgey. “Leaked Video: Dark Money Group Brags About Writing GOP Voter Suppression Bills Across the Country,” Mother Jones, May 13, 2021. Archived May 25, 2021. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/M4lgZ
93
Ari Berman and Nick Surgey. “Leaked Video: Dark Money Group Brags About Writing GOP Voter Suppression Bills Across the Country,” Mother Jones, May 13, 2021. Archived May 25, 2021. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/M4lgZ
94
Ari Berman and Nick Surgey. “Leaked Video: Dark Money Group Brags About Writing GOP Voter Suppression Bills Across the Country,” Mother Jones, May 13, 2021. Archived May 25, 2021. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/M4lgZ
95
“The Facts About Election Integrity and the Need for States to Fix Their Election Systems (PDF), The Heritage Foundation factsheet No. 196 (February 1, 2021). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
96
“The Facts About Election Integrity and the Need for States to Fix Their Election Systems (PDF), The Heritage Foundation factsheet No. 196 (February 1, 2021). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
97
“The Facts About Election Integrity and the Need for States to Fix Their Election Systems (PDF), The Heritage Foundation factsheet No. 196 (February 1, 2021). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
98
“Iowa Executive Branch launches investigation into Heritage Foundation allegations,” EINPresswire (news provided by Iowa Senate Democrats), May 18, 2021. Archived May 25, 2021. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/TE9wb
99
“VIRTUAL EVENT: A First Look at Biden’s Energy and Climate Policies,” The Heritage Foundation, March 9, 2021. Archived May 15, 2025. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/mRlRd
100
Nicolas Loris. “On Climate Change, Government-Centric Approach Will Hurt U.S.A. With Unintended Consequences,” The Heritage Foundation, January 28, 2021. Archived May 21, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/zx1AX
101
Darken Bakst. “Environmental Extremism Is Creeping Into Every Domain of Public Policy,” The Heritage Foundation, January 13, 2021. Archived May 21, 2025. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
102
Nicolas D. Loris. “Assessing Themes in the Biden Energy and Environment Platform” (PDF), The Heritage Foundation backgrounder No. 3541 (October 22, 2020). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
103
Nicolas Loris. “Countering the Left’s Climate Power Grab With Facts,” The Heritage Foundation, September 14, 2020. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/bYTJO
104
“VIRTUAL EVENT: A Discussion with EPA Administrator Wheeler on Recent Successes,” The Heritage Foundation, July 29, 2020. Archived February 25, 2025. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
105
Nicolas Loris. “Calls to Ban Natural Gas Appliances Are Misguided,” The Heritage Foundation, May 15, 2020. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/67Yka
106
Nicolas Loris. “The Best Fuel Economy Standard Is Zero,” The Heritage Foundation, April 13, 2020. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/I0bm8
107
Nicolas Loris. “A Ban on Hydraulic Fracturing? No Fracking Way,” The Heritage Foundation, February 21, 2020. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/BjAYg
108
Nicolas Loris and Douglas Blair. “French Protesters Didn’t Want Macron’s Gas Tax. They Should Reject His Climate Agenda,” The Heritage Foundation, November 26, 2019. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/fx5DS
109
“Horror Stories of EPA and Corps Overreach under the Clean Water Act,” The Heritage Foundation, March 25, 2019. Archived February 25, 2025. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
110
Stephen Moore. “Green Is the New Red,” The Heritage Foundation, February 13, 2019. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/Dr0ux
111
Nicolas Loris. “4 Problems With the New Climate Change Report,” The Heritage Foundation, November 27, 2018. Archived May 21, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/wslc2
112
Nicolas Loris. “Can We Blame Hurricanes on Climate Change? Not So Fast,” The Heritage Foundation, October 19, 2018. Archived May 21, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/N4kTe
113
Aubrey Wieber. “Statistician tells lawmakers extreme weather rise is myth,” Portland Tribune, October 1, 2018. Archived October 24, 2018. Archive.is URL: http://archive.is/e6w6c
114
Aubrey Wieber. “Statistician tells lawmakers extreme weather rise is myth,” Portland Tribune, October 1, 2018. Archived October 24, 2018. Archive.is URL: http://archive.is/e6w6c
115
Lawrence Carter. “Liz Truss met with ‘dark money’ think tanks during taxpayer funded trip to Washington DC,” Unearthed, December 19, 2018. Archived December 22, 2018. Archive.fo URL: http://archive.fo/onRDJ
116
“Saving ‘Endangered’ Species or Regulating with Bad Data,” The Heritage Foundation, April 25, 2018. Archived October 19, 2018. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/TyvaV
117
“Trump Administration Embraces Heritage Foundation Policy Recommendations,” The Heritage Foundation, January 23, 2018. Archived February 5, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/B92aO
118
“Mandate for Leadership Policy Recommendations,” ScribD document uploaded by user “The Heritage Foundation.” Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
119
“Trump Administration Embraces Heritage Foundation Policy Recommendations,” The Heritage Foundation, January 23, 2018. Archived February 5, 2018. Archive URL: https://archive.is/B92aO
120
“Trump Administration Embraces Heritage Foundation Policy Recommendations,” The Heritage Foundation, January 23, 2018. Archived February 5, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/B92aO
121
“Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex,” The Heritage Foundation, November 27, 2017. Archived February 11, 2018. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
122
Nicolas Loris. “U.S. Is Better Off Without the Clean Power Plan,” The Heritage Foundation, October 17, 2017. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/yADDA
123
“The WOTUS Debate Continues: From a New Rule to Amending the Clean Water Act,” The Heritage Foundation, October 10, 2017. Archived May 15, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/Goa9X
124
“Mission & Objectives,” National Mining Association. Archived September 25, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/rUlu3
125
“The WOTUS Debate Continues: From a New Rule to Amending the Clean Water Act,” The Heritage Foundation, October 10, 2017. Archived May 15, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/Goa9X
126
A search of LD-1 and LD-2 Reports for Registrations & Quarterly Activity for lobbyist name “Amanda Aspatore,” United States Senate Lobbying Disclosure. Search performed May 15, 2025. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
127
“The WOTUS Debate Continues: From a New Rule to Amending the Clean Water Act,” The Heritage Foundation, October 10, 2017. Archived May 15, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/Goa9X
128
Katie Tubb and Nicolas Loris. “Climate Budget Cuts Are Smart Management, Not an Attack on Science,” The Heritage Foundation, June 25, 2017. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/BMA3a
129
“Convicted: How Climate Alarmism Harms the World’s Poor,” The Heritage Foundation, May 17, 2017. Archived May 13, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/Fr8lN
130
“Convicted Trailer,” Vimeo video uploaded by user “CDR Communications,” May 5, 2017. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
131
“Dear Mr. President” (PDF), retrieved from Competitive Enterprise Institute. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
132
Graham Readfearn. “Conservative Groups Pushing Trump To Exit Paris Climate Deal Have Taken Millions From Koch Brothers, Exxon,” DeSmog, May 10, 2017.
133
Susanne Goldberg. “Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change,” The Guardian, December 20, 2013. Archived May 12, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/TB2yy
134
Jeremy W. Peters and Maggie Haberman. “Jim DeMint Is Said to Be Out at Heritage Foundation,” The New York Times, April 28, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/vCkXU
135
Nancy Cook, Eliana Johnson and Kenneth P. Vogel. “DeMint to be ousted from Heritage Foundation,” Politico, April 28, 2017. Archived May 2, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/c319y
136
John Wagner. “Trump praises Jim DeMint, who soon might be ousted from Heritage Foundation job,” The Washington Post, April 28, 2017. Archived May 2, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/DETY6
137
“March for Science or March for Scientism? Understanding the Real Threats to Science in America,” The Heritage Foundation, April 19, 2017. Archived May 15, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/UHq4Q
138
Katie Tubb. “Crosstalk on Climate Change,” The Heritage Foundation, April 9, 2017. Archived September 20, 2017. Archived .pdf available at DeSmog. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/frqo8
139
Nicolas Loris. “Trump was Right to Repeal Obama’s Failing Climate Control Scheme,” The Heritage Foundation, May 29, 2017. Archived May 21, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/BTeQd
140
Brett D. Schaefer. “Ignore the Critics: If Trump Withdraws from Paris Climate Agreement, He Will Demonstrate U.S. Leadership,” The Heritage Foundation, March 17, 2017. Archived May 21, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/duAbn
141
“Subcommittee on Environment and Subcommittee on Oversight Hearing – At What Cost? Examining the Social Cost of Carbon,” Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, February 28, 2017. Archived .pdf of testimony and .mp4 of hearing on file at DeSmog.
142
“CPAC 2017 Sponsors,” cpac.conservative.org. Archived March 6, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/SKFRU
143
“Heritage Has Strong Presence at CPAC 2017,” The Heritage Foundation, February 22, 2017. Archived March 9, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/krXa4
144
“The Smoke and Mirrors Behind Climate Modeling: Advice to Policymakers,” The Heritage Foundation, February 16, 2017. Archived February 25, 2025. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
145
Kevin D. Dayaratna, PhD, and Nicolas D. Loris. “Rolling the DICE on Environmental Regulations: A Close Look at the Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide” (PDF), The Heritage Foundation backgrounder No. 3184 (January 19, 2017). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
146
“Dear Senators,” (PDF), Competitive Enterprise Institute, January 12, 2017. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
147
Katie Tubb. “5 Things Americans Should Know About the Renewable Fuel Standard,” The Heritage Foundation, December 9, 2016. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/JUqJP
148
“At the Crossroads III: Energy and Climate Policy Summit,” The Heritage Foundation. Archived November 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/KTgct
149
Doug Domenech. “Climate change: Speaking truth to power,” The Hill, December 13, 2016. Archived December 21, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/zAEH5
150
Raoul Wootliff. “Backing far-right Swede, Trump proxy shuns top Israeli official,” The Times of Israel, December 21, 2016. Archived December 22, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/yfI8b
151
Patrick Svitek. “As Trump Struggles, Texas Republicans Stand by Him,” The Texas Tribune, August 19, 2016. Archived December 22, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/Q24ZJ
152
(Press Release). “TRUMP CAMPAIGN ANNOUNCES NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISORY COUNCIL,” DonaldJTrump.com, October 7, 2016. Archived December 22, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/55x1q
153
“Allen Gilmer,” Relationship Science. Archived December 22, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/2EPUZ
154
Doug Domenech. “Climate change: Speaking truth to power,” The Hill, December 13, 2016. Archived December 21, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/zAEH5
155
Doug Domenech. “Climate change: Speaking truth to power,” The Hill, December 13, 2016. Archived December 21, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/zAEH5
156
Hans A. von Spakovsky and Alden Abbott. “Heritage Helps Lead Fight Against Criminalization of Scientific Dissent on Climate Change,” The Heritage Foundation, November 23, 2015. Archived May 20, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/t0BXH
157
“Climate Change – Criminalizing Scientific Dissent,” The Heritage Foundation. Archived June 2, 2016. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/pvtnt
158
Jim Lakely. “#WebOfDenial Push by Senate Dems Exposes Their Hatred of Free Speech,” Somewhat Reasonable, July 12, 2016. Archived July 14, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/eFCkh
159
Cindy Baxter. “Front Groups Attacking #WebofDenial Senate Action Took Over $92M in Dark, Dirty Money,” DeSmog, July 14, 2016. Originally posted at Climate Investigations Center.
160
Brendan Demelle. “Senators Launch Resolution, Speech Blitz Calling Out #WebOfDenial Blocking Climate Action,” DeSmog, July 11, 2016.
161
”Coalition Letter to Senate Web of Denial Resolution (PDF). Retrieved from the Heartland Institute. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
162
Katie Tubb. “Court Says BLM Can’t ‘Bootstrap’ Itself to Regulating Fracking,” The Daily Signal, June 24, 2016. Archived June 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/cUjTx
163
Katie Tubb. “Court Says BLM Can’t ‘Bootstrap’ Itself to Regulating Fracking,” The Daily Signal, June 24, 2016. Archived June 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/cUjTx
164
Ted Bromund. “For Britain, June 23 Is Independence Day,” The Daily Signal, June 24, 2016. Archived June 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/2aYIf
165
Ted Bromund. “For Britain, June 23 Is Independence Day,” The Daily Signal, June 24, 2016. Archived June 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/2aYIf
166
“Climate Change – Criminalizing Scientific Dissent,” The Heritage Foundation. Archived June 2, 2016. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/pvtnt
167
“Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy,” The Heritage Foundation. Archived June 2, 2016. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/p3ozZ
168
Valerie Richardson. “Exxon fights Mass. AG’s ‘political’ probe into climate change dissent,” The Washington Times, June 15, 2016. Archived June 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/FYZix
169
Valerie Richardson. “Exxon fights Mass. AG’s ‘political’ probe into climate change dissent,” The Washington Times, June 15, 2016. Archived June 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/FYZix
170
Ben Jervey. “State Investigations Into What Exxon Knew Double, and Exxon Gets Defensive,” Desmog, April 1, 2016.
171
David Kreutzer, Nicolas D. Loris, Katie Tubb, and Kevin Dayaratna. “The State of Climate Science: No Justification for Extreme Policies,” The Heritage Foundation backgrounder No. 3119 (April 26, 2016). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
172
“Nicolas Loris,” The Heritage Foundation. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/lyk3r
173
Kevin D. Dayaratna, Nicolas Loris, and David W. Kreutzer. “Consequences of Paris Protocol: Devastating Economic Costs, Essentially Zero Environmental Benefits,” The Heritage Foundation, April 13, 2016. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/I6lrp
174
Kevin D. Dayaratna, Nicolas Loris, and David W. Kreutzer. “Consequences of Paris Protocol: Devastating Economic Costs, Essentially Zero Environmental Benefits,” The Heritage Foundation, April 13, 2016. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/I6lrp
175
Nicolas Loris. “Top 5 Reasons Congress Should Reject Obama’s Climate Change Treaty,” The Daily Signal, April 19, 2016. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/FYmpk
176
“Fuel Economy Standards Are a Costly Mistake,” The Heritage Foundation, March 4, 2016. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/kvF2K
177
“Fuel Economy Standards Are a Costly Mistake,” The Heritage Foundation, March 4, 2016. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/kvF2K
178
Steven Groves. “Paris Climate Promise: A Bad Deal for America,” The Heritage Foundation, February 2, 2016. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/js013
179
Steven Groves. “Paris Climate Promise: A Bad Deal for America,” The Heritage Foundation, February 2, 2016. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/js013
180
Nicolas Loris. “Apologize for Bad Policies, Not Industrial Progress,” The Heritage Foundation, December 4, 2015. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/e8J8r
181
Katie Tubb. “5 Facts the Left Isn’t Trumpeting About Paris and Climate Change,” The Heritage Foundation, December 4, 2015. Archived May 21, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/Y9V44
182
Nicolas Loris. “The Clean Power Plan Is a Great Way to Make the Poor Poorer,” The Heritage Foundation, September 25, 2015. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/LcDqx
183
Katie Tubb. “Obama Is Ignoring the Science on Climate Change,” The Heritage Foundation, September 1, 2015. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/jsQsM
184
Nicolas D. Loris. “The Many Problems of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and Climate Regulations: A Primer” (PDF), The Heritage Foundation backgrounder No. 3025 (July 7, 2015). Archived February 7, 2025. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
185
“The Many Problems of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and Climate Regulations: A Primer,” Heritage Foundation, July 7, 2015. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/VU0D5
186
“Clean Power Plan,” EPA, August 3, 2015. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/xklfq
187
“The Many Problems of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and Climate Regulations: A Primer,” Heritage Foundation, July 7, 2015. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/VU0D5
188
“The Many Problems of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and Climate Regulations: A Primer,” Heritage Foundation, July 7, 2015. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/VU0D5
189
“Sponsors,” ICCC10. Archived July 15, 2015. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/Uyj2K
190
Ted R. Bromund. “Climate change is not a national security threat,” The Heritage Foundation, June 4, 2015. Archived May 21, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/6KWGq
191
Katie Tubb and David W. Kreutzer. “Obama Outkicking the Coverage With International Climate Commitments,” The Heritage Foundation, April 2, 2015. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/zOV6q
192
Katie Tubb. “5 Reasons Why We Shouldn’t Keep Subsidizing Wind And Solar Energy,” The Heritage Foundation, February 4, 2015. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/ks64i
193
“The Obama Administration’s Climate Agenda: Underestimated Costs and Exaggerated Benefits,” The Heritage Foundation backgrounder no. 2975 (November 13, 2014). Archived February 12, 2025. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
194
“ICCC9 CoSponsors,” Heartland Institute. Archived September 23, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/8JFQL
195
“Return of Climate Denial-a-Palooza: Heartland Institute Hitches Anti-Science Wagon to Vegas FreedomFest,” DeSmog, July 7, 2014.
196
Nicolas Loris. “Climate change: A cure worse than the disease,” The Heritage Foundation, May 12, 2014. Archived May 20, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/v9sVh
197
Nicolas Loris. “EPA’s coal regs: all pain, no gain for Wisconsin,” The Heritage Foundation, March 22, 2014. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/JV6jt
198
Nicolas Loris and Filip Jolevski. “EPA’s Climate Regulations Will Harm American Manufacturing,” The Heritage Foundation backgrounder No. 4158 (March 4, 2014). Archived May 6, 2025. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
199
Nicolas Loris. “Climate-Change Busyness,” The Heritage Foundation, January 17, 2014. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/vXPQZ
200
Nicolas D. Loris, Kevin D. Dayaratna, and David W. Kreutzer. “EPA Power Plant Regulations: A Backdoor Energy Tax” (PDF), The Heritage Foundation backgrounder No. 2863 (December 5, 2013). Archived October 12, 2015. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
201
Katie Tubb. “Obama’s ‘Case for Action’ on Climate Change Doesn’t Cut It,” The Heritage Foundation, June 26, 2013. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/OfWZp
202
Katie Tubb. “Climate Change: The Cost of ‘Bold Action’,” The Heritage Foundation, June 21, 2013. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/lmYtk
203
David W. Kreutzer. “A Cure Worse Than the Disease: Global Economic Impact of Global Warming Policy” (PDF), The Heritage Foundation, May 28, 2013. Archived May 6, 2025. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
204
Nicolas Loris. “Crushing Coal Under the Regulatory Steamroller,” The Heritage Foundation, August 29, 2012. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/o07eP
205
Nicolas D Loris. “Hydraulic Fracturing: Critical for Energy Production, Jobs, and Economic Growth,” The Heritage Foundation backgrounder no. 2714 (August 28., 2012). Archived January 24, 2025. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
206
“Cosponsors,” 7th International Conference on Climate Change. Archived May 10, 2012. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/VAY3r
207
“Seventh International Conference on Climate Change: Sponsored by the Heartland Institute” (PDF), the Heartland Institute. Archived August 15, 2015. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
208
Nicolas D. Loris. “Department of Energy Budget Cuts: Time to End the Hidden Green Stimulus” (PDF), The Heritage Foundation backgrounder No. 2668 (March 26, 2012). Archived May 5, 2025. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
209
“New EPA Inspector General Report: One More Reason to Reject Climate-Change Regulation,” The Heritage Foundation, November 16, 2011. Archived September 22, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/WXFEM
210
“New EPA Inspector General Report: One More Reason to Reject Climate-Change Regulation,” The Heritage Foundation, November 16, 2011. Archived September 22, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/WXFEM
211
Nicolas D. Loris. ”New EPA Inspector General Report: One More Reason to Reject Climate-Change Regulation” (PDF), Heritage Foundation backgrounder no. 2623 (November 10, 2011). Archived May 5, 2025. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
212
Nicolas Loris. “Energy Exploration Would Create Jobs and Raise Revenue Without Raising Taxes” (PDF), The Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 3357 (September 8, 2011). Archived May 12, 2025. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
213
Sixth International Conference on Climate Change Conference Program (PDF), the Heartland Institute. Archived July 25, 2015. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
214
“U.S. Could Learn from U.K.’s Global Warming Reversal,” The Daily Signal, September 30, 2010. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/LbFsN
215
Connor Gibson. “Heritage Foundation Cuts and Pastes to Upend Scientific Report,” Polluterwatch, October 19, 2010. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/canXc
216
Dan Lashof. “Heritage Gate,” Switchboard, October 1, 2010. Archived April 17, 2012. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/zpFgO
217
“Royal Society launches new short guide to the science of climate change,” The Royal Society, September 30, 2010. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/Z5EGR
218
“Nicolas Loris,” The Heritage Foundation. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/lyk3r
219
“4th International Conference on Climate Change: Sponsored by the Heartland Institute” (Conference Program – PDF), The Heartland Institute, May, 2010. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
220
Brendan DeMelle. “Denial-a-palooza Round 4: ‘International Conference on Climate Change’ Groups Funded by Exxon, Koch Industries,” DeSmog, May 13, 2010.
221
“Co-Sponsors,” Third International Conference on Climate Change. Archived July 14, 2010. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/7M3LQ
222
“Busting the Myth of Green Jobs,” The Heritage Foundation, May 4, 2009. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/Y2ZGa
223
“Heritage Foundation Green Jobs Panel – Bought and Paid For By ExxonMobil,” politicalcorrection.org, May 4, 2009. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/oGj5w
224
“Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources (PDF), Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, March, 2009. PDF archived at DeSmog.
225
Pete Altman. “Imported Lies: Debunking the Spanish Green Jobs Smear,” NRDC, April 16, 2009. Archived April 19, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/2tHMB
226
“Co-Sponsors,” The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change. Archived April 28, 2011. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/8pEf7
227
“Heartland Institute’s 2009 Climate Conference in New York: funding history of the sponsors,” DeSmog.
228
Robert Pollin. “Green Investments and Jobs: A Response to the Heritage Foundation,” Center for American Progress, November 7, 2008. Archived February 9, 2009. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/g8zG2
229
Robert Pollin. “Green Investments and Jobs: A Response to the Heritage Foundation,” Center for American Progress, November 7, 2008. Archived February 9, 2009. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/g8zG2
230
Andrew Rowell. Green Backlash: Global Subversion of the Environmental Movement. Page 52. Routledge; 1 edition (Sep 24 1996)
231
Andrew Rowell. Green Backlash: Global Subversion of the Environmental Movement. Page 52. Routledge; 1 edition (Sep 24 1996)
232
“Contact Us,” The Heritage Foundation. Archived May 28, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/dWYUe
233
“Global Directory: United States,” Atlas Network. Archived January 8, 2021. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/5Igb4
234
“Townhall.com – the Leading Conservative and Political Opinion Website,” TownHall.com. Archived November 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/5Nl0E
235
“The Cooler Heads Coalition,” GlobalWarming.org. Archived April 12, 2004. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/lWnpt
236
“The Foundry,” Archived February 24, 2011. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/qLD6U
237
“About The Daily Signal,” The Daily Signal. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/pIY6d

1
“About Heritage,” Heritage Foundation. Archived April 19, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/s9HcE
2
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Heritage Foundation. Archived June 7, 2019. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/hqSo0
3
“Policy Experts,” PolicyExperts.org. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/d0aiz
4
Carl Deal. The Greenpeace guide to anti-environmental organizations. Odonian Press, Emeryville, Calif. Distributed through Publishers Group West, 1993. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/ucmdl
5
Norman Solomon. “The Media’s Favorite Think Tank,” Extra!” July/August 1996. Archived October 14, 2005. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/SM1B0
6
Jennifer Steinhauer and Jonathan Weisman, “In the DeMint Era at Heritage, a Shift From Policy to Politics,” New York Times, February 23, 2014. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/dHred
7
“The Cooler Heads Coalition,” GlobalWarming.org. Archived April 12, 2004. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/lWnpt
8
“About SPN,” State Policy Network. Archived November 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/3EQAV
9
“Townhall.com – the Leading Conservative and Political Opinion Website,” TownHall.com. Archived November 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/5Nl0E
10
“Atlas Economic Research Foundation,” SourceWatch profile.
11
“Global Directory: United States,” Atlas Network. Archived January 8, 2021. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/5Igb4
12
Sam Bright. “Trump Will ‘Kill’ Climate Budgets, Key Ally Tells Heritage Event,” DeSmog, October 7, 2024.
13
Scott Waldman. “Conservatives have already written a climate plan for Trump’s second term,” E&E News, July 26, 2023. Archived June 3, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/kQk9T
14
Scott Waldman. “Conservatives have already written a climate plan for Trump’s second term,” E&E News, July 26, 2023. Archived June 3, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/kQk9T
15
Scott Waldman. “Conservatives have already written a climate plan for Trump’s second term,” E&E News, July 26, 2023. Archived June 3, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/kQk9T
16
Spencer Chretien. “Project 2025,” The Heritage Foundation. Archived October 7, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/pQWhc
17
”Spencer Chretien,” The Heritage Foundation. Archived August 28, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/iLJRp
18
“Citizens Against Government Waste,” SourceWatch. Archived October 9, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/aTKhS
19
“Project 2025’s “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise,” Retrieved from DocumentCloud. Contributed by Hansi Lo Wang (NPR).
20
Mike Wendling. “Project 2025: The right-wing wish list for another Trump presidency,” BBC, September 11, 2024. Archived October 9, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/9x11T
21
Spencer Chretien. “Project 2025,” The Heritage Foundation. Archived October 7, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/pQWhc
22
Spencer Chretien. “Project 2025,” The Heritage Foundation. Archived October 7, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/pQWhc
23
Spencer Chretien. “Project 2025,” The Heritage Foundation. Archived October 7, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/pQWhc
24
“About,” The Heritage Foundation. Archived November 12, 2024.
25
Joe Fassler. “6 Billionaire Fortunes Bankrolling Project 2025,” DeSmog, August 14, 2024.
26
“Adolph Coors Foundation,” SourceWatch. Archived November 12, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/00HPB
27
“Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation,” SourceWatch. Archived September 18, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/EAjjL
28
Geoff Dembicki. “Revealed: Shell Oil Nonprofit Donated to Anti-Climate Groups Behind Project 2025,” DeSmog, August 15, 2024.
29
“Undercover in Project 2025,” YouTube video uploaded by user “Centre for Climate Reporting,” August 15, 2024. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
30
Curt Devine, Casey Tolan, Audrey Ash, and Kyung Lah. “Hidden-camera video shows Project 2025 co-author discussing his secret work preparing for a second Trump term,” CNN, August 15, 2024. Archived November 12, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/hJgMc
31
“Remarks by President Trump at Signing of Executive Orders on Transparency in Federal Guidance and Enforcement,” trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov. Archived October 7, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/F5Eeq
32
Curt Devine, Casey Tolan, Audrey Ash, and Kyung Lah. “Hidden-camera video shows Project 2025 co-author discussing his secret work preparing for a second Trump term,” CNN, August 15, 2024. Archived November 12, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/hJgMc
33
Curt Devine, Casey Tolan, Audrey Ash, and Kyung Lah. “Hidden-camera video shows Project 2025 co-author discussing his secret work preparing for a second Trump term,” CNN, August 15, 2024. Archived November 12, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/hJgMc
34
Steve Contorno and Kristen Holmes. “Project 2025 director steps down amid backlash from Trump,” CNN, July 30, 2024. Archived October 7, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/UMae1
35
Curt Devine, Casey Tolan, Audrey Ash, and Kyung Lah. “Hidden-camera video shows Project 2025 co-author discussing his secret work preparing for a second Trump term,” CNN, August 15, 2024. Archived November 12, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/hJgMc
36
Charlie Savage, Maggie Haberman, and Jonathan Swan. “Trump Picks Key Figure in Project 2025 for Powerful Budget Role,” The New York Times, November 22, 2024. Archived December 9, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/Dqv4E
37
Lisa Rein and Jeff Stein. “Federal employees scramble to insulate themselves from Trump’s purge,” The Washington Post, December 8, 2024. Archived December 9, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/TnHxu
38
Rachel Leingang. “Project 2025: the Trump picks with ties to ultra-rightwing policy manifesto,” The Guardian, December 9, 2024. Archived December 9, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/YbOQt
39
Adam Barnett. “Project 2025: Tory Candidates Have Ties to Group Drafting ‘Dangerous’ Trump Agenda,” DeSmog, August 14, 2024.
40
Andy Kroll and Nick Surgey. “Watch: 14 Hours of Never-Before-Published Videos From Project 2025’s Presidential Administration Academy,“ ProPublica, August 10, 2024. Archived October 8, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/6qV3S
41
Andy Kroll and Nick Surgey. “Inside Project 2025’s Secret Training Videos,” ProPublica, August 10, 2024. Archived October 9, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/zovgp
42
”’Eradicate Climate Change References From Absolutely Everywhere’,” YouTube video uploaded by user “ProPublica,” August 9, 2024. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
43
Robin Bravender. “Leaked Project 2025 videos: ‘Eradicate’ climate references,” E&E News, August 12, 2024. Archived September 26, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/tKOG4
44
Andy Kroll and Nick Surgey. “Inside Project 2025’s Secret Training Videos,” ProPublica, August 10, 2024. Archived October 9, 2024. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/zovgp
45
Katie Glueck. “Trump’s shadow transition team,” Politico, November 22, 2016. Archived November 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/AdrXn
46
Katie Glueck. “Trump’s shadow transition team,” Politico, November 22, 2016. Archived November 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/AdrXn
47
Katie Glueck. “Trump’s shadow transition team,” Politico, November 22, 2016. Archived November 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/AdrXn
48
Katie Glueck. “Trump’s shadow transition team,” Politico, November 22, 2016. Archived November 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/AdrXn
49
Hans von Spakovsky. “The Left’s Climate Inquisition’s New Target,” The Daily Signal, April 8, 2016. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/6ElPn
50
Nicolas Loris. “Top 5 Reasons Congress Should Reject Obama’s Climate Change Treaty,” The Daily Signal, April 19, 2016. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/FYmpk
51
Ben Lieberman.”The Economics of Global Warming Policy,” The Heritage Foundation, June 16, 2010. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/TPGCH
52
Conn Carroll. “Study Shows Global Warming Will Not Hurt U.S. Economy,” The Daily Signal, January 6, 2009. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/whGeJ
53
Chris Woodward. “There’s a cost to reducing carbon emissions,” OneNewsNow.com, April 18, 2016. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/hnG0F
54
“The Heritage Foundation,” Conservative Transparency. Data retrieved May 28, 2016.
55
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Heritage Foundation. Archived June 7, 2019. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/hqSo0
56
“The Heritage Foundation: Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group,” Greenpeace USA. Archived March 14, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/p3KBb
57
“US Experts,” Policy Experts. Archived July 21, 2023.
58
“Intl Experts,” Policy Experts. Archived July 21, 2023.
59
“FACTSHEET: HERITAGE FOUNDATION, HERITAGE,” ExxonSecrets. Archived July 15, 2016.
60
Alexander Frei, Kevin D. Dayaratna, and Austin Gae. “Calculating the ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ with the GIVE Model: An EPA Model Not Ready for Prime Time,” The Heritage Foundation special report No. 308 (January 24, 2025). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
61
Willie Soon, Ronan Connolly, and Michael Connolly. “The Unreliability of Current Global Temperature and Solar Activity Estimates and Its Implications for the Attribution of Global Warming,” The Heritage Foundation special report No. 305 (December 11, 2024). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
62
S. Stanley Young and Warren B. Kindzierski. “Air Quality and Public Health: Is There a Link?” (PDF), The Heritage Foundation special report No. 304 (December 5, 2024). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
63
S. Stanley Young and Warren Kindzierski. “Climate Change, Ozone, and Asthma: Is There a Connection?” (PDF), The Heritage Foundation special report No. 303 (December 4, 2024). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog
64
Susan Crockford. “Defying Predictions: How Increased CO2 and Innovation Are Mitigating Effects of Drought on U.S. Crops and Forest Productivity,” The Heritage Foundation special report No. 299 (November 7, 2024). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
65
Roy Spencer. “Climate Change: The Science Doesn’t Support the Heated Rhetoric,” The Heritage Foundation, October 16, 2024. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/2tOrZ
66
Susan J. Crockford. “Resilient Wilds: Unmasking the Surprising Adaptability of U.S. Ecosystems to Climate Change”(PDF), The Heritage Foundation special report no. 294 (October 1, 2024). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
67
“On being a polar bear expert, among other things,” Polar Bear Science, March 12, 2015. Archived July 09, 2024. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/2Ctjt
68
“Unstable thinking about polar-bear habitat,” The Arctic Journal, October 7, 2015. Archived October 12, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/jtmeW
69
Roy Spencer. “Hot Summer? Don’t Sweat It,” The Heritage Foundation, July 22, 2024. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/cz0kF
70
Diana Furchtgott-Roth. “Biden’s Hypocrisy on Climate Change Is Painfully Obvious,” The Heritage Foundation, June 20, 2024. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/5uTOk
71
David R. Legates. “Coastal Inundation: Rising Sea Levels Explained” (PDF), The Heritage Foundation special report No. 278 (March 13, 2024). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
72
Roy W. Spencer. “Global Warming: Observations vs. Climate Models” (PDF), The Heritage Foundation backgrounder No. 3809 (January 24, 2024. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
73
Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen. “Behind the Curtain: Trump allies pre-screen loyalists for unprecedented power grab,” Axios, November 13, 2023. Archived November 23, 2023. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/tp8c8
74
“About Project 2025,” Project 2025. Archived November 23, 2023. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/erV6J
75
Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen. “Behind the Curtain: Trump allies pre-screen loyalists for unprecedented power grab,” Axios, November 13, 2023. Archived November 23, 2023. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/tp8c8
76
Roy Spencer and Kevin Dayaratna. “Summer Weather Data Don’t Amount to Climate Catastrophe,” The Heritage Foundation, October 5, 2023. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/AO8yj
77
Diana Furchtgott-Roth. “Hot Weather Does Not Mean Climate Change,” The Heritage Foundation, July 26, 2023. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/IBMBO
78
“The Big Government Car Theft,” The Heritage Foundation, June 12, 2023. Archived May 16, 2025. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
79
James J. Carafano, Michael Pillsbury, Jeff M. Smith, and Andrew J. Harding (editors). “Winning the New Cold War: A Plan for Countering China” (PDF), Heritage Foundation, Special Report No. 270 | March 28, 2023. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
80
Derrick Morgan. “Climate Money Is Pouring Into Washington—Watch Out for the RINOs,” The Heritage Foundation, December 5, 2022. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/JBnRr
81
Diana Furchtgott-Roth. “Developing Countries Need Modern Energy, Not Climate Reparations,” The Heritage Foundation, November 29, 2022. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/hZ1dF
82
Derrick Morgan. “Biden’s Civil War on Energy Is Leaving Endless Collateral Damage in Its Wake,” The Heritage Foundation, August 8, 2022. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/8zHr4
83
Kevin Dayaratna, Katie Tubb, and David Kreutzer. “The Unsustainable Costs of President Biden’s Climate Agenda,” The Heritage Foundation backgrounder No. 3713 (June 16, 2022). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
84
Drew Bond and James Jay Carafano. “An Action Plan for America’s Energy Security,” The Heritage Foundation, April 7, 2022. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/CSLge
85
Emma Colton. “Russia duped Europe into energy dependence by funding ‘rabid environmental groups’: experts,” Fox News, March 15, 2022. Archived March 21, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/fIA6h
86
Kevin Roberts. “It’s Time To Win the War Against Big Tech,” The Heritage Foundation, February 11, 2022. Archived April 6, 2023. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/4CGAY
87
Kara Frederick. “Combating Big Tech’s Totalitarianism: A Road Map” (PDF), The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3678 (February 8, 2022). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
88
James Jay Carafano and Jack Spencer. “Great Power Competition Is Putting Planet Earth at Risk,” The Heritage Foundation, December 21, 2021. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: http://archive.today/14rmi
89
“Major Legislation to Improve Implementation of the Endangered Species Act,” The Heritage Foundation, December 9, 2021. Archived February 26, 2025. Archived .pdf and .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
90
Jack Spencer and James Jay Carafano. “Biden’s Climate Policy Is a Titanic Disaster in Waiting,” The Heritage Foundation, November 3, 2021. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/YfNFF
91
Katie Tubb. “Climate Change Report Isn’t a Blank Check for Green Policies,” The Heritage Foundation, August 28, 2021. Archived May 21, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/YnS7M
92
Ari Berman and Nick Surgey. “Leaked Video: Dark Money Group Brags About Writing GOP Voter Suppression Bills Across the Country,” Mother Jones, May 13, 2021. Archived May 25, 2021. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/M4lgZ
93
Ari Berman and Nick Surgey. “Leaked Video: Dark Money Group Brags About Writing GOP Voter Suppression Bills Across the Country,” Mother Jones, May 13, 2021. Archived May 25, 2021. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/M4lgZ
94
Ari Berman and Nick Surgey. “Leaked Video: Dark Money Group Brags About Writing GOP Voter Suppression Bills Across the Country,” Mother Jones, May 13, 2021. Archived May 25, 2021. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/M4lgZ
95
“The Facts About Election Integrity and the Need for States to Fix Their Election Systems (PDF), The Heritage Foundation factsheet No. 196 (February 1, 2021). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
96
“The Facts About Election Integrity and the Need for States to Fix Their Election Systems (PDF), The Heritage Foundation factsheet No. 196 (February 1, 2021). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
97
“The Facts About Election Integrity and the Need for States to Fix Their Election Systems (PDF), The Heritage Foundation factsheet No. 196 (February 1, 2021). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
98
“Iowa Executive Branch launches investigation into Heritage Foundation allegations,” EINPresswire (news provided by Iowa Senate Democrats), May 18, 2021. Archived May 25, 2021. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/TE9wb
99
“VIRTUAL EVENT: A First Look at Biden’s Energy and Climate Policies,” The Heritage Foundation, March 9, 2021. Archived May 15, 2025. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/mRlRd
100
Nicolas Loris. “On Climate Change, Government-Centric Approach Will Hurt U.S.A. With Unintended Consequences,” The Heritage Foundation, January 28, 2021. Archived May 21, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/zx1AX
101
Darken Bakst. “Environmental Extremism Is Creeping Into Every Domain of Public Policy,” The Heritage Foundation, January 13, 2021. Archived May 21, 2025. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
102
Nicolas D. Loris. “Assessing Themes in the Biden Energy and Environment Platform” (PDF), The Heritage Foundation backgrounder No. 3541 (October 22, 2020). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
103
Nicolas Loris. “Countering the Left’s Climate Power Grab With Facts,” The Heritage Foundation, September 14, 2020. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/bYTJO
104
“VIRTUAL EVENT: A Discussion with EPA Administrator Wheeler on Recent Successes,” The Heritage Foundation, July 29, 2020. Archived February 25, 2025. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
105
Nicolas Loris. “Calls to Ban Natural Gas Appliances Are Misguided,” The Heritage Foundation, May 15, 2020. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/67Yka
106
Nicolas Loris. “The Best Fuel Economy Standard Is Zero,” The Heritage Foundation, April 13, 2020. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/I0bm8
107
Nicolas Loris. “A Ban on Hydraulic Fracturing? No Fracking Way,” The Heritage Foundation, February 21, 2020. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/BjAYg
108
Nicolas Loris and Douglas Blair. “French Protesters Didn’t Want Macron’s Gas Tax. They Should Reject His Climate Agenda,” The Heritage Foundation, November 26, 2019. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/fx5DS
109
“Horror Stories of EPA and Corps Overreach under the Clean Water Act,” The Heritage Foundation, March 25, 2019. Archived February 25, 2025. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
110
Stephen Moore. “Green Is the New Red,” The Heritage Foundation, February 13, 2019. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/Dr0ux
111
Nicolas Loris. “4 Problems With the New Climate Change Report,” The Heritage Foundation, November 27, 2018. Archived May 21, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/wslc2
112
Nicolas Loris. “Can We Blame Hurricanes on Climate Change? Not So Fast,” The Heritage Foundation, October 19, 2018. Archived May 21, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/N4kTe
113
Aubrey Wieber. “Statistician tells lawmakers extreme weather rise is myth,” Portland Tribune, October 1, 2018. Archived October 24, 2018. Archive.is URL: http://archive.is/e6w6c
114
Aubrey Wieber. “Statistician tells lawmakers extreme weather rise is myth,” Portland Tribune, October 1, 2018. Archived October 24, 2018. Archive.is URL: http://archive.is/e6w6c
115
Lawrence Carter. “Liz Truss met with ‘dark money’ think tanks during taxpayer funded trip to Washington DC,” Unearthed, December 19, 2018. Archived December 22, 2018. Archive.fo URL: http://archive.fo/onRDJ
116
“Saving ‘Endangered’ Species or Regulating with Bad Data,” The Heritage Foundation, April 25, 2018. Archived October 19, 2018. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/TyvaV
117
“Trump Administration Embraces Heritage Foundation Policy Recommendations,” The Heritage Foundation, January 23, 2018. Archived February 5, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/B92aO
118
“Mandate for Leadership Policy Recommendations,” ScribD document uploaded by user “The Heritage Foundation.” Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
119
“Trump Administration Embraces Heritage Foundation Policy Recommendations,” The Heritage Foundation, January 23, 2018. Archived February 5, 2018. Archive URL: https://archive.is/B92aO
120
“Trump Administration Embraces Heritage Foundation Policy Recommendations,” The Heritage Foundation, January 23, 2018. Archived February 5, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/B92aO
121
“Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex,” The Heritage Foundation, November 27, 2017. Archived February 11, 2018. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
122
Nicolas Loris. “U.S. Is Better Off Without the Clean Power Plan,” The Heritage Foundation, October 17, 2017. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/yADDA
123
“The WOTUS Debate Continues: From a New Rule to Amending the Clean Water Act,” The Heritage Foundation, October 10, 2017. Archived May 15, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/Goa9X
124
“Mission & Objectives,” National Mining Association. Archived September 25, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/rUlu3
125
“The WOTUS Debate Continues: From a New Rule to Amending the Clean Water Act,” The Heritage Foundation, October 10, 2017. Archived May 15, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/Goa9X
126
A search of LD-1 and LD-2 Reports for Registrations & Quarterly Activity for lobbyist name “Amanda Aspatore,” United States Senate Lobbying Disclosure. Search performed May 15, 2025. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
127
“The WOTUS Debate Continues: From a New Rule to Amending the Clean Water Act,” The Heritage Foundation, October 10, 2017. Archived May 15, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/Goa9X
128
Katie Tubb and Nicolas Loris. “Climate Budget Cuts Are Smart Management, Not an Attack on Science,” The Heritage Foundation, June 25, 2017. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/BMA3a
129
“Convicted: How Climate Alarmism Harms the World’s Poor,” The Heritage Foundation, May 17, 2017. Archived May 13, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/Fr8lN
130
“Convicted Trailer,” Vimeo video uploaded by user “CDR Communications,” May 5, 2017. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
131
“Dear Mr. President” (PDF), retrieved from Competitive Enterprise Institute. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
132
Graham Readfearn. “Conservative Groups Pushing Trump To Exit Paris Climate Deal Have Taken Millions From Koch Brothers, Exxon,” DeSmog, May 10, 2017.
133
Susanne Goldberg. “Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change,” The Guardian, December 20, 2013. Archived May 12, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/TB2yy
134
Jeremy W. Peters and Maggie Haberman. “Jim DeMint Is Said to Be Out at Heritage Foundation,” The New York Times, April 28, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/vCkXU
135
Nancy Cook, Eliana Johnson and Kenneth P. Vogel. “DeMint to be ousted from Heritage Foundation,” Politico, April 28, 2017. Archived May 2, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/c319y
136
John Wagner. “Trump praises Jim DeMint, who soon might be ousted from Heritage Foundation job,” The Washington Post, April 28, 2017. Archived May 2, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/DETY6
137
“March for Science or March for Scientism? Understanding the Real Threats to Science in America,” The Heritage Foundation, April 19, 2017. Archived May 15, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/UHq4Q
138
Katie Tubb. “Crosstalk on Climate Change,” The Heritage Foundation, April 9, 2017. Archived September 20, 2017. Archived .pdf available at DeSmog. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/frqo8
139
Nicolas Loris. “Trump was Right to Repeal Obama’s Failing Climate Control Scheme,” The Heritage Foundation, May 29, 2017. Archived May 21, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/BTeQd
140
Brett D. Schaefer. “Ignore the Critics: If Trump Withdraws from Paris Climate Agreement, He Will Demonstrate U.S. Leadership,” The Heritage Foundation, March 17, 2017. Archived May 21, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/duAbn
141
“Subcommittee on Environment and Subcommittee on Oversight Hearing – At What Cost? Examining the Social Cost of Carbon,” Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, February 28, 2017. Archived .pdf of testimony and .mp4 of hearing on file at DeSmog.
142
“CPAC 2017 Sponsors,” cpac.conservative.org. Archived March 6, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/SKFRU
143
“Heritage Has Strong Presence at CPAC 2017,” The Heritage Foundation, February 22, 2017. Archived March 9, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/krXa4
144
“The Smoke and Mirrors Behind Climate Modeling: Advice to Policymakers,” The Heritage Foundation, February 16, 2017. Archived February 25, 2025. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
145
Kevin D. Dayaratna, PhD, and Nicolas D. Loris. “Rolling the DICE on Environmental Regulations: A Close Look at the Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide” (PDF), The Heritage Foundation backgrounder No. 3184 (January 19, 2017). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
146
“Dear Senators,” (PDF), Competitive Enterprise Institute, January 12, 2017. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
147
Katie Tubb. “5 Things Americans Should Know About the Renewable Fuel Standard,” The Heritage Foundation, December 9, 2016. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/JUqJP
148
“At the Crossroads III: Energy and Climate Policy Summit,” The Heritage Foundation. Archived November 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/KTgct
149
Doug Domenech. “Climate change: Speaking truth to power,” The Hill, December 13, 2016. Archived December 21, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/zAEH5
150
Raoul Wootliff. “Backing far-right Swede, Trump proxy shuns top Israeli official,” The Times of Israel, December 21, 2016. Archived December 22, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/yfI8b
151
Patrick Svitek. “As Trump Struggles, Texas Republicans Stand by Him,” The Texas Tribune, August 19, 2016. Archived December 22, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/Q24ZJ
152
(Press Release). “TRUMP CAMPAIGN ANNOUNCES NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISORY COUNCIL,” DonaldJTrump.com, October 7, 2016. Archived December 22, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/55x1q
153
“Allen Gilmer,” Relationship Science. Archived December 22, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/2EPUZ
154
Doug Domenech. “Climate change: Speaking truth to power,” The Hill, December 13, 2016. Archived December 21, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/zAEH5
155
Doug Domenech. “Climate change: Speaking truth to power,” The Hill, December 13, 2016. Archived December 21, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/zAEH5
156
Hans A. von Spakovsky and Alden Abbott. “Heritage Helps Lead Fight Against Criminalization of Scientific Dissent on Climate Change,” The Heritage Foundation, November 23, 2015. Archived May 20, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/t0BXH
157
“Climate Change – Criminalizing Scientific Dissent,” The Heritage Foundation. Archived June 2, 2016. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/pvtnt
158
Jim Lakely. “#WebOfDenial Push by Senate Dems Exposes Their Hatred of Free Speech,” Somewhat Reasonable, July 12, 2016. Archived July 14, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/eFCkh
159
Cindy Baxter. “Front Groups Attacking #WebofDenial Senate Action Took Over $92M in Dark, Dirty Money,” DeSmog, July 14, 2016. Originally posted at Climate Investigations Center.
160
Brendan Demelle. “Senators Launch Resolution, Speech Blitz Calling Out #WebOfDenial Blocking Climate Action,” DeSmog, July 11, 2016.
161
”Coalition Letter to Senate Web of Denial Resolution (PDF). Retrieved from the Heartland Institute. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
162
Katie Tubb. “Court Says BLM Can’t ‘Bootstrap’ Itself to Regulating Fracking,” The Daily Signal, June 24, 2016. Archived June 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/cUjTx
163
Katie Tubb. “Court Says BLM Can’t ‘Bootstrap’ Itself to Regulating Fracking,” The Daily Signal, June 24, 2016. Archived June 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/cUjTx
164
Ted Bromund. “For Britain, June 23 Is Independence Day,” The Daily Signal, June 24, 2016. Archived June 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/2aYIf
165
Ted Bromund. “For Britain, June 23 Is Independence Day,” The Daily Signal, June 24, 2016. Archived June 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/2aYIf
166
“Climate Change – Criminalizing Scientific Dissent,” The Heritage Foundation. Archived June 2, 2016. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/pvtnt
167
“Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy,” The Heritage Foundation. Archived June 2, 2016. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/p3ozZ
168
Valerie Richardson. “Exxon fights Mass. AG’s ‘political’ probe into climate change dissent,” The Washington Times, June 15, 2016. Archived June 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/FYZix
169
Valerie Richardson. “Exxon fights Mass. AG’s ‘political’ probe into climate change dissent,” The Washington Times, June 15, 2016. Archived June 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/FYZix
170
Ben Jervey. “State Investigations Into What Exxon Knew Double, and Exxon Gets Defensive,” Desmog, April 1, 2016.
171
David Kreutzer, Nicolas D. Loris, Katie Tubb, and Kevin Dayaratna. “The State of Climate Science: No Justification for Extreme Policies,” The Heritage Foundation backgrounder No. 3119 (April 26, 2016). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
172
“Nicolas Loris,” The Heritage Foundation. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/lyk3r
173
Kevin D. Dayaratna, Nicolas Loris, and David W. Kreutzer. “Consequences of Paris Protocol: Devastating Economic Costs, Essentially Zero Environmental Benefits,” The Heritage Foundation, April 13, 2016. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/I6lrp
174
Kevin D. Dayaratna, Nicolas Loris, and David W. Kreutzer. “Consequences of Paris Protocol: Devastating Economic Costs, Essentially Zero Environmental Benefits,” The Heritage Foundation, April 13, 2016. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/I6lrp
175
Nicolas Loris. “Top 5 Reasons Congress Should Reject Obama’s Climate Change Treaty,” The Daily Signal, April 19, 2016. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/FYmpk
176
“Fuel Economy Standards Are a Costly Mistake,” The Heritage Foundation, March 4, 2016. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/kvF2K
177
“Fuel Economy Standards Are a Costly Mistake,” The Heritage Foundation, March 4, 2016. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/kvF2K
178
Steven Groves. “Paris Climate Promise: A Bad Deal for America,” The Heritage Foundation, February 2, 2016. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/js013
179
Steven Groves. “Paris Climate Promise: A Bad Deal for America,” The Heritage Foundation, February 2, 2016. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/js013
180
Nicolas Loris. “Apologize for Bad Policies, Not Industrial Progress,” The Heritage Foundation, December 4, 2015. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/e8J8r
181
Katie Tubb. “5 Facts the Left Isn’t Trumpeting About Paris and Climate Change,” The Heritage Foundation, December 4, 2015. Archived May 21, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/Y9V44
182
Nicolas Loris. “The Clean Power Plan Is a Great Way to Make the Poor Poorer,” The Heritage Foundation, September 25, 2015. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/LcDqx
183
Katie Tubb. “Obama Is Ignoring the Science on Climate Change,” The Heritage Foundation, September 1, 2015. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/jsQsM
184
Nicolas D. Loris. “The Many Problems of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and Climate Regulations: A Primer” (PDF), The Heritage Foundation backgrounder No. 3025 (July 7, 2015). Archived February 7, 2025. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
185
“The Many Problems of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and Climate Regulations: A Primer,” Heritage Foundation, July 7, 2015. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/VU0D5
186
“Clean Power Plan,” EPA, August 3, 2015. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/xklfq
187
“The Many Problems of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and Climate Regulations: A Primer,” Heritage Foundation, July 7, 2015. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/VU0D5
188
“The Many Problems of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and Climate Regulations: A Primer,” Heritage Foundation, July 7, 2015. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/VU0D5
189
“Sponsors,” ICCC10. Archived July 15, 2015. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/Uyj2K
190
Ted R. Bromund. “Climate change is not a national security threat,” The Heritage Foundation, June 4, 2015. Archived May 21, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/6KWGq
191
Katie Tubb and David W. Kreutzer. “Obama Outkicking the Coverage With International Climate Commitments,” The Heritage Foundation, April 2, 2015. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/zOV6q
192
Katie Tubb. “5 Reasons Why We Shouldn’t Keep Subsidizing Wind And Solar Energy,” The Heritage Foundation, February 4, 2015. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/ks64i
193
“The Obama Administration’s Climate Agenda: Underestimated Costs and Exaggerated Benefits,” The Heritage Foundation backgrounder no. 2975 (November 13, 2014). Archived February 12, 2025. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
194
“ICCC9 CoSponsors,” Heartland Institute. Archived September 23, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/8JFQL
195
“Return of Climate Denial-a-Palooza: Heartland Institute Hitches Anti-Science Wagon to Vegas FreedomFest,” DeSmog, July 7, 2014.
196
Nicolas Loris. “Climate change: A cure worse than the disease,” The Heritage Foundation, May 12, 2014. Archived May 20, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/v9sVh
197
Nicolas Loris. “EPA’s coal regs: all pain, no gain for Wisconsin,” The Heritage Foundation, March 22, 2014. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/JV6jt
198
Nicolas Loris and Filip Jolevski. “EPA’s Climate Regulations Will Harm American Manufacturing,” The Heritage Foundation backgrounder No. 4158 (March 4, 2014). Archived May 6, 2025. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
199
Nicolas Loris. “Climate-Change Busyness,” The Heritage Foundation, January 17, 2014. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/vXPQZ
200
Nicolas D. Loris, Kevin D. Dayaratna, and David W. Kreutzer. “EPA Power Plant Regulations: A Backdoor Energy Tax” (PDF), The Heritage Foundation backgrounder No. 2863 (December 5, 2013). Archived October 12, 2015. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
201
Katie Tubb. “Obama’s ‘Case for Action’ on Climate Change Doesn’t Cut It,” The Heritage Foundation, June 26, 2013. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/OfWZp
202
Katie Tubb. “Climate Change: The Cost of ‘Bold Action’,” The Heritage Foundation, June 21, 2013. Archived May 22, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/lmYtk
203
David W. Kreutzer. “A Cure Worse Than the Disease: Global Economic Impact of Global Warming Policy” (PDF), The Heritage Foundation, May 28, 2013. Archived May 6, 2025. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
204
Nicolas Loris. “Crushing Coal Under the Regulatory Steamroller,” The Heritage Foundation, August 29, 2012. Archived May 23, 2025. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/o07eP
205
Nicolas D Loris. “Hydraulic Fracturing: Critical for Energy Production, Jobs, and Economic Growth,” The Heritage Foundation backgrounder no. 2714 (August 28., 2012). Archived January 24, 2025. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
206
“Cosponsors,” 7th International Conference on Climate Change. Archived May 10, 2012. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/VAY3r
207
“Seventh International Conference on Climate Change: Sponsored by the Heartland Institute” (PDF), the Heartland Institute. Archived August 15, 2015. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
208
Nicolas D. Loris. “Department of Energy Budget Cuts: Time to End the Hidden Green Stimulus” (PDF), The Heritage Foundation backgrounder No. 2668 (March 26, 2012). Archived May 5, 2025. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
209
“New EPA Inspector General Report: One More Reason to Reject Climate-Change Regulation,” The Heritage Foundation, November 16, 2011. Archived September 22, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/WXFEM
210
“New EPA Inspector General Report: One More Reason to Reject Climate-Change Regulation,” The Heritage Foundation, November 16, 2011. Archived September 22, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/WXFEM
211
Nicolas D. Loris. ”New EPA Inspector General Report: One More Reason to Reject Climate-Change Regulation” (PDF), Heritage Foundation backgrounder no. 2623 (November 10, 2011). Archived May 5, 2025. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
212
Nicolas Loris. “Energy Exploration Would Create Jobs and Raise Revenue Without Raising Taxes” (PDF), The Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 3357 (September 8, 2011). Archived May 12, 2025. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
213
Sixth International Conference on Climate Change Conference Program (PDF), the Heartland Institute. Archived July 25, 2015. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
214
“U.S. Could Learn from U.K.’s Global Warming Reversal,” The Daily Signal, September 30, 2010. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/LbFsN
215
Connor Gibson. “Heritage Foundation Cuts and Pastes to Upend Scientific Report,” Polluterwatch, October 19, 2010. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/canXc
216
Dan Lashof. “Heritage Gate,” Switchboard, October 1, 2010. Archived April 17, 2012. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/zpFgO
217
“Royal Society launches new short guide to the science of climate change,” The Royal Society, September 30, 2010. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/Z5EGR
218
“Nicolas Loris,” The Heritage Foundation. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/lyk3r
219
“4th International Conference on Climate Change: Sponsored by the Heartland Institute” (Conference Program – PDF), The Heartland Institute, May, 2010. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
220
Brendan DeMelle. “Denial-a-palooza Round 4: ‘International Conference on Climate Change’ Groups Funded by Exxon, Koch Industries,” DeSmog, May 13, 2010.
221
“Co-Sponsors,” Third International Conference on Climate Change. Archived July 14, 2010. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/7M3LQ
222
“Busting the Myth of Green Jobs,” The Heritage Foundation, May 4, 2009. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/Y2ZGa
223
“Heritage Foundation Green Jobs Panel – Bought and Paid For By ExxonMobil,” politicalcorrection.org, May 4, 2009. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/oGj5w
224
“Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources (PDF), Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, March, 2009. PDF archived at DeSmog.
225
Pete Altman. “Imported Lies: Debunking the Spanish Green Jobs Smear,” NRDC, April 16, 2009. Archived April 19, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/2tHMB
226
“Co-Sponsors,” The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change. Archived April 28, 2011. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/8pEf7
227
“Heartland Institute’s 2009 Climate Conference in New York: funding history of the sponsors,” DeSmog.
228
Robert Pollin. “Green Investments and Jobs: A Response to the Heritage Foundation,” Center for American Progress, November 7, 2008. Archived February 9, 2009. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/g8zG2
229
Robert Pollin. “Green Investments and Jobs: A Response to the Heritage Foundation,” Center for American Progress, November 7, 2008. Archived February 9, 2009. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/g8zG2
230
Andrew Rowell. Green Backlash: Global Subversion of the Environmental Movement. Page 52. Routledge; 1 edition (Sep 24 1996)
231
Andrew Rowell. Green Backlash: Global Subversion of the Environmental Movement. Page 52. Routledge; 1 edition (Sep 24 1996)
232
“Contact Us,” The Heritage Foundation. Archived May 28, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/dWYUe
233
“Global Directory: United States,” Atlas Network. Archived January 8, 2021. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/5Igb4
234
“Townhall.com – the Leading Conservative and Political Opinion Website,” TownHall.com. Archived November 24, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/5Nl0E
235
“The Cooler Heads Coalition,” GlobalWarming.org. Archived April 12, 2004. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/lWnpt
236
“The Foundry,” Archived February 24, 2011. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/qLD6U
237
“About The Daily Signal,” The Daily Signal. Archived April 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/pIY6d

Heritage Foundation

Heritage Foundation

Background

Heritage Foundation & Project 2025

Donald Trump’s “Shadow Transition Team”

Stance on Climate Change

On Carbon Emissions

Funding

Heritage Foundation Funding

Heritage Action for America Funding

ExxonMobil Funding

Koch Funding

990 Forms

Key People

Policy Experts

Actions

Heritage Foundation Contact & Location

Related Organizations

Social Media

Other Resources

Resources

Related Profiles

Subscribe to our newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter