Kenneth P. Green
- D.Env., environmental science and engineering, University of California, Los Angeles. 
- M.S., molecular genetics, San Diego State University. 
- B.S., biology, University of California, Los Angeles. 
Kenneth Green is an Environmental Scientist and Senior Director, Natural Resource Studies, at the Fraser Institute. He formerly served as Resident Scholar with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) where he “studies public policy relating to climate change and energy.” , 
As an Environmental Scientist, Green studied environmental policy for more than ten years at think tanks in California and Canada before joining AEI. He was executive director of the Environmental Literacy Council from 2005 to 2006 and chief scientist at the Fraser Institute from 2002 to 2005. Before moving to the Fraser Institute, he served as the Chief Scientist and Director of the Environmental Program at the Reason Foundation for eight years.
Green’s profile at AEI describes him as an “Expert Reviewer” of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group 1, 2001. All this really means is that Green asked to see a draft IPCC report and agreed not to publicly comment on the draft.
Stance on Climate Change
“This is not to say that man-made climate change theory is either right or wrong, proven or not proven, looming catastrophe or massive hoax—only that it is not, as various groups have implied, nearing a final verdict.” 
December 5, 2016
“I’m typically skeptical about proposals for massive, widespread deployment of wind and solar power. My problem with the idea is that these sources are intermittent, meaning we need to maintain 100 per cent backup power that we don’t intend to run much of the time, in the absence of better storage.” 
November 7, 2016
“The real problem with Alberta’s carbon cap is that, like much of the Alberta Climate Leadership Plan, it’s arbitrary, and the government seemingly failed to do any meaningful analysis of the potential costs and benefits of the action. […]
Governments should take uncertainties out of the equation to the extent they can, not dropping in arbitrary caps whose uncertain impact can only increase uncertainty about future oilsand production.” 
“Green groups, and some anti-gas First Nations, may continue to successfully stymie Canadian resource development but it will come at a high cost to Canadians, and potentially the environment.” 
Discussing Canada’s national carbon tax:
“[T]he new energy tax will not significantly offset predicted future global warming. Shutting down Canada entirely wouldn’t do that. […] This is a lose-lose proposition.” 
“We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority.” 
“The climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases is considerably lower than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims—so much lower, in fact, that the warming we would expect from doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be quite modest and offer very little risk.” 
“If the president simply acknowledges that humans are probably causing some climate change, that warming will likely continue, and that warming might pose serious challenges for human societies and ecosystems, his epiphany will be a bit late, but at least reasonable. Whether liberal or conservative, thoughtful analysts have recognized this for over a decade now. But if the president’s realization involves some massive scheme of action to enlarge the scope of government interference in energy markets, he may well be taking aim at the goose that lays the golden egg–our economy is fueled by abundant, low-cost energy.” 
“Here’s the problem – carbon dioxide doesn’t contribute to smog and isn’t a health threat. All of this is being done because some people believe carbon dioxide is causing global warming, and that preventing carbon dioxide from entering the air is the only answer. Never mind that there is still an ongoing scientific debate about global warming itself, and that some respected climate scientists believe that methane is a better target, California legislators have locked their sites on carbon dioxide.” 
December 6, 2016
According to the Fraser Institute press release, the report surveyed petroleum industry executives and managers “regarding barriers to investment in oil and gas exploration and production facilities in various jurisdictions around the globe.”
November 22, 2016
Writing at the Fraser Institute’s blog, Kenneth P. Green suggests what he believes Donald Trump’s election could mean for Canada, suggesting that Canada could become less competitive due to more aggressive climate change policy. “Well, for Canada there’s actually a bit to like” Green writes. “For Canada’s governments, perhaps not so much.” 
He describes Trump’s proposed energy policy as “mixed blessings for Canada’s energy sector.” With regards to Canadian climate change policy, Green notes Trump’s pledge to drop the Paris climate change agreement “which means the U.S. will not be ‘following Canada’s lead’ on a national carbon tax or cap-and-trade system.” 
Green suggests that “Canada’s current aggressive climate action plans could well put our environmental policies (and the viability of our energy sector) at odds with our massive neighbour to the south.” He contends that “This could not turn out well for Canada’s competitiveness.” 
October 4, 2016
Kenneth P. Green co-authored an article in the Toronto Sun describing the Ontario Governments suspension of renewable energy as a “step in the right direction” as “ the province’s ‘green dreams’ have resulted in serious consequences for Ontarians and their families.” 
Green’s co-author wasd Taylor Jackson, Senior Policy Analyst at the Fraser Institute’s Center for Natural Resources. 
“A well-developed mining sector can produce great economic and community benefits,” Green begins. “To encourage a robust development of the mining sector, governments must put forth attractive and competitive policies.” 
The Fraser Institute, which has been doing such surveys since 1997, talked to mining company presidents, vice presidents, and managers to capture executive opinion on investment. 
July 5, 2015
According to Green, “while the encyclical might discuss a lot of environmental issues, it doesn’t offer much in the way of factual support.” Making the argument that capitalism has improved environmental protectoin, he continues that “if [Pope Francis] really wants the people of Earth to breathe clean air, drink clean water, protect critical ecosystems, and protect endangered species he could have given them much better advice, including advocating for ever-greater levels of democracy and economic freedom.” 
April 25, 2015
Kenneth Green and Taylor Jackson, both working for The Fraser Institute, wrote an opinion piece for The Vancouver Sun titled “Renewables: All pain, little gain.”
They make the case that renewable energy, including hydroelectric sources, should be avoided because they could lead to higher prices. They cite research by economist Ross McKitrick to support their views. 
The Vancouver Sun published responses to the piece in an article titled “Renewable energy has a bright future.” It included a response by Merran Smith, Executive Director of Clean Energy Canada, who concluded that “Kenneth Green and Taylor Jackson must have turned over more than a few rocks in their effort to argue that renewable energy is driving up electricity prices because a growing mountain of evidence points to the contrary.” 
April 23, 2015
Writing for the “full comment” section of the National Post, Kenneth Green suggests that while Canada will likely miss its Copenhagen emissions targets set in 2009, this might not necessarily be a significant problem. According to Green, “this is less about Canada being an environmental laggard, and more a problem with agreeing to politically derived targets you have no idea how to hit.” 
He goes on to highlight the “good news” in that GDP increase has increased by 71%, making for a “great trend in emissions intensity.” By “letting markets do what they do best,” as opposed to focussing on emissions standards, Green says that emissions will decline on their own due to technological growth. 
According to Green, the IPCC process is “corrupted,” and that mainstream climate scientists have become “activists.” Green comments that since 1979, global temperatures have “no significant trend” and there has been a “pause” in the temperature record. He continues to state arguments commonly used by skeptics including that “the climate has always changed,” that “the [temperature] models, themselves, are wrong.” 
March 30, 2009
Green’s signature is displayed alongside a full-page ad funded by the CATO institute that appeared in numerous newspapers including the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune in 2009. 
The advertisement criticizes President Obama’s declaration that “few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change,” saying that “with all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.” It claims “there has been no net global warming for over a decade,” and that the dangers of global warming are “grossly overstated.” 
December 10th, 2007
Green was a Moderator at a talk hosted by American Enterprise Institute asking the question “Do Fossil Fuels Have a Future?” He was joined by Lee Raymond and James Glassman. 
July 5, 2006
Co-author (with Steven Hayward) of a July 2006 letter sent by AEI to scientists, requesting someone — at a rate of $10,000 for 10,000 words — whose review “thoughtfully explores the limitations of climate model outputs as they pertain to the development of climate policy.”
The author would be part of a “major project to produce a review and policy critique of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report (FAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due for release in the spring of 2007.”
AEI was looking for someone that “thoughtfully explores the limitations of climate model outputs as they pertain to the development of climate policy.”
October 29, 2000
Writing in his role as Director of Environmental Programs for the Reason Public Policy Institute, Green criticized the IPCC in an October 2000 briefing report.
He describes the IPCC‘s Summary for Policy Makers as a “derivative document” which condenses and expresses IPCC findings “in a language suitable for moderately educated readers.”
According to Green, the SPM consists of “speculative scenarios” not reflective of the full reports, and “has not been peer-reviewed. Its author is anonymous, the document is created independent of the actual report, and the summary is so short that issues were overly simplified.” 
- The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) — “Resident Scholar.” 
- Institute for Energy Research (IER) — Former Scholar. 
- The Heartland Institute — “Heartland Expert.” 
- The Reason Foundation — Former “Chief Scientist,” and Director of the Environmental Program. 
- The Fraser Institute — “Senior Director, Center for Natural Resources” (2013- ), “Chief Scientist,” (2002-2005). 
- The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) — Scientific Advisor. 
- Environmental Literacy Council — Executive Director, 2005–2006. 
- @KennethPGreen on Twitter (no longer exists)
Based on a search of major academic journals, Green has not published any peer-reviewed articles on the subject of climate.
Green has authored numerous skeptical policy studies, magazine articles, newspaper columns, and other publications including a textbook for middle school students titled Global Warming: Understanding the Debate.
A list of some of Green’s publications is available at the Reason Foundation.
- “Kenneth P. Green,” Fraser Institute. Accessed September 2, 2015. ”Kenneth P. Green: Resident Scholar,” AEI. Accessed December 15, 2011.
- “Heartland Experts: Kenneth Green,” The Heartland Institute. Accessed December 15, 2011.
- Kenneth Green. “A Plain English Guide to Climate Change,” The Reason Foundation, August 1, 2000.
- “Does the U.S. Have a Realistic Energy Policy?”, AEI, April 27, 2010.
- Kenneth Green. “Stiffing California Motorists,” San Diego Union Tribune, February 5, 2002. Republished by the Reason Foundation.
- “What’s Best–Emission Reduction or Adaptation and Sequestration?“ American Enterprise Institute, September 27, 2006. Archived February 27, 2009.
- “About the Experts,” Climate Chains. Archived Oct 21, 2009.
- “Do Fossil Fuels Have a Future?” American Enterprise Institute. Archived March 9, 2008.
- Kenneth Green. “E-brief 105: Mopping up After a Leak: Setting the Record Straight on the ‘New’ Findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)”, Reason Foundation, October 1, 2000.
- “Climate Change Reality,” The Cato Institute.
- “Policy Study Authors: Kenneth Green,” Reason Foundation. Archived January 17, 2011.
- “Scientific Advisors,” American Council on Science and Health. Accessed December 15, 2011.
- “Global Petroleum Survey 2016,” Fraser Institute, December 6, 2016. Archived December 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/YZDr5
- Taylor Jackson, Kenneth P. Green, and Kyle Sholes. “Global Petroleum Survey 2016,” Fraser Institute, December, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
- “Kenneth Green: Pope wrong to link capitalism to pollution,” The Province, July 5, 2015. Archived August 13, 2015.
- Kenneth P. Green and Taylor Jackson. “Opinion: Renewables: All pain, little gain,” The Vancouver Sun, April 25, 2015. Archived August 13, 2015.
- “Saturday, May 2: Renewable energy has a bright future,” The Vancouver Sun, May 1, 2015. Archived August 13, 2015.
- Kenneth P. Green. “Kenneth P. Green: Canada is prosperous… and relatively green,” National Post, April 23, 2015. Archived August 13, 2015.
- “Video: Skeptical of climate change computer models,” The Vancouver Sun, April 22, 2015.
- “UN Scientists Who Have Turned on UNIPCC Man-Made Climate Fears – A Climate Depot Flashback Report,” Climate Depot, August 21, 2013.
- Kenneth P. Green. “Where is the most attractive for investment?” The AusIMM Bulletin, October 2016. Archived December 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/mEmaA
- Kenneth P. Green and Taylor Jackson. “Heating or eating—a harsh reality for some Ontarians,” Toronto Sun, October 4, 2016. Republished by the Fraser Institute. Archived December 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/dYdZJ
- “Wind and solar power make sense in far-flung places,” Fraser Institute, December 5, 2016. Archived December 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/hP8X9
- Kenneth P. Green. “Trump at two weeks, and what he could mean for Canadian energy,” Fraser Institute, November 22, 2016. Archived December 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/5sGDs
- Kenneth P. Green. “New outlook on oil production likely pushes ‘bite’ of Alberta carbon cap beyond 2040,” Fraser Institute, November 7, 2016. Archived December 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/speSI
- Kenneth P. Green. “Green groups, First Nations sue federal government over proposed B.C. LNG plant,” Fraser Institute, October 27, 2015. Archived December 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/2tbo0
- Kenneth P. Green. “National carbon price will likely raise costs for Canadians, damage overall economy,” Fraser Institute, September 19, 2016. Archived December 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/Dg3RD
- “About IER,” Institute for Energy Research. Archived January 24, 2007. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/ltzLz