The Energy Foundation’s Rubbish Research

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on August 6, 2009

What a global warming alarmist beast the Energy Foundation is. For example, according to its 333-page (thanks to hundreds of grant awards to a seemingly infinite dependency class of environmentalist nonprofits) tax return for 2007 (the most recent available on Guidestar), EF has a bottomless well of funds to draw from: $68,907,029 in revenues (including $1.36 million in investment income); $53,600,903 in expenses — heck, they’re so rich, they even gave the Rockefellers money. Take that, big oil!

So how does EF get its money? They ‘splain:

Current Energy Foundation partners are: Cinco Hermanos, ClimateWorks Foundation, The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, The Grousbeck Family Foundation, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The Kresge Foundation, The McKnight Foundation, The Mertz Gilmore Foundation, The Cynthia & George Mitchell Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, The Pisces Foundation, The Schmidt Family Foundation, The Simons Foundation, The Sea Change Foundation, and The TOSA Foundation.

The top four givers to EF for 2007 were the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation ($21,485,800), the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation ($20,727,743), the David and Lucile Packard Foundation ($7,050,000), and The TOSA Foundation ($4,250,000). Consider that when you make your next computer printer purchase.

While it’s usually somewhat easy to find out whose money is going where, it’s less so when you try to find out how they conduct their business. However, a document (Microsoft Word) I obtained that originated with EF’s climate program officer David Tuft offers some insight into their hiring approach, what they look for, and what they want them to do. The source who provided it to me said this document, a job description for an EF consultant in Virginia, was being shopped around to moderate or Republican-leaning consultants:

Specifically, we are looking for someone who has a deep understanding of the political landscape in Virginia, has an understanding of energy and climate issues, and can assist in developing an Energy Foundation funding plan for educating key decisionmakers.

“Educating” seems innocent enough; an EF propaganda campaign does not.

A strategic plan would identify levers for advancing the dialogue around climate policy including: issues specific to the state or district, economic and other analyses to help build the case; messengers and compelling messengers; economic and other stakeholders who would be influential (i.e. major industries, renewable energy enterprises, agriculture, forestry, electric coops, national security experts and the faith community).  After devising a plan, the consultant would recommend a plan for implementation.


For example, the strategy might include the need to fund a specific jobs study to be performed by a UVA economist that shows how a federal carbon cap would create jobs or the need to build a coalition of businesses around the state that would support a federal carbon cap and identify who has the ability to bring these people together.

What a shock — part of the job is to track down accredited-but-pliable researchers to provide the results EF wants so as to advance their agenda. Therefore any research or recommendations they have paid for — from the Western Climate Initiative, to the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Accord, to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, to anything else they fund — should be viewed for the garbage that it is and thrown in the trashcan.

Bob R Geologist, Tuc August 7, 2009 at 11:17 am

I was not surprised to learn from the Competitive Enterprise Institute recently that after 20 years and and a total expenditure of $30 billion for climate research plus $50 billion in related expenses, by our Government, that "no one is able to point to a single piece of empirical evidence that man-made CO2 has a significant effect on the global climate." Isn't it high time that our 30,000+ concerned US scientists get a hearing and stop this waste of taxpayer's money? Not to mention, stop Obama and company's

cap and trade destruction of our economy over a non-problem. And, isn't it time to rein in the host of culprits behind this Machiavelian scheme?

Dan Engling August 31, 2009 at 12:49 pm

I wholly agree with the points and claims made in this article. However I would like to add, for clarification, that the Hewlett-Packard Company is financially independant of the William and Flora Hewlett foundation, though they share the same founder. This clarification is just in response to the comment above "Consider that when you make your next computer printer purchase."

I bring this up only for the potential computer purchaser to consider.

Thanks Paul Chesser for this article.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: