Pacific Research Institute

Pacific Research Institute (PRI)


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

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

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

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

Stance on Climate Change


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

August, 2009

“Climate modeling is far from a precise science. The last decade of global temperatures (from about January 1999 onward) reveals little to no warming. This runs contrary to the estimates of most runs of climate models – though similar periods without warming do occur in a small portion of climate model runs, which include a statistically random element to account for typical small-scale variability. While a decade is a relatively small period in climate time-scales, this too points to the need to continue to research climate drivers. 
“We need to continue to discuss appropriate responses to climate change, but it is inappropriate to claim that the science is settled and all the facts are in. Estimates of the costs of climate change are even more uncertain – making it difficult to make reasonable decisions on the basis of these cost projections. The dialogue over climate change policy should continue, with an open acknowledgement that there are still many uncertainties in our understanding.” [27]

November, 1998

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


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

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

Donor Total
Sarah Scaife Foundation $4,472,000
Searle Freedom Trust $2,285,000
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation $1,421,000
Lovett and Ruth Peters Foundation $1,222,500
Donors Capital Fund $1,210,001
William E. Simon Foundation $1,109,250
DonorsTrust $1,061,000
William H. Donner Foundation $1,025,000
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation $905,000
Jaquelin Hume Foundation $823,750
Philip M. McKenna Foundation $764,000
John M. Olin Foundation $735,000
Exxon Mobil $630,000
Walton Family Foundation $580,000
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation $527,000
David H. Koch Charitable Foundation $400,800
PhRMA $370,000
Castle Rock Foundation $350,000
The TWS Foundation $325,000
The Roe Foundation $276,000
Earhart Foundation $252,000
The Randolph Foundation $220,000
Hickory Foundation $219,000
The Weiler Foundation $205,000
Schwab Charitable Fund $195,600
Chase Foundation of Virginia $158,470
Thomas W Smith Foundation $150,000
Holman Foundation $135,188
Charles D and Frances K Field Fund $90,000
Armstrong Foundation $72,500
Barney Family Foundation $70,000
Arthur N. Rupe Foundation $66,000
Charles & Ann Johnson Foundation $65,000
Adolph Coors Foundation $60,000
JM Foundation $55,000
Aequus Institute $50,624
Heartland Institute $50,000
State Policy Network $50,000
The Shelby Cullom Davis Foundation $40,000
John William Pope Foundation $40,000
Pierre F and Enid Goodrich Foundation $40,000
Diana Davis Spencer Foundation $30,000
National Christian Charitable Foundation $22,500
Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice $21,000
Heritage Foundation $10,000
PG Beil Foundation $5,000
Richard Seth Staley Educational Foundation $1,000
Grand Total $22,866,183

Donors Trust & Donors Capital Fund Funding

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

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

Koch Funding

Greenpeace USA reports The Pacific Research Institute received $1,452,000 in donations from Koch foundations between 1997 and 2015. [3]

*Original tax forms prior to 1997 are no longer available for verification. If you include these values, the grand total jumps to $1,767,800 in Koch funding from 1986 to 2015[3]

Year Charles Koch Foundation Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation David H. Koch Charitable Foundation Grand Total
*1986 $25,800 $25,800
*1987 $5,000 $25,000 $30,000
*1988 $10,000 $25,000 $35,000
*1989 $25,000 $25,000
*1991 $25,000 $25,000
*1992 $25,000 $25,000
*1995 $50,000 $50,000 $100,000
*1996 $50,000 $50,000
1997 $25,000 $50,000 $75,000
1998 $60,000 $60,000
1999 $50,000 $50,000
2000 $70,000 $50,000 $120,000
2001 $125,000 $50,000 $175,000
2002 $80,000 $80,000
2003 $90,000 $90,000
2004 $90,000 $90,000
2005 $90,000 $90,000
2006 $90,000 $90,000
2007 $90,000 $90,000
2008 $90,000 $90,000
2009 $100,000 $100,000
2011 $2,000 $100,000 $102,000
2012 $50,000 $50,000
2013 $50,000 $50,000
2015 $50,000 $50,000
Grand Total $462,000 $905,000 $400,800 $1,767,800

ExxonMobil Funding

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

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

Other Funding

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

And the following foundations:

990 Tax Forms

Key People

Board of Directors

Name 2012[19] 2016[17] Title
Christopher Cox Y Y Partner, Morgan Lewis Consulting
Christopher Wright Y Y President & CEO, Liberty Resources, LLC
Clark S. Judge Y Y Chairman; Managing Director, White House Writers Group
Daniel M. Kolkey Y Y Partner, Gibson Dunn
Daniel Oliver Y Y Chairman Emeritus; Senior Advisor, White House Writers Group
David H. Keyston Y Y Chairman Emeritus
Frank Baxter Y Y Chairman Emeritus; Jefferies Group Inc.
George M. Savage Y Chief Medical Officer, Proteus Biomedical, Inc.
James T. Farrell Y Managing Director, Calera Capital, LLC
Jean R. Wente Y Wente Vineyards
Katherine H. Alden Y Y Owner, Woodside Hotels & Resorts
Larry C. Boyd Y Executive Vice President, Secretary & General Counsel, Ingram Micro Inc.
Lisa Guillermin Gable Y Y Chairman Emeritus
Nersi Nazari Y Vice Chairman; Founder & President, Pacific General Ventures
Peter C. Farrell Y Y President and CEO, ResMed
Richard A. Wallace Y Y Consultant, Freedom Communications
Robert J. Ernst, III Y Attorney at Law
Russell A. Johnson Y Partner, KPLI Ventures
Sally C. Pipes Y Y President & CEO, Pacific Research Institute
Samuel H. Husbands, Jr. Y Emeritus Board Member; Husbands Capital Markets
Sandra E. Gale Y
Sandra Gale McGuire Y Partner, McGuire & Associates, LLC
Sean M. McAvoy Y Cofounder and Managing Member, Hillair Capital Management
Ted Ullyot Y
Thomas C. Magowan Y Y President, Club Minibar, Inc.


Name 2012[4] 2016[16] Title
Barbara Hetherington Y Administration
Ben Smithwick Y Director of Development
Chrissie Fong Y Past Database Manager & Development Associate
Christine Hughes Y Past Vice President.
Cindy Chin Y Past Events Manager.
Dana Beigel Y Art Director
John Seiler Y Past Managing Editor, CalWatchdog.
Katy Grimes Y Past News Reporter, CalWatchdog.
Lance T. Izumi Y Y Koret Senior Fellow in Education Studies; Senior Director, Education Studies
Laura Dannerbeck Y Director of Events and Marketing
Rowena Itchon Y Y Senior Vice President
Sally C. Pipes Y Y President and CEO, Thomas W. Smith Fellow in Health Care Policy
Stephanie Watson Y Development and Events Coordinator
Tonya Treble Y Director of Major Gifts


Name 2012[15] 2016[18] Title
Amy Kaleita Y Y Senior Fellow, Environmental Studies
Benjamin Zycher Y Y Senior Fellow, Economic Studies
Beth Haynes Y Executive Director, Benjamin Rush Institute
Brian Calle Y Past Senior Fellow.
Erik S. Jaffe Y Scholar
Hadley Arkes Y Past Fellow, Legal Studies.
James M. Strock Y Past Adjunct Fellow, Business and Economic Studies.
Jeffrey H. Anderson Y Y Senior Fellow, Health Care Studies
John E. Stone Y Y Fellow, Education Studies
John J. Pitney, Jr. Y Past Fellow, Economic Studies.
John R. Graham Y PRI Fellow
Kenneth P. Green Y Scholar, Environmental Studies
Lawrence J. Siskind Y Y Adjunct Fellow, Legal Studies
Marc A. Miles Y Fellow
Mark Schiller Y Past Senior Fellow, Healthcare Studies.
Mark W. Davis Y Y Adjunct Fellow
Philip J. Romero Y Past Fellow, Business and Economic, Healthcare, and Education Studies. Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution.
Robert Cristiano Y Past Senior Fellow, Business & Economics.
Robert P. Murphy Y Senior Fellow, Business and Economic Studies
Steven F. Hayward Y Y Senior Fellow
Steven Greenhut Y Past Senior Fellow, Contributing Editor.
Terry Anderson Y Past Fellow, Environmental Studies and Business and Economic Studies. Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution and Executive Director, PERC.
W. Lee Hoskins Y Y Senior Fellow
Wayne Winegarden Y Y Senior Fellow, Business and Economics
William H. (Chip) Mellor III Y Past Fellow, Legal Studies. Institute for Justice.


May 9, 2019

The Pacific Research Institute, represented by Wayne Winegarden, signed on to an open letter organized by the American Energy Alliance designed to fight against an electric vehicle tax credit. [45]

The American Energy Alliance has organized a coalition to proclaim in one unified voice that there should be no expansion of the misguided electric vehicle tax credit,” Thomas Pyle wrote in a statement, quoted at The Daily Caller. There is no question that the electric vehicle tax credit distorts the auto market to no gain.” [46]

According to Pyle and others who signed the letter, electric vehicle tax credits “overwhelmingly benefit the rich.” DeSmog's Koch vs. Clean project has systematically debunked this, among other well-rehearsed talking points and misinformation put forward by industry about electric vehicles. [46]

The letter cites research by the Pacific Research Institute (PRI), a group that has received over $600,000 from ExxonMobil and millions from “dark money” groups DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund

December 5, 2018

The Pacific Research Institute issued a report claiming to prove that government policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions negatively impact working class and minority communities the most while failing to reduce emissions. [42]

Drawing a correlation between electricity prices and poverty statistics in New York and California, the report concludes that government regulation of the energy sector that incentivizes the adoption of renewables fails to address the stated goals of climate change mitigation and hurts the most vulnerable. [42]

The report’s author, PRI Senior Fellow Wayne Winegarden, summed up his findings:

These big government policies haven’t been shown to be more effective in reducing emissions. Ohio and West Virginia show that you don’t have to impose new taxes, create big government programs, or increase energy burdens to cut emissions. Policymakers in Sacramento and Albany should learn from these states and embrace market-based policies.” [42]

February 23, 2018

PRI released a report by Wayne Winegarden describing federal and state tax credits, loans, and manufacturer subsidies to incent the purchase of electric vehicles as anti-competitive and not beneficial to the average consumer or the environment. The report claimed that “over 99 percent of the total tax credits went to households with an AGI above $50,000”: [43]

Consequently, the subsidization of EVs has some reverse Robin Hood impacts where tax dollars are taken from all households (including lower-income households) and given to wealthier households.” [43]

A new report by the International Council for Clean Transportation, however, revealed that the cost of owning and operating electric vehicles in five European countries has dropped below that of their petroleum-fueled counterparts, partly due to the fact that electricity is, in many cases, more affordable than gas and diesel. [44]

The report also noted the environmental and health benefits of the transition to electric vehicles, where 500,000 early deaths are attributed to air pollution every year in the EU[44]

An ICCT representative also noted that EV subsidies and incentives would eventually become unnecessary: [44]

financial incentives for electric cars would not be needed when purchase prices fall to that of fossil-fuel powered cars, which is likely between 2025 and 2030.” [44]

November 1, 2016

The Pacific Research Institute published a new report criticizing President Obama's Clean Power Plan. PRI's report was promoted by The Heartland Institute, which summarized the report as follows: “Under President Obama's Clean Power Plan, the poorest households could see their electricity costs rise by more than 10 percent of their income.” [40]

Wayne Winegarden, report author and PRI Senior Fellow, writes:

Poor communities will be hit hard by the Clean Power Plan.  Working-class neighborhoods across the nation could see rising power costs if the Obama Administration’s plan is implemented. I hope that America’s next President will review our findings very carefully when charting our country’s energy future, and pursue free-market policies that will alleviate the problem of energy poverty.” 

View the full report here (.pdf)[41]

July 12, 2016

The Pacific Research Institute, represented by Sally Pipes, 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. [36]

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. [39]

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.” [37]

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.” [38]

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

May 12, 2016

The Pacific Research Institute released an anti-regulation study by senior fellow Wayne Winegarden titled “Regulating the Upstream Energy Industry: Getting the Balance Right.” [34]

“The energy industry is crucial to the American economy,” said Wayne Winegarden, Ph.D., PRI Senior Fellow and the author of the study. “Unfortunately, many states are crippling energy production – and the economic benefits it brings – with heavy-handed regulations.” [34]

The full study (PDF) describes the ban on fracking in New York as “unnecessary,” and suggests that more “sensible regulations” are those that “[embrace] modern drilling techniques.” [35]

April 22, 2016

Wayne Winegarden, senior fellow at PRI, writes at Forbes that “Oil and natural gas regulations on federal lands, and many state lands, are excessive.” [33]

Winegarden refers to a forthcoming Pacific Research Institute report which he claims “documents the consistency of these negative impacts across areas with overly-burdensome regulations on oil and natural gas production.” [33]

“When regulatory authorities impose overly-burdensome costs, or unnecessarily ban modern drilling techniques [like fracking], the economic contribution from the upstream energy industry is diminished. The costs from diminished economic growth are many and, ironically, can include worst environmental stewardship. The lesson for policy is clear: It is imperative that regulators get the balance right,” he writes. [33]

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

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

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

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


Episode 3: “Why hasn't the chihuahua gone extinct?” — May 19, 2015 [21]

Episode 2: Hysteria’s History: “Why Haven'’t We Run Out of Oil? — December 3, 2014 [22]

Episode 1: Hysteria’s History: “Why Haven’t We Starved to Death?” — September 10, 2014 
PRI Description: [23]
“Hysteria’s History: Why Haven’t We Starved to Death?,” is the first in a four-part series aimed at exposing young people to the historical progression of environmental alarmism that has often resulted in poor and contradictory policy proposals. This new web-based series is part of PRI’s effort to inject facts and reason into the debates over climate change, water quality, and other environmental policy issues. PRI hopes that this new web series will be used by teachers, professors, and student groups on college campuses to show how the problems facing the environment need real solutions based on science. [23]
Episode I highlights the dire and overconfident warnings from prominent scholars about food shortages and the misguided policy proposals that followed.  All of the videos in PRI’s “Hysteria’s History” web series are presented in a visually compelling and easy-to-understand format and feature commentary from a variety of public policy scholars including Dr. Steven Hayward, a senior fellow at PRI; Gregory Conko, a senior fellow and the Director of Food Safety Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute; and Nicholas Eberstadt, Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute.”[23]

December, 2014

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

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

April 20, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

August 3 - 6, 2011

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

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

November, 2009

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

Some supposed “myths” listed by Tanton include that “Offshore oil production poses environmental risks,” that “Renewable energies will soon replace most conventional energy sources,” and that “Forcing drivers to use alternative fuels will help solve global warming.” [26]
“Energy policy must be based on facts, not myths,” said Tanton. “If based on myths, energy policy could easily curtail our energy supply, drive up prices, and even increase pollution, all without an increase in energy security.” [26]

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

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

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

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

View the reports below:

April 16, 2007

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

February 4, 2001

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

June 25, 1998

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

February 1987

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

Pacific Research Institute Contact & Location

As of June 2016, the Pacific Research Institute listed the following contact information on its website: [32]

San Francisco Headquarters
101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1300
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel 415-989-0833 / Fax 415-989-2411

Sacramento Office
1107 9th Street, Suite 710
Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel 415-989-0833 / Fax 415-989-2411

Development and Gifts
Tonya Barr Treble
Director of Major Gifts
[email protected] 
(415) 955-6103

Public Affairs and Events
Laura Dannerbeck
Director of Events and Marketing
[email protected]
Tel 415-955-6110
Fax 415-989-2411

Research and Operations
Rowena Itchon
Senior Vice President
[email protected]
Tel 415-955-6123
Fax 415-989-2411

Related Organizations


  1. Mission Statement,” Pacific Research Institute. Archived March 23, 2016. URL

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

  3. Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy (PRIPP),” Greenpeace. Archived March 13, 2017. URL:

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

  5. Index of Leading Environmental Indicators: 2009 Report,” Pacific Research Institute, April 16, 2009.January 15, 2012. URL

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

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

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

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

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

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

  12. Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy,” Conservative Transparency. Data retrieved June 8, 2016. URL

  13. Pacific Research Institute,” SourceWatch. URL

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

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

  16. Staff,” Pacific Research Institute. Archived March 23, 2016. URL

  17. Board of Directors,” Pacific Research Institute. Archived March 23, 2016. URL

  18. Scholars,” Pacific Research Institute. Archived March 23, 2016. URL

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

  20. HYSTERIA'S HISTORY PART IV,” Pacific Research Institute, July 15, 2015. Archived March 23, 2016. URL

  21. Why hasn't the chihuahua gone extinct?” Pacific Research Institute, May 19, 2015. Archived March 23, 2016. URL

  22. Episode 2: Hysteria’s History: Why Haven'’t We Run Out of Oil?” Pacific Research Institute, December 3, 2014. Archived March 23, 2016. URL

  23. Episode 1: Hysteria’s History: Why Haven’t We Starved to Death?” Pacific Research Institute, September 10, 2014. Archived March 23, 2016. URL

  24. Dana Joel Gattuso. “The Chilling Effects of the Kyoto Protocol,” Pacific Research Institute, November 20, 1998. Archived March 24, 2016. URL

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

  26. Thomas Tanton. “TOP TEN ENERGY MYTHS,” Pacific Research Institute, November 3, 2009. Archived March 24, 2016. URL

  27. Amy Kaleita. “CLIMATE MODELING IS FAR FROM A PRECISE SCIENCE,” Pacific Research Institute, August 18, 2009. URL

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

  29. Steven F. Hayward. “PRI RELEASES NEW 2011 ALMANAC OF ENVIRONMENTAL TRENDS,” Pacific Research Institute, April 20, 2011. Archived March 24, 2016. URL

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

  31. Stephen F. Hayward,” Pacific Research Institute. Archived April 1, 2016. URL​​​​​​​

  32. Contact Information,” Pacific Research Institute. Archived June 8, 2016. URL​​​​​​​

  33. Wayne Winegarden. “Getting The Energy Regulatory Balance Right,” Forbes, April 22, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.

  34. Wayne Winegarden. ”Regulating the upstream energy industry: Getting the balance right,” Pacific Research Institute, May 12, 2016. Archived June 24, 2016. URL​​​​​​​

  35. Wayne Winegarden. “Regulating the upstream energy industry: Getting the balance right” (PDF), Pacific Research Institute, May, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.

  36. Jim Lakely. “#WebOfDenial Push by Senate Dems Exposes Their Hatred of Free Speech,” Somewhat Reasonable (Heartland Institute Blog), July 12, 2016. Archived July 14, 2016. URL

  37. Brendan Demelle. “Senators Launch Resolution, Speech Blitz Calling Out #WebOfDenial Blocking Climate Action, DeSmog, July 11, 2016.

  38. Coalition Letter to Senate Web of Denial Resolution (PDF). Retrieved from the Heartland Institute. Archived .pdf on file at DeSMogBlog.

  39. 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.

  40. The Clean Power Plan's Economic Impact by Income Group and Local Area,” Heartland Institute, November 1, 2016. Archived November 3, 2016. URL

  41. The Clean Power Plan’s Economic Impact by Income Group and Local Area” (PDF), Pacific Research Institute. Retrieved from Archived .pdf on file at Desmog.

  42. Wayne Winegarden. “New Study Shows California/New York Approach to Fighting Global Warming Hurts Working Class and Minority Communities,” Pacific Research Institute, December 5, 2018. Archived December 12, 2018. URL: Archived .pdf of the report on file at DeSmog.

  43. Wayne Winegarden. “Costly Subsidies for the Rich: Quantifying the Subsidies Offered to Battery Electric Powered Cars,” Pacific Research Institute, February 23, 2018. Archived February 11, 2019. URL: Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

  44. Damian Carrington. “Electric cars are already cheaper to own and run, says study,” The Guardian, February 12, 2019. Archived February 12, 2019. URL:

  45. Dear Senator Grassley, Senator Wyden, Representative Neal and Representative Brady:” May 9, 2019. Retrieved from The Daily Caller.


Other Resources