webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Pacific Research 2

careful b/c several have sim names:

new tag 4/14

there is no 1?

45 red/grn link 3/14

===

booktv BS

---

JUNE 29, 2021

The War on Small Business

Former investment banker Carol Rothargued that government bureaucrats used the COVID*19 pandemic to crush small businesses and make Wall Street richer. This virtual event was hosted by the Pacific Research Institute in Pasadena, California.

---

west va

https://www.register-herald.com/news/some-cities-states-say-big-oil-should-pay-for-climate-damage

in the waning days of 2021, a grass fire broke out in Boulder County, Colorado. Fueled by extreme drought and high winds, the fire swept through the communities of Superior and Louisville. Within hours, it had destroyed more than a thousand structures — making the Marshall fire the most destructive in the state’s history. The December fire was an extraordinary event, but perhaps a preview of the new normal under the conditions caused by climate change.

Late last month, another fire forced the evacuation of 18,000 residents in and around Boulder. Fortunate winds saved the city from catastrophic damage, but the near-miss — and the timing well outside of the region’s traditional fire season — was a warning sign of what’s to come. “We've already experienced impacts (from climate change), but nowhere near the amount that we're likely to experience in the coming decades,” said Aaron Brockett, Boulder’s mayor. “We have a lot of work to do to make our community more resilient.” Boulder leaders are working to reduce fuel loads in the forests and open spaces owned by the city. They’re seeking to make the neighborhoods bordering those lands more fire resilient. They’re hoping to upgrade fire stations and equipment. And they’re planning projects to reduce flood risk from the severe storms that climate change is likely to bring. That work will cost tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars. And local leaders think oil companies should pay for it. In February, the city and county of Boulder, along with San Miguel County in western Colorado, scored a significant win in their legal fight against Exxon Mobil and Suncor energy companies when a federal appeals court ruled that the case would remain in state court. Local governments earned another win last week when a different federal appeals court ruled that Baltimore’s case against oil companies also belonged in state court.

The decisions were the first under new U.S. Supreme Court guidelines, established last May as part of Baltimore’s climate lawsuit, directing appeals courts to take a more expansive look at oil companies’ arguments that the cases belong in federal court. The rulings have been closely watched by the nearly two dozen states, cities and counties that have filed lawsuits likewise seeking payment from fossil fuel companies for the damages caused by climate change. Oil companies, with the backing of some other states, have fought to move the cases to federal court, where they think national regulations around drilling, refining, emissions and air quality would invalidate the legal claims against them. The local governments that have sued say their cases rest on Big Oil’s deception about the harm its products would cause, giving them a foothold under state law to seek damages.

The jurisdictional battle, which more federal appeals courts are likely to rule on this year, will have massive implications for whether the climate lawsuits proceed to local jury trials. If they do, it would set up a high-stakes showdown over the still uncertain territory of legal accountability for climate change — with billions of dollars on the line. Several states and industry groups have weighed in to support the oil companies, arguing that rulings against them could devastate the industry and make energy more expensive. “If it’s in federal court, (the oil companies) win,” said Hannah Wiseman, a professor of law at Penn State University’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences. “These cities are wise to the precedent, and they’ve made clear they’re raising issues of state tort law and not arguing for federal climate policy. They're doing a good job of that, and it’s hard to predict how the courts will ultimately come out.”

The governments suing the oil industry come from regions facing sea level rise, wildfires, drought, flooding and severe weather. They cite extensive news reporting — including investigations from the Los Angeles Times, Inside Climate News and The Guardian — that shows oil companies understood the dangers of climate change decades ago but led campaigns to undermine the scientific consensus that their products were contributing to a growing crisis. “By the ‘70s, (oil companies) knew that a lack of action on moving away from fossil fuels would cause dramatic changes to the climate,” Brockett said. “Meanwhile, the burden for repairing the damage falls on local communities, and we don't have the financial wherewithal to bear that burden.” Backers of the lawsuits compare them to landmark cases against tobacco and opioid manufacturers, which resulted in multibillion-dollar settlements over the public health crises fueled by their products and business practices.

“They're just saying, ‘You violated state law, because you deceived us about what you knew about your products in order to sell more of them,’” said Bob Percival, director of the University of Maryland’s environmental law program. “The oil companies are desperate to avoid a public trial that would focus attention on what they knew, when they knew it and how they tried to deceive the public.” The cases mark an unprecedented attempt to assert legal accountability for climate change, a crisis with worldwide causes and consequences.

“The fact that it's a global phenomenon is obviously the thing that distinguishes these tort actions from any case we've seen before,” said Pat Parenteau, a professor of environmental law at Vermont Law School, who also serves in an informal advisory group that supports some of the governments’ cases. The oil companies named in the cases argue that federal energy and pollution policies should preempt state claims. Exxon Mobil and Suncor have contended in court filings in the Colorado lawsuit that they followed federal regulations on drilling, refining and distributing fossil fuels.

The companies also assert that the lawsuits are backdoor attempts to establish climate policy through the courts, since Congress has failed to take meaningful action. "On jurisdictional matters, climate change is a national issue that requires a federal solution, not a patchwork of various state-based rulings," saidWilliam Allison, spokesperson for Energy In Depth, a research and public outreach project of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, a trade group.

Major companies facing the lawsuits — BP, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Suncor, the American Petroleum Institute,Koch Industries and Shell — did not respond to Stateline’s requests for comment. Supporters of the lawsuits say the cases aren’t about enforcing or enacting policies to reduce carbon emissions, but rather about seeking accountability for what they say are decades of dishonesty that contributed to political inaction on climate change. Many of the cases have been through years of legal wrangling, and the current battle centers on whether they should be heard in state or federal court. Those backing the lawsuits say local juries should hear the cases. “These cases, which are fundamentally about local injuries to communities, should be heard in state court,” said Marco Simons, general counsel with EarthRights International, which is representing the Colorado communities. “Our cases are not about stopping climate change writ large or broader policy issues. They're about paying for damages suffered by these communities.” But some states have weighed in to argue that the cases belong in federal court. For example, Indiana has filed multiple amicus briefs in favor of oil companies, including a recent filing with 13 states in the case brought by Baltimore.

“These claims are displaced by the existing federal regulatory scheme, which tells us the limits in advance on extraction, refinement and use of fossil fuels,” Tom Fisher, Indiana’s solicitor general, said in an interview. “If a court in California decides that Exxon and Chevron are responsible under public nuisance theory for causing global climate change and that requires an injunction to limit their output, that's obviously going to affect Indiana and other states.” Some business groups, including the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, an arm of the National Association of Manufacturers that fights climate litigation, also have urged federal courts to take jurisdiction. “(C)limate policy is federal and regulatory in nature — not one that can be decided by state courts,” Phil Goldberg, the project’s special counsel, wrote in an email to Stateline. The National League of Cities, which advocates for municipal governments, takes a different view. “This is really about federalism principles and where cases should be heard if there's a local harm,” said Carolyn Berndt, the group’s legislative director for sustainability.

“The local harm in this case happens to be climate change, and the right court for this is state court.” Although federal judges mostly have ruled that the cases belong in state court, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last May forced federal appeals courts to reevaluate those decisions because they hadn’t considered all the energy companies’ arguments. This February, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the case filed by the Colorado municipalities would remain in state court, the first decision under the new Supreme Court guidelines. Last week, the 4th Circuit ruled that Baltimore’s case against oil companies also belonged in state court. Several other circuit courts have yet to rule under the new guidelines.

“This is an important year,” said Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, a nonprofit that supports communities that are taking on oil companies. “If these cases end up in state court, that’s a really good sign. If one of the circuits goes (the oil companies’) way, that could create grounds for an appeal to the Supreme Court.” While several federal appeals court decisions await, some cases are moving ahead. Last month, a Hawaii Circuit Court judge ruled that a lawsuit filed by Honolulu could proceed to trial even as the jurisdictional issues are still being settled. The case could be the first to reach the discovery phase, an outcome advocates say energy companies have fought tooth-and-nail to avoid. “They absolutely do not want it to get that far,” said Tommy Waters, chair of the Honolulu City Council.

“What are they hiding?” Waters said Honolulu is facing billions in damages from sea level rise alone, and it also requires expensive upgrades to its stormwater infrastructure to handle extreme precipitation. “Our roads are falling into the ocean, homes are falling into the ocean, our beaches are disappearing,” he said. “We simply can’t afford it.” Another case, filed by the state of Massachusetts against Exxon Mobil, also is moving toward discovery. That lawsuit, like most of the cases brought by state attorneys general, focuses on consumer fraud violations. Such lawsuits seek civil penalties, rather than restitution for the costs of climate mitigation. If the local governments prove their cases against the oil companies, the implications would be massive. Courts may have to determine the extent to which a given company is responsible for the climate damages in a particular region. “Science has made great strides in being able to attribute what percentage of temperature rise and what impacts are associated with a particular company's emissions,” said Percival, the University of Maryland professor. “There are now some really distinguished experts who can testify about how to apportion the harm.”

And if some cities and counties are successful, advocates expect a deluge of others to file suits. “If these cases are ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, then every city in the country could follow suit,” said Wiles of the Center for Climate Integrity. “There isn't a city budget out there that couldn't use help from the oil companies for their climate-driven adaptation costs.” Backers of the lawsuits acknowledge that the costs of dealing with climate change nationwide are far more than the oil companies could bear. “If these cases all go to their logical extreme, [the oil companies] all go bankrupt,” said Parenteau, the Vermont Law School professor. “They should.” Others argue that outcome is why the cases should be dropped. “We choose to use energy, which is mostly fossil fuel, because it makes our lives better,” said Wayne Winegarden, a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute, a California-based think tank that advocates for free market principles and is supported in part by oil industry-affiliated groups. “Imagine they win $100 billion in one of the suits. That becomes a per-barrel tax that gets passed on to consumers.”

2022 The Pew Charitable Trusts. Visit at stateline.org. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LL

american health care system costs four times more than Canada’s single-payer system

Igor Derysh / Salon

The cost of administering health care in the United States costs four times as much as it does in Canada, which has had a single-payer system for nearly 60 years,…

==

pacific Research Institute president Sally Pipes made the argument against Medicare for all. She was interviewed by Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA).

https://www.c-span.org/video/?468191-1/after-words-sally-pipes

booktv canadian trash faser inst 220

true UK bot #5 on 5 yr cancer, but all counties improving in all acts (but do US stats include ppl who don't have health care? UK has better stats?)

she does not mention cda?

Sep 11, 2019 - In the latter two cancers, the UK had the lowest survival rates over five years, at 62.1% and 7.9%. The UK was also last in lung cancer (14.7%), in which Canada did best (21.7%), and stomach cancer (20.8%). Ovarian cancer survival was highest in Norway (46.2%) and lowest in Ireland (36%).

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-49661516

==

koch Industries is calling for the elimination of tax credits for electric vehicles (EVs), all while claiming that it does not oppose plug-in cars and inviting the elimination of oil and gas subsidies that the petroleum conglomerate and its industry peers receive.

READ MORE

Koch Industries is calling for the elimination of tax credits for electric vehicles (EVs), all while claiming that it does not oppose plug-in cars and inviting the elimination of oil and gas subsidies that the petroleum conglomerate and its industry peers receive.

Outgoing Nevada Republican Senator Dean Heller introduced a bill in September that would lift the sales cap on electric vehicles eligible for a federal tax credit, and replace the cap with a deadline that would dictate when the credit would start being phased out.

Under the current tax credit for EVs, once a manufacturer sells 200,000 EVs in the U.S. the amount of the credit gets slashed in half, then halved again. The full credit amount is $7,500. Tesla has already hit the 200,000 cap and GM will soon reach it, so both companies would benefit from a tax credit extension via eliminating the sales cap. Heller’s bill lifts the 200,000 vehicle limit and substitutes a phase-out period starting in 2022.

But the conservative senator’s bill is facing opposition from the conservative billionaire Koch brothers.

In a letter to senators dated October 24, Koch Industries lobbyist Philip Ellender urges opposition to the expansion of EV tax credits through 2022. Ellender claims that the tax credits primarily benefit wealthy consumers and that subsidization interferes with “innovation and consumer choice.”

The letter cites two studies, each by a right-wing think tank. One study comes from the Pacific Research Institute, which has received fossil fuel funding – including over $1.7 million from Koch-related foundations and $615,000 from ExxonMobil. The PRI study, titled “Costly Subsidies for the Rich: Quantifying the Subsidies Offered to Battery Electric Powered Cars,” emphasizes that “the majority of the dollar benefits from energy and electric car subsidies are paid to tax filers in the higher income tax brackets.”

The other study is from the Manhattan Institute, another “free market think tank” that takes in money from the Koch network and Exxon. The study paints a misleading picture of EVs and their subsidies.

In addition to citing biased studies by groups tied to Koch money, Ellender claims in the letter that “We do not oppose electric vehicles.”

This sentiment echoes the company's 2016 advertorial, in which Koch Industries claimed to be “all for electric vehicles.”

Ellender also claims that Koch Industries is against any and all energy subsidies, even ones that benefit the company. According to the letter:

Instead of expanding this subsidy for wealthy EV owners, Congress should eliminate it along with all other energy incentives – including eliminating any incentives given to us and our competitors where we may participate. We are focused on long-term value creation, not short-term windfalls.

In reality, while Koch Industries is claiming publicly to support ending fossil fuel subsidies (along with EV and clean energy incentives), Koch lobbyists have long worked to ensure that the petroleum industry continues to get subsidized.

As Koch vs. Clean previously pointed out, “In a detailed 2011 report on Koch Industries, the Center for Public Integrity wrote: ‘Oil is the core of the Koch business empire, and the company’s lobbyists and officials have successfully fought to preserve the industry’s tax breaks and credits.’ The report documented that Koch lobbyists have worked to preserve billions of dollars in oil industry subsidies, including the Section 199 manufacturing tax deduction and the ‘last-in, first out’ accounting rule.”

In fact, according to the International Business Times, Koch Industries has itself directly secured subsidies totaling more than $195 million.

The Koch network also lobbied for the Trump tax cuts that became law late last year. The corporate tax cut is not specific to energy, but it benefits giant corporations including Big Oil and Koch Industries nonetheless. Americans for Tax Fairness estimated that theKochs would save over $1 billion just this year from the tax cut—a significant windfall for a corporate behemoth that claims, “We are focused on long-term value creation, not short-term windfalls.”

==

==

https://www.c-span.org/video/?439239-1/the-corrupt-classroom

jANUARY 9, 2018

The Corrupt Classroom

Pacific Research Institute fellow Lance Izumi argues that parents should have the right to opt out of the public school system.

===

ExxonMobil's Funding of Climate Science Denial | DeSmogBlog

www.desmogblog.com/exxonmobil-funding-climate-science-denial

DeSmogBlog

American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research, $1,779,523. Frontiers of Freedom ... Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, $680,000.

Robert C. Balling Jr. | DeSmogBlog

www.desmogblog.com/robert-c-balling-jr

DeSmogBlog

Balling acknowledged that he has received $408,000 in research funding from ... Balling attended a conference hosted by the Pacific Research Institute (PRI) ...

Steven F. Hayward | DeSmogBlog

www.desmogblog.com/steven-f-hayward

DeSmogBlog

Hayward is associated with numerous conservative think tanks including the Pacific Research Institute (PRI) where he is a senior fellow in environmental studies ...

Tom Tanton | DeSmogBlog

www.desmogblog.com/tom-tanton

DeSmogBlog

DeSmogBlog researched the funding, and found sponsor organizations had ... Published “Top Ten Energy Myths” (PDF) with the Pacific Research Institute.

==

http://www.desmogblog.com/pacific-research-institute

Background

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 missionto “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'ssenior 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

2011

“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]

Funding

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 theConservative 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]

big list of $

...

==

fda character assass, sci suppression:

Avandia controversy

Following Dr. Steven Nissen's publication of a study warning that "GlaxoSmithKline's diabetes drug Avandia increased the risk of heart attacks by 43% and death from cardiovascular events by possibly 64%," he was publicly pilloried. "More than one story from ostensibly different sources" derisively referred to him as "St Steven," the "Patron Saint of Drug Safety," and "Saint Steven the Pure," reported Evelyn Pringle in an August of 2007 CounterPunch article.[14]

Among the Nissen attackers was Food and Drug Administration (FDA) spokesman Douglas Arbesfeld. Arbesfeld previously worked for the public relations firm Manning Selvage & Lee (MS&L), helping Glaxo and other "healthcare clients maximize internet-relations." Former FDA Deputy Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb, who ridiculed Nissen in a Wall Street Journal editorial, also consulted for pharmaceutical companies at MS&L. Two more FDA alums, Peter Pitts and Robert Goldberg, mocked Nissen in a Washington Times piece. Pitts is the senior vice-president for global health affairs at MS&L. Goldberg doesn't have ties to the PR firm, but serves with Pitts as an officer of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest (CMPI), which Pringle describes as a "nest of ex-moles who served the industry in one capacity or another in the Bush Administration's FDA."[15]

CMPI is a project of the**Pacific Research Institute**, a free market**think tank**.

See also GlaxoSmithKline, the Diabetes Drug Avandia and The Intimidation of Dr. John Buse

Ties to the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity

The Pacific Research Institute is listed as hosting Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity "investigative journalists." [14] The Franklin Center funds reporters in over 40 states.[15] Despite their non-partisan description, many of the websites funded by the Franklin Center have received criticism for their conservative bias.[16][17] On it's website, the Franklin Center clams that it "provides 10 percent of all daily reporting from state capitals nationwide." [18]

Funding

The Franklin Center was launched by the Chicago-based Sam Adams Alliance (SAM),[19] a 501(c)(3) devoted to pushing free-market ideals. SAM gets funding from the State Policy Network,[20] which is partially funded by The Claude R. Lambe Foundation.[21] Charles Koch, one of the billionaire brothers who co-own Koch Industries, sits on the board of this foundation.[22] SAM also receives funding from the Rodney Fund. The Franklin Center also receives funding from the Wisconsin-based Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation,[23] a conservative grant-making organization.[24]

Personnel

http://www.nndb.com/org/591/000071378/

Pacific Research Institute

ORGANIZATION

Conservative, Libertarian think tank based in San Francisco, founded late 1970s. Long title, "Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy."

Official Website:

http://www.pacificresearch.org/

NameOccupationBirthDeathKnown for
Christopher J. AldenBusinessc. 1970CEO of Six Apart
Katherine BoydBusiness1-Feb-1921Interior decorator, GOP activist
Kimberly O. DennisActivist?Searle Freedom Trust
Antony FisherActivist1915Jul-1988Libertarian think-tank founder
Steven HaywardScholarc. 1958Conservative environmentalism pundit
David H. KochBusiness3-May-1940Conservative philanthropist, Koch heir
Chip MellorActivistc. 1951President, Institute for Justice
Sally C. PipesActivist?Pacific Research Institute

Do you know something we don't?

Submit a correction or make a comment about this profile

Copyright ©2011 Soylent Communications

greenpeace says: koch paid for :• $360,000 to Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy (PRIPP) which

supported and funded An Inconvenient Truth…or Convenient Fiction,4 a film

attacking the science of global warming and intended as a rebuttal to former

Vice-President Al Gore’s documentary. PRIPP also threatened to sue the US

Government for listing the polar bear as an endangered species.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/report/2010/3/koch-industries-secretly-fund.pdf

The Pacific Research Institute (PRI) or officially the 'Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy', is a think tank founded in 1979 whose stated vision is the promotion of "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." The institute is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, and had $4.9M in revenue in 2005. [1]^(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pacific_Research_Institute#cite_note-0) The Pacific Research Institute has associated with other think-tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute.

Contents[hide]

PRI and the tobacco industry

In February 1987 Philip Morris executive Roy E. Marden sent a memo to other PM staff following a discussion with the then PRI President Chip Mellor "concerning their project on advertising and the market process". Marden noted the project was partially funded by Philip Morris". [2]^(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pacific_Research_Institute#cite_note-1)

In 1998 Philip Morris was canvassing possible organizations that might be an ally in its Youth Smoking Prevention programs. A memo from Roy Marden described the Pacific Research Institute as "I am vice chairman of this SF policy group. They have recently begun an effort on child development/reduction of welfare dependency/etc., & I could explore with them if/where YSP could be involved. We are long-time donors". [3]^(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pacific_Research_Institute#cite_note-2)

PRI and Healthcare

PRI head Sally Pipes, a Canadian residing in the United States, frequently speaks and writes against universal health care. Her bio lists as healthcare topics she had addressed "the false promise of a single-payer system as exists in Canada, pharmaceutical pricing, solving the problem of the uninsured, and strategies for consumer-driven health care." She also authored a 2004 book titled, "Miracle Cure: How to Solve America’s Health Care Crisis and Why Canada Isn’t the Answer." [1]

On the FOX News show "The O'Reilly Factor" on January 10, 2007, Pipes spoke against California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposal to provide all state residents with healthcare. She warned that, "[I]f we provide health insurance, just like we provide welfare and education for illegal aliens, think about people that are illegal in other states. We're going to get a huge influx of illegal immigrants into California. And that's going to make it even more expensive [than the current system]." [2]

PRI and Water Policy

PRI is based out of California, and has been involved in the water policy debate in that state. A publication released by PRI in December of 2008 suggested that the "problem for California is not lack of [water] supply but uneven distribution." PRI criticized California's current plan for facilitating distribution, which was based on state funded water projects. Instead, PRI suggested that distribution would be more properly managed through water markets, with consumers paying for water as any other consumable good. [4]^(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pacific_Research_Institute#cite_note-3)

Areas of work

The PRI think tank lists the following as their goals:[5]^(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pacific_Research_Institute#cite_note-4)

They said these were their accomplishments in 2006:

Staff

[6 ]^(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pacific_Research_Institute#cite_note-5)

Former staff

Board of Directors

[7 ]^(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pacific_Research_Institute#cite_note-6)

Former Board Members

Funding

According to Media Transparency, PRI obtained 117 grants totalling $8,904,800 (unadjusted for inflation) from foundations between 1985 and 2005.[8]^(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pacific_Research_Institute#cite_note-7)

In 2003 PRI states that 50% of its income came from foundations, 13% from corporations and the remainder from individuals. [3] It lists foundation and corporate supporters who contributed over $10,000 in the 2003 financial year as:

Corporations

Foundations

The conservative Capital Research Center (CRC) Spotlight project provides some additional, though a little dated, information on PRI's major funders. CRC lists the Lilly Endowment as having contributed $175,000 annually between 1999 and 2002 (inclusive). [4]

Contact Details

San Francisco Headquarters

755 Sansome Street, Suite 450

San Francisco, CA 94111

Tel 415-989-0833 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              415-989-0833      end_of_the_skype_highlighting

Fax 415-989-2411

Web:http://www.pacificresearch.org/

References

  1. ↑ Form 990 tax filing
  2. ↑ R.E. Marden, Philip Morris Pacific Research Institute/Advertising Project Memorandum. 1 pp. February 26, 1987. Philip Morris Bates No.2023646840
  3. ↑ Roy Marden YSP ally possibilities Email to Tina Walls. October 22, 1998. Bates No. 2069615360
  4. ↑ "Why Water Markets Should be Part of the Vision for the Delta and all of California" Pacific Research Institute Publication, December 2008.
  5. ↑ About page, Pacific Research Institute, accessed July 2007.
  6. ↑ Staff", Pacific Research Institute, accessed July 2007.
  7. ↑ Board of Directors, Pacific Research Institute, accessed December 2008.
  8. ↑ Grants to Pacific Research Institute, Media Transparency, accessed July 2007.

Case Studies

SourceWatch Resources

External links

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article relies on references to primary sources. Please add references to secondary or tertiary sources. (February 2010)

The Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy (PRI) is a California-based free-market think tank founded in 1979 to promote "the principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility" through policies that emphasize a free economy, private initiative, and limited government.[1] The Pacific Research Institute has been associated with other politically conservative think tanks, including the American Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation, The Fraser Institute, and the Cato Institute.

Since 1996 they have published an annual Index of Leading Environmental Indicators, which tracks environmental trends worldwide.

Contents

Areas of work

The PRI think tank lists the following as their goals:

Their listed accomplishments of 2009 include:

PRI and Healthcare

PRI head Sally C. Pipes, a Canadian-born naturalized United States citizen frequently speaks and writes against single-payer healthcare. Her bio lists as healthcare topics she had addressed "the false promise of a single-payer system as exists in Canada, pharmaceutical pricing, solving the problem of the uninsured, and strategies for consumer-driven health care".

She authored a 2004 book, Miracle Cure: How to Solve America’s Health Care Crisis and Why Canada Isn’t the Answer.[2]

PRI started Center for Medicine in the Public Interest.[when?]

Staff

The staff of the PRI includes:[3]

Former Staff

Former staff of the PRI includes :

References

  1. ^ Pacific Research Institute homepage.
  2. ^ Miracle Cure: How to Solve America’s Health Care Crisis and Why Canada Isn’t the Answer, Sally C. Pipes, 2004. (ISBN 0936488921)
  3. ^ Staff of the PRI

External links

Categories:

CEI's Film Featured Staffers From The Pacific Research Institute.The Competitive Enterprise Institute's film, Policy Peril: Why Global Warming Policies Are More Dangerous Than Global Warming Itself, features Tom Tanton from the Pacific Research Institute. CEI, *Policy Peril: Why Global Warming Policies Are More Dangerous Than Global Warming Itself*, accessed [8/3/09]

The Pacific Research Institute Received $75,000 From ExxonMobil In 2008.According to ExxonMobil's 2008 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments disclosure, they donated $75,000 to from the Pacific Research Institute in 2008. 2008 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments, accessed [8/3/09]

http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/200908030008

The Pacific Research Institute Received $90,000 From Koch's Lambe Foundation In 2007.According to 990 forms filed with the IRS, the Claude R. Lambe Foundation donated $90,000 to the Pacific Research Institute in 2007. Lambe Foundation 990 form, accessed [8/3/09]

by Steven F. Hayward

http://www.environmentaltrends.org

1. rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com - The blog of Roger Pielke Jr., a professor at the University of Colorado and an iconoclast of the environmental science and policy world.

2. http://www.climatedebatedaily.com - Provides a nice up-to-date roundup with links to both sides of climate change controversies.  A nice one-stop shop for keeping up with the issue.

  1. http://www.env-econ.net - A blog devoted to environmental economics.
  2. http://www.percolatorblog.org - Group blog of the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) in Bozeman, Montana, the birthplace and home of free market environmentalism.
  3. http://e360.yale.edu - Group blog sponsored by the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Koch

$360,000 to Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy (PRIPP) which supported and funded An Inconvenient Truth...or Convenient Fiction, a film attacking the science of global warming and intended as a rebuttal to former Vice-President Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth. PRIPP also threatened to sue the U.S. Government for listing the polar bear as an endangered species.

Attachments